Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 109

Final vote tally in the open?
It seems that there should be some sort of note that the impeachment was the first attempt with no bipartisan support, with some democrats voting against impeachment, one voting "present," and one democrat defecting to the Republican Party. A summary, something to the effect of: "...Trump was impeached, with zero Republican votes, two Democrats voting against both articles, one Democrat voting "yes" for the first article, and another voting "present" for both articles." Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe that is too much detail for the Trump bio, and better suited for the main impeachment article. ValarianB (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be a little wordy how I put it, that was just some brainstorming. But at least something should be said that it had no bipartisan support...zero votes from the opposition party is pretty significant. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth noting,, is that long time Republican congressman Justin Amash resigned from the GOP a few months ago, and voted for both articles of impeachment. However, these details do not belong in Trump's biography, but in the impeachment article instead. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is worth noting in Justin Amash's biography, but Van Drew's defection occurred during the impeachment process, which appears to be out of disgust with his party's behavior, which I believe is a first. I don't know if we should mention the defection in Trump's biography, only the fact that the impeachment was a party-line vote with no bipartisan support. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's along party lines has a lot more to do with the sad state of American politics than with Donald Trump. Therefore a mention in the lead is not warranted and "along party lines" already exists in the Impeachment section of this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is warranted for the lead, because it informs the reader of an important fact- that the impeachment was entirely derived from partisan politics. Not a single Republican voted in favor, even Republicans who declared themselves in opposition to the Trump presidency in the past.  That's a very significant aspect of this event. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I submit that there are a lot of important facts in this situation and we can't put all of them in the lead. As I said, this has little to do with Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you agree that the fact that an impeachment with reasoning such as "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected" in the words of Al Green, also has more to do with the sad state of American politics than Donald Trump? We have to mention the impeachment obviously, so if we all agree that this impeachment was a purely political maneuver to damage Trump's re-election chances rather than about "obstruction of Congress," the fact that it was a purely partisan act should be mentioned hand in hand. I agree with AppliedCharisma, and the fact that even the Never Trumpers didn't go along with this is very significant. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * if we all agree that this impeachment was a purely political maneuver - What on earth makes you believe that we all agree on that? Even if we did, that's blatant POV reasoning. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that you said that the impeachment has to do with the "sad state of American politics," and "little to do with Donald Trump" (and by extension, his actions, phone calls, etc.). POV meaning Point of View I assume? I don't think that's in dispute. Zero Republicans voted for the articles, three Democrats voted against at least one Article or "present," and one Democrat defected and joined up with the Republicans during the impeachment process. There's not a point of view. That's the final vote tally. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I have to explain this. It's POV to say that the party-line division proves it's a "purely political maneuver". The opposing POV argument, which has no more place in this discussion than yours, is that the party-line division proves that the Republicans care more about protecting their guy and making Democrats look bad than about political ethics and checks and balances. The non-POV view is that American politics and society have become hopelessly polarized, end. This line of discussion should now be dropped and probably collapsed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the opposition to the impeachment actions was bipartisan (two Democrats against) while the support was only from one political party. That's a salient fact about this impeachment, and that has been noted in multiple media sources. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that it's a salient fact about this impeachment. I dispute that every salient fact about this impeachment belongs in this article's lead. We are not going to reach agreement on this point, so it's time to wait for other input. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also noteworthy that this is the first impeachment in history where the House is refusing to send the Articles to the Senate. The lead states right now: "A Senate trial is pending." Well, not really. No more than the event of "aliens making contact with Earthlings" is pending. The Senate has no articles, so there is no trial or dismissal pending yet. Nancy Pelosi is still holding onto 'em and she has yet to indicate when or if the Senate will have a chance to take a look at Adam Schiff's work. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so let's explore that issue in this article's lead. No thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No I'm saying we should NOT explore this issue. There really isn't a Senate trial pending. "Pending" indicates that an event will take place. Nancy has given no indication that the Senate will get their hands on the Articles, and there seems to be a Republican consensus that a quick dismissal is more likely than a full trial. The lead is inaccurate and misleading. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose including vote counts, party defections, and reflections about the impeachment being non-bipartisan in this article. This information is not particularly relevant to Trump's life. Furthermore, the claim that the impeachment was driven by party politics is a false claim manufactured by hard core Trump devotees. - MrX 🖋 19:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Two D's voting "nay" and 1 voting 'present" does not make the effort "bipartisan", not by a long shot. ValarianB (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No more nothing for this article. I think it's fine to remove "Senate trial pending". This is the biography it's not helpful to get into personal opinions on the article talk page. We need to consider the article topic, sourced references, and due weight. Opinions are likely to attract lots of distractions and side-colloquy among editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to remove "Senate trial pending". -- That would be opposed by editors who feel we need to accommodate the (many) readers who think impeachment means removal. It's another good illustration of the tangled mess we get into when we try to avoid all ambiguity in the lead of an article. We simply can't leave anything unsaid without, well, leaving something unsaid – and that's a simple fact of any type of summary-level writing that many Wikipedia editors seem unable to understand. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We can leave some things left unsaid such as the record speed of the impeachment, Democrat to Republican conversions and other curiosities unique to this impeachment, but we shouldn't have blatant falsehoods in the lead like "A Senate trial is pending." A Senate trial isn't pending. The Senate doesn't even have any Articles of impeachment. Until Nancy hands the Articles over, we can't say whether a Senate trial or dismissal is or isn't pending. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know very well that a Senate trial is coming. The technical definition of "pending" is far too deep in the weeds for the lead of this biography. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No we don't. Media sources are saying that Rep Pelosi is holding the charges indefinitely.  Anyway, simply add "All the votes for impeachment were from Democratic Party members plus one independent."  This short sentence communicates absolutely crucial information to the reader as is shows that, unlike the other two impeachments in US history, there was NO bipartisan support for it.  Even anti-Trump media sources are noting this in their reporting, that it was a strictly party-line vote. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should make assumptions about what Nancy is or isn't going to do with the articles. Until she indicates that she's going to give the Articles to the Senate, a Senate trial isn't pending. Also as I said before, a dismissal is more likely. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and the Trump team have indicated they want to get this taken care of quickly and avoid a long drawn-out trial. If we want to be at least somewhat accurate, we should say "A Senate dismissal is pending." That's not really accurate either, but more accurate than saying a "trial" is pending when there's no reason to believe that a trial is pending. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hadn't read today's breaking news. So it would be sensible to change "A Senate trial is pending" to "He has yet to be tried in the Senate." and explain what that means in the Impeachment section. I still oppose anything about the party lines in the lead, for the reasons I've given above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "He has yet to..." That's a long long list for any WP article. The Pope has yet to take a bride. I think readers will be confident they can find it in the article when it happens.  SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You assume that readers understand the American impeachment process, or that it's not the job of this article to clarify such things. As I said above, many editors are not prepared to assume that. That's why, for example, the lead of this article, which is not about the American presidential election process, includes a long footnote explaining how the Electoral College works and how a president can be elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, . I had assumed there was a link to an impeachment article that detailed the American impeachment process. There is no such article. Somebody should start it.  Still not convinced we need to append pendency in the lead.  SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Impeachment in the United States. But the same principle applied to the Electoral College and we still felt a long footnote was needed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you presume it's going to happen, and just a matter of "when" Specifico? Because of precedent? If we can all agree on something, it's that pretty much everything about this impeachment is unprecedented. Until Nancy gives indication that she's going to hand over the Articles to the Senate, I think we should just refrain from mentioning the Senate at all. Maybe just a line saying "Currently, the Articles rest with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has yet to decide what to do with them." Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you're a new account. Please don't speculate or offer personal opinions on the article talk page. The talk page is to agree how to map sources into article text. You may read my "when" as "if" when/if you wish.  SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's going to be pretty tough to improve this article unless we offer our opinions on the content, here. Do you know a way to have a discussion without offering our thoughts on the topic? I see you removed the note about a senate trial pending, thanks. It's a good idea to leave that out until Nancy decides on her next move. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And stop referring to Speaker Pelosi by her first name. Surely you know that's inappropriate.  SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I didn't know that's inappropriate on an article talk page. A number of experienced editors at Talk:Hillary Clinton need to be informed about that, preferably with a pointer to the PAG about that. It's not at all uncommon to refer to her as "Hillary" there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Was I addressing you Man? SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn, that's two things in a row I didn't know. Don't reply unless you were addressed. I'll be watching for your compliance with that rule. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Peace dove.svg|left|100px]] - MrX 🖋 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * USAF 870 Shotgun.JPEG &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * SMirC-shock.svg - MrX 🖋 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Caption says that gun has twelve gagooses. Stand back. SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to admit it is a rather amusing lineup. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And kind of a charming, if inadvertent, confession by our respected colleague. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead is too long
Wikipedia's guidelines are a maximum of four for a good article. Breaking guidelines is allowed on Wikipedia, but there has to be a good reason. We should all be interested in writing a good article. Someone who can actually edit this page should consider culling the lede.TheLonelyGoatherder (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That and the article length are recurring topics of debate here, but we have limited time and more important things to discuss at this point. Trust me, this is not being overlooked. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't care if my country falls apart and becomes a medieval backwater, I just want ledes to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines.TheLonelyGoatherder (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. I take it you think it's easy to cull this lead, so stick around and observe for awhile. It would consume a hundred or two editor-hours to get that lead down to "a maximum of four" [paragraphs] (even if we could) and, as I said, we don't have it to spare right now. Wikipedia Axiom #1: There is never enough time to do everything that needs done. Speaking of conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines, it's lead not lede, per the Wikipedia guideline MOS:LEAD. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead, lede. That's like Tomato/Tomato. Though I do agree that we have better things to discuss right now.   Perhaps at a later date when the impeachment stuff is no longer at the forefront we can have a more appropriate discussion on how to decrease the lead length, but not now. Mgasparin (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Lead and lede is not like your example, they are different things, even if people use them interchangeably in error.. --Malerooster (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lead should ideally consist of four paragraphs, but it's not an absolute rule, and it's sometimes exceeded in articles such as this and Obama's biography. There simply is so much going on with Trump that it's really hard to condense everything into four paragraphs, especially now in the middle of things – the first paragraph is not really a full paragraph but just briefly introduces the topic. In the long run we should strive for four paragraphs for Trump too, but "now is not the time," as Theresa May would say. (I do however believe that the investigations and impeachment should comprise a single, fifth, final paragraph, like before, rather than two paragraphs, fifth and sixth, lik now). --Tataral (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Look, I don't care if my country falls apart and becomes a medieval backwater, I just want ledes to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines." I just want to chime in and say how much I love this comment. #TheLonelyGoatherder2020 -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Could drop the Mueller para. It has more to do with Presidency article than here, and it’s had no large or enduring BLP impact- it’s a whole lede para to say one Investigation happened and resulted in nothing much to him.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No.Trump talked about the witch hunt every day for nearly 2 years. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that the Mueller paragraph should be dropped, agree it is more suited to the lede of the Presidency article.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  16:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It`s spelled lead..look it up in an actual dictionary..this needs to be in both places as it is relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:E534:654A:35F0:C56C (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mueller investigation needs to be mentioned in the lead, but it shouldn't be a full paragraph just on the Mueller investigation; instead it should be mentioned in a fifth paragraph that summarises the investigations and impeachment of Trump. --Tataral (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a waste of time. Editors agree on slimming, but say it's too hard. Then they object to any edits that are done.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Recognition?
The comment by Christianity Today is interesting, but it doesn't belong under the "Recognition" heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It belongs somewhere; aside from the wow factor, it's significant enough that multiple RS are reporting on it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that addition here and added to here. seems rather undue considering it is an editorial as well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I created a new section "Political support" for it. Comments? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=931633396&oldid=931628567 soibangla (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted it. It was completely out of place in the Recognition section and IMO does not belong in this article anywhere. It's a response to the impeachment. Put it in that article. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed as not appropriate for this BLP.--MONGO (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This Christianity Today editorial is obviously the work of a deep state evangelical. Many people are saying that even Jesus was treated more fairly than Trump, believe me.  starship .paint  (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This magazine has been attacking Trump for years. This isn't any more newsworthy than The Weekly Standard or The Atlantic attacking Trump. Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is completely untrue. You are just echoing Trump's inaccurate claim that it is a "far left" magazine. The magazine has "up till now reserved judgment" on Trump. This is the first time they have come out against him. I still don't think it should be in this article, but it is a pretty dramatic action. 16:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sorry, the post loaded before I could sign it. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't sign your post so I can't see who is attacking me and questioning my integrity. First of all, I'm not echoing anything. I didn't say it was a "far left" magazine. I said, as you will see after re-reading my post, that the "magazine has been attacking Trump for years." Here's a Christianity Today scorcher from 2017: . Along with many other swipes at Trump and his administration, the writer declares "if there is anyone who needs mercy, it is Trump" and "the gospel of Jesus Christ casts the behavior of Trump in a transcendent light, and that light looks to us like darkness." I'm sure I could find much worse from during the campaign. Does the magazine dislike Trump? Yes. Is this anything new? No. Not sure why this is getting so much attention, but there are very, very few pro-Trump magazines in circulation. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor Trump is being "attacked". <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Christianity Today has not been attacking Trump for years. That's complete nonsense invented by Trump to try to minimize the impact of this quite significant editorial, and it's sad to see such obvious bullshit being echoed here like it was a fact. With that said, this is a biography of Trump's entire life, and it is difficult for me to imagine this one editorial will have a substantive effect on the man or his presidency. So I oppose inclusion at this point, although I reserve the right to change my mind at a later date. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Public support is much bigger than one paragraph"
Yes, so I suggest this paragraph be restored and others add more content about his political base. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this begins to run afoul of the WP:SYNTH, as you're taking the citations about near-universal opposition to impeachment by evangelicals, then citing the Christianity Today editorial for an "a-ha!" moment. When/if we begin to see sources discuss the contrast between the rank and file and it's top media outlet, then there maybe be something to cover here. ValarianB (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, everybody (looking at you Val), how about a new subsection under Political Career titled Evangelical Support. The NY Times has an article today about how broad that support is, contrasting it to the Christianity Today article. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/christianity-today-trump-evangelicals.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage  Doubtless, there are many other sources. Thoughts?  Lahaun (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OMIT - this is a familiar situation, and here’s my usual reply: It’s a story-du-jour, of no lasting BLP impact to his life or WEIGHT suitable for inclusion. Please don’t just shove in the morning’s feed, and there should be at least a 48-hour holding period.  Being covered today just means they had nothing better.   Come back if it grows further or is still in the news next week.   Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark Galli in Christianity Today
"Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, says Trump ‘should be removed from office’":. Seems kinda noteworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be included in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I attached you to existing discussion. Pinging you so you can find this tree in the forest. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the swamp, <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OMIT. Just story-du-jour.  One op-Ed is of no great significance or lasting impact, and lacks WEIGHT.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to keep a list as a buffer of events that 1/2 think are flash in the pan news and 1/2 think are obvious sea changes. I recall things like the kids in cages being called one-day Huckaburgers, and no doubt the Watergate break-in would have been called similar for at least a year after it was reported. Seriously, a list or log wouldn't be a bad idea. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Although both author and the publication are notable, I doubt that they carry much weight up on Capitol Hill. I must admit I was hoping that the article might actually open with the sentence "a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused." Oh well, good luck all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sorry, I just have to see it in writing. It's actually not that far from some of the overBOLD edits to our first sentence. Carry on. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

<span id="Trump hasn't actually been impeached, as it turns out"> Has Trump been impeached?
So apparently there has been some gun-jumping on this page and probably many others on Wikipedia. I admit, this is some legal nuance that caught me off guard. But it turns out, that until the House (Nancy) gives the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Trump hasn't been "impeached". From Noah Feldman, one of the Democrat's law professors used during the hearings to try and bolster their case: "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all." There appears to be some dispute between the Democrat witness and other Democrats, but until this is resolved, we should note that his "impeached" status is currently in dispute. Nancy has indicated that she is going to sit on the Articles through Christmas and into the New Year, so it might be prudent to wait until she decides what to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architeuthidæ (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the line from the lead about impeachment. Until the articles are sent to the Senate by the House, then the impeachment is not official or valid.  Could someone with an autoconfirmed account or an administrator please remove the line?  Here's a source:   AppliedCharisma (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, Trump has been impeached. Please don't waste our time with amateur legal analysis and opinion articles. - MrX 🖋 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the Democrats' expert witness who said that it isn't official yet in the sources. In Wikipedia, we go by the sources, not editors' own personal opinions. AppliedCharisma (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Feldman is a legal expert, an alum of Harvard, Oxford, and Yale. He is also a Democrat partisan, handpicked by the Democrats to explain why Trump should be impeached. Feldman's analysis should not be dismissed as that of an "amateur". Whether or not Trump has been impeached is no longer a fact. It is the source of controversy and in a state of dispute. The article needs to state this fact accurately. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no witness testimony after the impeachment vote. I'm sure there are a lot of legal experts with opinions, but WP:FRINGE viewpoints don't belong in Wikipedia articles. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most newspapers in the country say he was impeached. We follow reliable sources. I don't care how many degrees someone has. His opinion doesn't come close to the vast number of RS. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He published his piece in Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg is generally pretty reliable, even after the controversy surrounding the decision to not cover any presidential candidate except Trump. His degrees were in response to MrX who called Feldman an "amateur," which he clearly isn't. What's more significant than his legal training is the fact that the Democrats chose this guy specifically to articulate their views, so he's not exactly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. You're right though, we may want to wait until more legal experts weigh in on this and see which side gains traction. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We should keep, in the lead, the affirmative statement that he has been impeached. All Reliable Sources are treating the House vote as being actual impeachment, and previous impeachments have been dated as of the House vote. But several publications have noted Feldman's opinion, published in a Blooomberg op-ed here, and reportedly the White House is considering making the argument. So we could add a sentence to the impeachment section of the text, attributed to Feldman and identified as opinion. Something like "Legal scholar Noah Feldman has stated in an op-ed that it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate, and the White House has echoed the argument." Sorry, I can't add it myself; I am not at my regular computer and would have difficulty citing references. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair compromise. The legal terminology is "ministerial act of transference".  It's the same reason why a guilty verdict in a district criminal trial isn't officially recorded until the sentencing hearing, when it is "mandated" by the court to the state.  As the Democrats' own witness stated, the impeachment doesn't take effect until it is "ministerally transferred" or "mandated" to the Senate.  As an example Kenneth Lay has his convictions expunged because they had never been mandated as he died during the process.  We should be advocating for accuracy in our articles.  AppliedCharisma (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as well. I think it is also important to note that Feldman testified in favor of the Democrats, giving his expert analysis extra weight. But maybe that's just getting too lengthy, and should be mentioned in the main "impeachment of Donald Trump" article. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose including Prof. Feldman's opinion, unless other reliable sources have taken note of it. I don't see that it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 🖋 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. soibangla (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The moment the House passed the first article & Pelosi confirmed it, Trump was impeached. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely immaterial when the articles are transmitted to the Senate. The essential fact, for the bio article, is that after investigation, based on the testimony of the witnesses, the House found XYZ. Why are we negotiating some extraneous and tenuous technicalities into the article with a pair of single purpose accounts? Time to hat this. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you in charge of this page, SPECIFICO? Wikipedia is a collaborative process and we're still working through this issue.  Please don't do anything that looks like WP:OWN.  Remember, this article falls under WP:BLP which means it requires high discretion to get right.  AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it hasn't been decided yet if Trump is guilty of anything. That decision belong to the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Some might find the academic gymnastics interesting, but a dash of common sense informs one that "Donald Trump has been impeached" to be a correct statement, with no need for "buts", "however", or other such qualifiers. ValarianB (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO, instead of calling for a legitimate discussion to be shut down, please note that I made a proposal for a sentence to be added to the article. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not it should be added? Same question to User:GoodDay, User:ValarianB, User:MrX, User:Objective3000, and others here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the lead, as it is now. He's the third US president to be impeached. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not calling for any change in the lead. It should continue to say, without qualification, that Trump was impeached on December 18. My suggestion was for a sentence to be added to the article text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly. That's currently in dispute, with one of the Democrat's key impeachment witnesses taking the opposite side of the ongoing debate. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone will always dispute everything; and it's not relevant that he was a witness called by a Democrat. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Feldman's opinion is not noteworthy unless other publications cite it. - MrX 🖋 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: This was just covered on CNN. I still don't think it meets the bar for inclusion in this article, but possibly in the impeachment article. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, MelanieN. I should have been more direct, and I could have addressed you directly. I don't see any basis for your suggested insertion of UNDUE detail into the biography article, which appears to validate specious claims by two editors. My comment as to the origin of the thread stands, but need not be repeated. My opinion is that we often waste time on empty discussions of Original Research and advocacy here, some of which are easily identifiable as such. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would oppose the addition of the "...it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate..." line, yes, it gives too much weight to an extreme minority opinion. ValarianB (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep impeachment in the lead. Reliable sources have universally reported that he has been impeached and considered the vote to impeach him as his impeachment and the main event of the impeachment proceedings; this means that, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, Trump has been impeached. Wikipedia is based on what (most) reliable sources report. Congress sending over some documents and coordinating with the senate on scheduling the trial is a minor issue and a technicality that doesn't belong in the lead; it's a mere technicality that will necessarily follow from the vote to impeach him. In my view the whole "he has not been impeached" thing is a bizarre, WP:FRINGE POV that resembles birtherism and other conspiracy theories associated with Trumpism. --Tataral (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with others that Feldman's argument needs significantly more traction before we say anything at all about it. If there's anything real to it, it will be all over the news within a business day or three. Maybe it's worth exhorting folks for the thousandth time that it's an encyclopedia, not a news summary service, and there is little urgency to go to press. Or maybe not. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Basically what Mandruss said. At this point there is not enough weight. If it gets some steam then we can talk about if it is worth including here. We always have the luxury of time to see how it pans out. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mandruss. The fact that the Dems called Feldman as a witness does not necessarily mean that his opinion on this matter has any weight. Only when other scholars weigh in one his side would it mean that. It eeems to go against common usage, which is that impeachment is seen as similar to an indictment. We don't say that someone remains unindicted until the bill is presented to the trial judge. TFD (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Use the wording "voted to impeach". This should be acceptable to all and avoids us having to decide how to interpret the unusual delay caused by Nancy Pelosi.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * [{WP:RS]] say he was impeached universally. This is a minor legal distinction, and though "technically correct is the best kind of correct", I would say WP:TRUTH applies here. A parallel could be the loose use of "assault" and "battery", where RS usually use the former but mean the latter.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this whole thing sounds like an argument academe and we should ignore it until and unless it travels outside of Harvard Yard. WP:RECENTISM WP:DUE WP:RS O3000 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I like Rusf10's suggestion. "voted to impeach" is something that everyone is in agreement with, and is factually correct. It's a new concept to most people that there actually is a difference between "being impeached" and "having articles of impeachment passed in the House," but this language satisfies both sides of the debate. The framers apparently never envisioned a scenario where the House would vote on articles to impeach a president and then refuse to hand the articles over to the Senate, so Nancy's created this bizarre state of limbo where nobody's really quite sure what to do here. Until she decides, let's go with "voted to impeach." Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't. Trump was impeached. McConnell created the bizarre situation by acting as Trump's surrogate. I wonder if the framers of the Constitution envisioned that scenario. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we stick to what's in RS? I did a search and can't find any RS that say Pelosi refused to hand the articles over to the Senate. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mitch? He doesn't have the articles so he's currently powerless as to how the Senate will handle them. If/when the Senate comes into the picture, we can note his actions, and whether he goes with a dismissal or a trial. About Pelosi's refusal, I'm going by ABC News...here's the link: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will not send the Senate the just-passed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump until she sees 'the process that is set forth in the Senate.'"Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please stick to the factual points here rather than inserting your own biased interpretation of the situation? McConnell cannot do anything until Nancy Pelosi delivers the articles of impeachment to the senate, that's an undisputed fact. We do not need to start a debate about who is to blame.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course he can. But, this is turning into forumy stuff. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is premature at best, and an unhelpful distraction for now. Move forward with the proposals above as if Feldman had not written that piece, and we can change direction if and when that's warranted by further developments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes trump has been impeached 2600:1702:2340:9470:E9B3:1FEF:7FF8:427D (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there actually a reason to have this discussion, or can we hat it now? soibangla (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the House drafted the Articles of Impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee approved two, and the House passed the two articles in a partisan vote. Nothing else happens until the House submits the Articles to the Senate. At this point, impeachment is nothing more than an admonishment. The Senate decides whether or not to remove him from office. Partisan is as partisan does, and since Republicans comprise the Senate majority it is highly likely the impeachment will either be dismissed or a full blown trial will be held and POTUS will be acquitted.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 23:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting your personal opinions here O3000 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that is basically covered in most RS on the subject right now. What are you on about with personal opinions? PackMecEng (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps right-wing sources state: At this point, impeachment is nothing more than an admonishment. Further, Nothing else happens until the House submits the Articles to the Senate. ignores creation of the trial rules, appointment of trial managers, determining witnesses, planning trial strategy. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. When deprecated media organizations seize on an arcane theory that contradicts the massive bulk of reporting by real news sources, that is an indication the content doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Those wishing to discuss the technical minutiae of the impeachment process can use other websites for that purpose. - MrX 🖋 13:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * An impeachment is an impeachment. It is not an admonishment, it's not unofficial, it's not invalid. E.g., Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R4426: Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per impeachment, "it is similar to an indictment in criminal law." That it has not been transmitted to the Senate is a red herring. There are dozens/hundreds of reliable sources that can be presented to show that Trump has, in fact, been impeached. This entire discussion is absurd. soibangla (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC
 * I agree with That the who discussion is absurd. And I am not so sure that WP is a reliable source, after all WP  disclaims itself from being an RS.  We semi literate (law wise) wikidenizens, pursuing our own partisan ideologies seek to twist the argument in  our ideological favor,to no avail. It is a waste of time and words. Here is a quote mpeachment is a constitutional remedy to address serious offenses against the system of government. It is the first step in a remedial   process--that of removal from public office and possibl  disqualification from holding further office. The purpose o  impeachment is not unishment; rather, its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. Deschler Ch 14 App. pp 726-728;  105-2, Dec. 19, 1998, pp 28107-   Impeachment proceedings have been initiated more than 60 times   since the adoption of the Constitution. 3 Hinds Sec. 2294; 6 Cannon  Sec. 498; DeschlerBy the way Trump is not impeached until the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate. House Practice:Guide to ImpeachmentOldperson (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

- your last sentence is wrong. Your source, the U.S. Government Publishing Office, says The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

- also from your source, section 1, last paragraph: The House votes to "impeach" in the constitutional sense when it adopts an impeachment resolution and accompanying articles. A majority of the House members voted yes to two articles, impeaching Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * “Voted to impeach” in lead per Rusf10, and maybe add the MelanieN line about it down in the impeachment section. The Melanie line really belongs more in the impeachment article.  But wait a couple days to see if this continues or is just story-du jour.  It is getting coverage.  Google is showing mentions of Feldman opinion and Trump maybe using that —  in CBS, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, NY Post, Boston Globe, Fox News, NYPost, others.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, yup, yeah, yes, affirmative, da, ja, oui, ha — he's been impeached.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

. At this point, do you find this discussion constructive? If not, please feel free to hat it so we can talk about improving this article. Does anyone object to hatting this? If we wait until the last person resists the temptation to chime in, it's going to be a long winter on Wikipedia. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that emotion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, you are a great American. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MANDRUSS AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!  starship .paint  (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Another source and subject matter expert saying he hasn't been impeached. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fox News is not a reliable source, when the subject is Donald J Trump. Oldperson (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That statement has no basis in policy. PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fox News is WP:Partisan thus not a RSOldperson (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is now how that works. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Environmental regulation
I see that has added the following reference, the Trump Administration's rollback of environmental regulations to the Presidency article. Looking at the text of this article's energy and climate section, it seems as if some of the content from this reference should be added here. The title of the section should perhaps be changed to energy and environment, assuming editors are prepared to agree that the climate is part of our environment. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No thanks. It's better off in the subarticle about his Presidency.--MONGO (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the coverage that is already in the article is probably sufficient at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What this reference adds, however, is what we so often lack -- an overview of a noteworthy component issue that does not rely on WP editors' subjective takes on what has due weight and which bits and pieces should be in an encyclopedia article. Countless daily occurrences (regulation changes) are dismissed per NOTNEWS, but articles like the Times survey give us an overview of what's most significant and should be considered for the article.  This particular overview is noteworthy in part because POTUS appears to be giving much thought recently to environmental issues relating to his views about water pressure in toilets and dishwashers, birds endangerment by wind turbines, and the color temperature of some energy efficient light bulbs. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not condoning any of his rollbacks or alterations but still not seeing why we would expand on that in this article. If it has not yet, it could go in the Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration article.--MONGO (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like better or additional sourcing. I have no idea whether it would change or increase the size of the text. Animals and pollution is not my thing. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

- - it was already in the article (perhaps Snoog found it here) When I added the reference and content, the count in the reference was 85. Now, the count in the reference is 95. Perhaps that fooled you.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Add it as it is relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:C4B0:F054:9E47:1711 (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Tax-payer costs involving Donald Trump
Is there an article on tax-payer costs involving Donald Trump? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 15:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is weighty enough material. O3000 (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's come up from time to time on this articles when editors have proposed shoe-horning the Trump talking point about reallocating his presidential paychecks to various government agencies. There might be material on a more broadly-defined standalone article that also discusses various issues relating to emoluments, Trump Organization and family ties to foreign governments, and the like. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also hypocritical because Trump's major criticism of Obama (other than the birth certificate business) was how many times Obama went golfing,or how much time he spent golfing.Oldperson (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes it's hypocritical. But if we listed every instance of Trump's hypocritical nature, Wikipedia would have to buy more disk space. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * More seriously, Trump major criticisms of Obama prior to 2015 seem to be over Obamacare, Trade, the Afghanistan war and not being able to catch Osama bin Laden, immigration, Benghazi, etcetera. Golf trips would be down around #26 on the list.  Back then Obama faces vile insults like no other president, the most disrespected president... well, up until Trump was elected.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is fake news
This article is littered with non-factual opinions and is a completely un-encyclopedic hit piece. It is actively harming the reputation of Wikipedia by discrediting it as a source of unbiased factual information and needs to be rewritten from scratch.

This is not an encyclopedia article it is socialist propaganda.

I have contributed and donated to Wikipedia in the past, but will not be doing so in the future.

Your sincerely 203.160.170.131 (talk), Former Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.170.131 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that, Mr President.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that one of your president's supporters have found their way here to right great wrongs...Mgasparin (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dismissal of James Comey" section vs. "Political support" section
Notwithstanding the removal of content regarding the Christianity Today editorial, I submit the "Dismissal of James Comey" section should be removed as it is but one element of the Trump-Russia affair that is extensively covered in other articles and there is no compelling reason to focus specifically on the Comey matter in this BLP. This is especially true because the article is too long and efforts have been made to trim it. The Comey section is a prime candidate for removal.

By contrast, the sources of Trump's political support are hardly touched upon in his BLP, and this is vital to understanding the man. Trump derives major support from evangelicals, but that word does not appear once in his BLP. It should be included in a 2 to 3 paragraph section that discusses the major sources of Trump's political support, which might also include farmers, the white male working-class and other constituencies. soibangla (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With the benefit of hindsight, I think we could condense the material down to a succinct sentence or two and fold it into the existing material under §Russian interference and §Special counsel investigation. I would support a brief section on Trump's evangelical support, as long as it's not inordinately focused on the Christianity Today editorial. - MrX 🖋 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Metions of Evangelical support, would be (by default) favorable/supportive so it must in balance include references to the Christianity Today editorial. A magazine founded by Billie Graham, though his son Franklin has taken a contrary POV. If Christianity Today is not brought into the article, then one is left with the assumption that all Evangelicals support Trump. Most do, so it seems, but apparently there are those within the movement who perceive him  to be a threat to Christianity.Oldperson (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes and not yet. Reduce Comey but not eliminate - I think Special counsel needs a line to set that part of context.  The question of what to say on political support should be later and separately tackled, don’t think things are ready for that.  Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The firing of Comey, while not as shocking as Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, was far more consequential. The firing, and Trump's radpidfire confession of corrupt intent to Lester Holt and the Russian visitors, is described as a turning point (or "inflection point" for the GenX'ers) between normal governance and self-interested manipulation in contemporary US politics. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The dismissal of James Comey is now only a footnote in the history of the Trump administration, so it's undue to give it any prominence in this article. It can absolutely be something that is detailed elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's clear that consensus supports removing or reducing the section, so I reduced it., and myself would like the content removed,  and  would reduce the content, while only you have suggest otherwise. Given this overwhelming support for at least reducing the content, could you please self-revert the revert you made? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, you put in that Trump fired Comey because he was concerned about the Mueller investigation that began 10 days later as a result of his having fired Comey. Nobody agreed to that. And actually, the language you scrubbed was extensively discussed on talk before it was adopted. Extensively. So in cases like that, just show us your proposed replacement. That way you'll learn whether there is in fact consensus per talk for your suggested substitution. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - Conservatism in the United States template
Donald Trump is listed under people in this template. Therefore, this template should be added.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is already bursting at the seams and this template adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. Trump is not known for advancing conservative philosophy. - MrX 🖋 13:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Trump has done more to advance conservative philosopy (economic and cultural) than any president before him. Tax cuts for the rich, deconstruction of the government and it's oversight and monitoring role (this is the heartbeat of corporations and the wealthy), and appointment of over 75 young, right wing judges, and two right wing partisan judges to SCOTUS, and let's not forget who his supporters are, Franklin Graham, Liberty Lobby, NRA, the carbon and extraction industries, right wing and racist militia's, racists. Yes indeed he is the most conservative of all presidents even more so than Reagan, Nixon and the Bush family.Oldperson (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Before anyone thinks about adding more templates, consider the following: - we are apparently very close to the maximum limit for templates. If this one gets added, something else may have to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MrX. I test-added using Preview and it would kick the post‐expand include size up to 2093727. Cost exceeds reader benefit. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:D9B6:AF80:CDAB:A80C (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If having a slightly reduced reader experience means saving the article from breaking, I say don't do it. Mgasparin (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We are close to the template limit, so it will probably not benefit the already large article. Also, MrX is right. Although Trump is known for aggressively promoting what he sees as conservatism, in fact, if we consider the Nolan chart, he is anything but. It is baffling how anyone, let alone nearly all the Republicans, could call him conservative or Republican. Conservatism in the United States has meant, and still means, liberalizing the economy and advocating a relatively small government, even when doing so may damage conservative cause. That is what Reagan believed. Trump is a different story. On the other hand, he advocates big government and denigrates every single one who implies disagreement with him. In my opinion, he is more likely to condone silencing the opposition than condemn it. He does not truly believe in a free market either. He thinks it is wise to start trade wars and decide who gets to work where. He also is weak on reducing the massive national debt, and instead has only contributed negatively to it. Ultimately, he is not a progressive, and he has failed as a fiscal conservative. If Trump were a conservative, then Barack Obama is a libertarian.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 18:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Mandruss. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Update: As shown above by me, this template would increase the post-expand include size by 17,235 bytes. The post-expand include size, at 2,076,492 on 25 December as shown above by Scjessey, is now at 2,081,466. Adding 17,235 would exceed the limit of 2,097,152 by 1,549. Thus it's no longer possible to add this template without removing one or more other templates or breaking one or more templates at the end of the article. That renders this discussion moot (and a SNOW close for omission) unless there are viable suggestions on what template(s) can be removed that is/are less important than this template. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead
An editor at Bill Clinton has been de-linking president of the United States & governor of Arkansas, etc in the lead. The editor is planning to do the same type of de-linkings for the leads of all the bios of US presidents & US vice presidents. Just a heads up for those here. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor has passed on those plans per the conversation here ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ? I’m not seeing a reason to remove those, they seem OK by WP:MOSLINK, and a widespread norm that seems unlikely to get undone everywhere.  (Then again, I’m still using capitalised President of the United States and know that’s gone from universally done to mixed now.)   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

NAFTA US-M-CA agreement added 2x to lead
This language, Has been added to the lead, reverted (by me) and then re-added to the article by an editor who was solicited/canvassed by the editor who originally inserted it. The language is misleading. The USMCA agreement that was passed by the Congress bore little resemblance to what Trump proposed. The version ultimately passed was negotiated by the congressional Democrats to fulfill longstanding environmental- and labor-related agendas of their constituents. It's dubious for Trump's bio article. It's highly dubious for the lead, and it's unacceptable to craft misleading language for any WP content. At best a more accurate version that sticks to RS reporting of the "compromise" version Congressional Democrats negotiated could go in the article body. Better, it could just in the Trump Presidency article, IMO. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the editor who was solicited/canvassed by the editor who originally inserted it, I'll state that I removed this per process, not content, and restored it after it was correctly pointed out that I removed too much, which is hardly canvassing. I have no opinion on the content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, if you BRD-reverted (I'm thoroughly confused at this point, which is what happens when process itself is perpetually up for debate), it should have stayed out pending consensus – In My Opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And because Democrats worked directly with Lighthizer, a globalization skeptic who agreed to make numerous adjustments to gain their support, the deal is now materially different from what Mexico and Canada originally agreed to, and it remains to be seen if they'll accept the revised deal. It ain't done. soibangla (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What? This is not even in the body of the article, is it? I thought we were following a strict interpretation of the guidelines that forbids anything from going into the lead unless it is already covered in the body of the article. I don't see how this is significant in context of Trump's life. As far as I'm concerned, this has to get in the back of the line behind Trump University and the Trump Foundation, both of which are covered in the body of the article and both of which met with opposition when I tried to include them in the lead. - MrX 🖋 03:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I wish we were following that strict interpretation, but we too often haven't. Many editors have done lead because that has highest visibility and let others worry about the body. For this to be enforceable, it needs a consensus and a consensus list entry. 42 is a good number. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer we have a guideline rather than a firm rule. There are probably exceptions that would justify inclusion in the lead before coverage in the body: subject is impeached; resigns; is re-elected; slips on a banana peel; and so on. But partially re-negotiating NAFTA seems to be in the same class of accomplishments that would be worthy of a certificate of participation. - MrX 🖋 03:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, well we already have a community level guideline – you referred to it above. We currently have no mechanism for local guidelines, but a consensus could be worded to allow exceptions by prior consensus. It would be firmly flexible. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss False premise. You’re correct that this article has often ignored LEAD, and that some edits go directly to LEAD without body at all.  But that accusation is a false premise because NAFTA *is* in the article at campaign positions and at domestic policy economic section, coverage there is comparable to TPP and China which are both in the lead.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're correct, your issue is with MrX, not me. I was addressing the larger issue only, not this case. As you said, the larger issue exists, so I don't need a "premise". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s no “if” to NAFTA being in the article alongside TPP and China. And your response is indented to MrX so was responding to a premise which is not correct.  He phrased it as a disbelieving question, you were going down a path as if it were true and got to talking about making guidelines about it so I felt it needed a reality check.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We apologize for mistakenly discussing something useful, and hey thanks for keeping us honest. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'll take a content position and oppose this, per my general feelings that such things don't belong in this lead (see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 109) and that existence of bad stuff doesn't justify the addition of more bad stuff. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and the misleading language. It barely deserves a mention in the body, let alone the lead. Incidentally, the default position is that it should not be in the article per WP:BRD. Why is it currently there? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:E9E9:AD46:81D3:2DF5 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've gone ahead and removed the content pending consensus to include it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning new trade deals in the lead. The Trump administration has not only renegotiated NAFTA into USMCA, but also signed new agreements with Japan and South Korea, as a replacement for TPP. A partial China deal is coming, so we can identify a pattern in Trump's trade policies, that has enough weight for the lead section. Exact wording to be defined. — JFG talk 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The pattern in Trump's trade policies is that he launches costly trade wars, then makes a handful of insignificant agreements with nebulous promises of more in the future. The only exception is USMCA, which is basically a renegotiation of NAFTA with a bunch of stuff House Democrats wanted added to it. Not lead worthy at all, apart from the costly trade wars part, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the RS reporting on USMCA. It was the Democrats who negotiated the current deal and it's centered on far-reaching provisions Trump's team sought to exclude. It is nothing like what Trump announced as his USMCA deal. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion per my previous comment in this section. This is not something that the subject is known for. However, he known for Trump University [sic] and Trump Foundation. Let's not treat the lead as a certificate of participation. - MrX 🖋 13:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Say what? Before Trump's electoral campaign, nobody had heard of his "university" and foundation. He is definitely not "known for" these ventures. — JFG talk 08:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support putting into lead list of items - it's a major point of his campaign, the largest trade item out there. Seems silly to mention withdrawing from a not-yet-existing TPP, the Iran nuclear deal, and give the sensational label for China tariffs, yet *not* mention NAFTA which is a larger part of the article and the bigger trade deal.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Housewife vs. homemaker?
This article used to read that Trump's late mother was a "homemaker." I'm not sure when it was changed to the current "housewife." Is it possible to change it back to "homemaker"? I feel the current wording is a bit awkward. KardashianFan (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think "homemaker" is an awkward euphemism.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And "housewife" is a bygone expression. She was not married to a house. "Homemaker" is now the appropriate occupational title for someone whose primary employment is tending to a family and managing a household. Change it back. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "housewife" is a bygone expression. Merriam and Webster disagree. Wikipedia should follow common usage (dictionaries are in the business of researching and documenting common usage), not lead it. This principle easily outweighs personal opinions about what is "a bit awkward", "an awkward euphemism", or "a bygone expression". While Merriam-Webster also supports "homemaker", that simply means that the terms are interchangeable for Wikipedia's purposes, and status quo should reign unless there is a consensus to change it based on more than personal opinions or preferences. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Aware that dictionaries sometimes disagree, I have now also looked at dictionary.com. It says "housewife" is "sometimes offensive", which is distinct from "bygone expression" (dictionaries generally use the term "archaic" or something equivalent). Wikipedia's goal is not to avoid offending people with its use of commonly-used words (aka political correctness). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway -- when she was doing whatever in the 1950s, it was being a housewife. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * She was not married to a house and she didn't make a home either.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of individual opinions, "housewife" was the contemporary and appropriate term in Mary Trump's lifetime. Keep it that way. — JFG talk 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What do sources call her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KasiaNL (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally they use the term "housewife" (which I think makes more sense, given the time she lived in). Example: "an acquiescent housewife..." -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Then housewife should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KasiaNL (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Purported assassination attempt
An editor has just added a bit about a very insignificant event, the so-called Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, in which a troubled young Brit tried to grab a guard's gun at a Trump rally during the 2016 campaign. The only reason this event was ever widely known is due to some coverage of the incident on BBC television. The coverage focused mainly on the kid's autism and associated legal protections. This mention is UNDUE in POTUS' biography and should be removed, in my opinion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. As somebody who regularly follows American politics, I have never even heard of that incident. If that event had really been a real, serious assassination attempt, it would have entirely changed the atmosphere of the election in the following months and would have been widely covered everywhere. This is definitely not a notable incident in the biography of the President, and should be removed from the article. Guycn2 · ☎  23:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree (having, by the way, corrected the year of the edit to correctly state 2016), but the incident is apparently notable enough to merit its own article here. It would seem exceedingly odd for that to be the case and yet for the article about the subject of the attempt, no matter how "feeble" (as it was described in the media), not to mention it at all.  I propose instead that the the paragraph be expanded slightly to explain that the would-be assassin was determined to be mentally ill, etc., and to better explain why the incident remained relatively unknown. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 23:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely undue, relatively inconsequential. Should be detailed as a minor incident in the article(s) about the campaign. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There were far more significant events at Trump rallies -- "lock her up" chants, Trump attacks on working press, etc. I think it's all trivia, for the campaign article at best, where context and significance could be presented. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't all Presidents face countless assassination attempts and threats? It seems UNDUE to specifically mention one in an already-packed article, unless the assassin actually came close to harming the President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep it in..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C71:2604:397D:9C5E (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Include 2600:1702:2340:9470:4D79:6DA0:6666:7EF8 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I favor removing trivia. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 02:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * an assassination attempt being trivial got it 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I was WP:BOLD and remove it. This wasn't a serious attempt and many politicians experience random acts of minor desperation like this. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  02:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest following the precedent of Obama, which was a link in the See Also section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this rationale. The article has two paragraphs on Trump's participation in professional wrestling but a single sentence on an attempt by someone to kill Trump is "insignificant"? McPhail (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been taking a closer look at the sourcing on that article. Basically, neither the press nor the prosecutors called this an assassination attempt. The perpetrator was a troubled young man who had a psychotic episode and was questioned under duress without counsel present who said things during that episode about killing trump. He later said he had no recollection of the incident and the prosecutor did not charge him with any violent act. The article is at AfD and the whole thing should probably be deleted, or any valid content merged with mental health/jurisprudence articles. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The prosecutor said during Sanford's trial that "Sandford planned for more than a year to attack Trump, and considered using a rifle and a knife before deciding on a handgun". McPhail (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude per WP:WEIGHT and the fact that it isn't really a thing anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude – Not enough weight for main bio. — JFG talk 17:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude. A squabble and disruption at a campaign event that went no further. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think we should take the !votes of almost identical IP addresses with little or no other Wikipedia edits seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should take any argument-free !votes (votes) seriously. And we've been seeing a lot of them from IPs lately. I personally don't consider a mere "It's relevant" to be an argument, since it says nothing about why or how "it" is relevant. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not under any obligation to edit Wikipedia...it will just be removed as half of what I write here is..I can`t imagine who or why...nothing I have said here is any different than what others here have said except I make it a point to cut through the BS...I have been threatened here at least once..I have a right to express my opinion here regarding what goes in Wikipedia or not 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

fyi, this is being discussed at Articles for Deletion and BLPN. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Show me reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 00:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave it out. This was a nothingburger, just a minor incident at a rally before he became president. Sources did not, and do not, treat it as an actual assassination attempt. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude – as a minor incident as per Melanie. And this has nothing to do with the fact my last name is nothingburger. (I wish people would stop outing me.) O3000 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph Should Be Rearranged
In Bill Clinton's article, issues relating to his Presidency and Impeachment are written in the first paragraph. For Trump, it seems his original summary has been extended with news topics chronologically. Can someone fix this? --Moonlight2001 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is not Bill Clinton and there is no reason their bios should resemble each other in that way. Clinton was not well-known before he ran for president, and presidency and impeachment are about all they have in common. People often try to draw comparisons between presidents' articles, insisting that article A should be consistent with article B in way C, and none of that has any basis at all in Wikipedia content policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Yet. With Clinton it’s a past item given a single line.  With Trump it’s an ongoing events given the closing paragraph.  It is too soon to replace the para with a one-liner.  The result seems predictable, but WP should state actual events, not speculate beforehand.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Would it be okay to add the following short sentence at the end of section 6.3?
 * Trump has also been criticized for appealing to anti-semitic tropes and stereotypes.

NightHeron (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support this if you could find better sources than the two opinion articles. - MrX 🖋 13:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about these? NightHeron (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, and of course more would be better. This from the Vanity Fair article jumped out at me: “Jewish support for the GOP has been halved since Trump has been in office, from 33 percent in 2014 to 17 percent in 2018, because Trump’s policies and rhetoric are completely antithetical to Jewish values.”- MrX 🖋 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish and I'm no fan of Trump, but after reading the transcript of what Trump actually said I can't really see how his comments could be considered anti-Semitic unless viewed through the most aggrieved lens you could conceive. At worst, I would describe the comments as inartful. Trump is saying liberal Jews need to be more loyal to Israel, which is no different from what conservative Israelis have been saying for years. The sources given are largely opinion pieces, but even if they weren't it would seem to be quite a lot of fuss over not much of anything. Certainly I don't think this is significant enough for inclusion at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sensitivities to antisemitism, tropes, and canards vary widely. For that reason, it's probably best for editors not to try to interpret Trump's words directly, but rather leave it to the reliable sources. What you call a fuss, I call a phenomenon. - MrX 🖋 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, those are well-established anti-Semitic tropes, conflating religious beliefs or family heritage with political affiliations and disloyalty to the civic order. I think this is well documented at this point.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already pointed out, I'm not Jewish so I lack the, er, sensitivity to the sensitivities. With that said, there really isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. It's mostly opinion writers. Also, is it really a significant aspect of Trump's life? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do a little research, you will find non-Jewish mainstream historians discussing more or less the libel I referred to. It really is not a sensitivity of Jewish people any more than the widely-documented charicatures of other groups. We know that politicians sometimes use "dogwhistle" references to encode their messages to fringe groups. We typically don't find explicit statements, even when the mainstream view identifies the underlying narratives. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump pigeonholes everyone: Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Hispanics, etc. We have an article on Trump and race because the incidents and coverage has been very large over decades. I think we'd need more coverage to talk to anything with any form of the word anti-Semitism. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Four of the five sources listed above concern recent incidents, but the antisemitism issue is not a new one with Trump. Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post article from July 2016:


 * Rabbis and other Jewish community leaders point to a moment of reckoning following a Wednesday night appearance in which Trump, with his voice raised, defended the use of a six-point star, which resembled the Star of David, mounted over a pile of $100 bills as part of an attack against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The image previously appeared on a website popular with white supremacists.


 * "That was a turning point for many," said Lisa Spies, a veteran Republican fundraising consultant and former staffer of the Republican Jewish Coalition. "It forced people to say, 'I'm going to hold off right now,' or to say, 'I just can't vote for this guy.' "


 * Added Bethany Mandel, a conservative writer who has gained attention for past criticisms of the ties between some Trump supporters and hate groups: "This past week has been really scary as a Jew in America."

I'm not proposing making a big deal of the criticisms of Trump for antisemitism, just a short sentence. NightHeron (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * the KKK and the neo Nazis love him..after all some of them are good people 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE - lacks WEIGHT,and section 6.3 is for Racial views not this. While I don’t doubt one can find every conceivable allegation, plausible or not, and this one does show up sometimes, it just doesn’t show often enough or matter prominently enough.  Since opening this up would then also drag into that he’s denied it, his daughter is Jewish, Israel loves him, etcetera ... let’s just skip all this.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose adding this. Trump can be accused of all kinds of bigotry, but IMO antisemitism is not one of his vices. He has fallen all over himself to support Israel, more than any recent president. His daughter is Jewish and he boasts of it. He sometimes stereotypes - for example, saying that he would rather have Jews as his accountants - but it is not in a negative way. This example, suggesting he thinks Jews should have dual loyalty to the US and Israel, is not enough to pin the label on him. He says far worse things about other groups. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion as to this edit, but refers to an anti-Semitic narrative that dates back centuries. I've also never seen a report of him boasting about Ivanka being Jewish except one time in a fundraising context amid Jewish voter/donors. Not a feather in his cap. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mark and Melanie.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Racism Accusation
The end of the 3rd paragraph says that Trump is often viewed as racist. This may be true, but evidence needs to be shown in order to back up this claim (so that it doesn't seem like an opinion) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is presented in the body of the article. The introduction of the article intentionally excludes references. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also an entire related article. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Para 3 just stated per current consensus #30: “Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist”. That doesn’t say he is racist, which is unprovable, it says some of his things have been characterized this way, which is obvious.  WP neither affirms nor denies if the accusation is true, we merely note it is commonly said.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Alleged?
In we reiterated the consensus for the wording for the first part of the impeachment paragraph in the lead. just added "alleged", a word which is not in the body of the article. The user also created an WP:EGG. I object to this edit because it introduces WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, and it bypasses consensus. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are mistaken. "Alleged" is not a weasel word, it is MOS:ALLEGED. President Trump is to be treated the same as any other person accused of a crime. An impeachment is similar to an indictment. The trial has not occurred yet, that happens in the senate. None of this is WP:OR, it is a process outlined in the United States Constitution, I suggest you read Impeachment in the United States to better understand how the process works.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Rusf10, there have been at least 4 separate threads about that language and it has been very thoroughly tested, argued, and confirmed as consensus wording. I suggest you undo your revert and discuss your views on talk. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This. ^ - MrX 🖋 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree even out article on the matter Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump similarly uses words like alleged. Obviously found is the wrong word here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the word "found", you should take that up with the sources. You also should have participated in the previous discussions in which consensus was reached. Your WP:OR doesn't belong in the article, and you removal of the inline tag I placed was WP:POINTY. - MrX 🖋 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay, your addition of the tag was actually pointy. Mine was the removal of a incorrect tag. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Rusf10, your words in the preceding post demonstrate and confirm that, per MrX, you are arguing from Original Research. There has been no dispute as to the facts of the case. RS tell us that over and over. The Republican and Trump response has been to deny the process, deny its seriousness, etc. RS do not say that the facts are not established. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Charged" is better than "found" or "alleged". Notably, the first sentence at Impeachment in the United States contains the phrase "brings charges". As for RS, we could go round and round as to frequency of words, but I'm happy to accept what the first paragraph at this NYT article says and otherwise rely on simple reasoning. Impeachment is not conviction, and that's not a POV argument (it's also not consistent with my POV anyway, as most of you are aware). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I could certainly agree with charged. PackMecEng (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can use "charged", that would be much more appropriate that "found". I have no objection.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but if you want to change the consensus wording, you should invite the previous commenters to the discussion and wait for a new consensus to emerge. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is all OR. Mandruss, Lord knows how that text got in a sparsely edited WP article on Impeachment. We don't cite other WP articles for fact. OK. The Articles of Impeachment have no contingent language, e.g. "Maybe he did X assuming 2/3 of the Senate agrees." That is not what the document says, and it has not been the mainstream description of the investigation. The impeachment states Trump did this and Trump did that. Period. And even then, we would not quote that primary source, except that it is also reflected in the mainstream RS reporting on the subject as well. So that is that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I gotta say looking over that discussion it is a little premature to say it was or is the consensus version. PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. It was, and there were a baker's dozen editors involved. Now We have at most 2-1/2 dissenters, and none has addressed all of the points raised in the previous articulations of the consensus. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging people involved in the previous talks, if I miss any feel free to add them., , , , , and . PackMecEng (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a fundamental misunderstanding how Impeachment in the United States works. The constitution outlines the process which is very similar to a criminal trial. First, the house impeaches (similar to an indictment) then the senate has a trial to convict and remove the president. If someone was indicted on murder charges we could not say "It was found that he murdered someone" until after he was convicted by a jury. We certainly could say that he was "charged with murder". The same standard applies here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * [{ping|SPECIFICORusf10}}actually the impeachment and removal process is not analogous to a criminal trial. Trump has been impeached, the charges against him have been proved and voted on (535 person jury). The verdict then gets sent to the Senate where it will determine whether or not the charges are worthy of removal from office. That is all the senate does, it does not rule on or judge the articles of impeachment, it decides whether they are sufficient for removal and that is a political act. The criminality was established. Clinton was judged guilty, however the Senate did not feel that the crimes merited the punishment.  A better analogy would be the sentencing portion of a trial. In the first part a verdict of guility is found, in the next session the judge considers the punishment, if any.Oldperson (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While it is not completely the same as a criminal trial, it has more similarities than differences. The senate is the jury, it is not just in charge of sentencing. This NBC News article gives an easy to understand overview of the process. It says "The entire Senate would be the jury, but with some differences from a typical civil or criminal jury" (In case anyone wants to continue to argue that this is WP:OR)--Rusf10 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The process was designed as a substitute for a criminal process.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oldperson, read the first sentence at Impeachment in the United States and try again. No, the Senate trial is NOT the rough equivalent of the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. Rather, the impeachment is the indictment and the trial is the trial and the sentencing phase. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mandruss above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To repeat, we don't quote some random undeveloped WP article as fact. I think this thread is going nowhere at the moment. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of those never ending arguments, filtered, so sadly, through ideological bias. Lets take what for impeachment to occur, a simple majority is needed in the House and for conviction/removal from office to occur a two-thirds majority is needed in the Senate. At the time both the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. What happened in the house was not an indictment, but step 1 to remove him from office, it takes action (step 2) by the senate to confirm the process. However Trump was found GUILTY of abuse of power and obstruction of congress by a "jury" of 535 members. Fact is that this argument is a non sequitur and not resolvable by consensus, but by constitutional scholars.Oldperson (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll Alleged
Should we use found, alleged, or charged for the following sentence in the lead? A 2019 House impeachment inquiry **** that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Events have overtaken this (senseless straw poll). I know nothing in PaG as regards straw polls. Anyway. The articles of impeachment have been drawn up, voted on and passed in the House of Representatives. Now awating to be sent to the Senate, as soon as the majority leader stops playing politics and games.Oldperson (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A straw poll is going to resolve nothing. If you really feel there's a case to be made for one of the weasel words, it's going to need an RfC. The outcome of a straw poll will immediately trigger a revert and an RfC. But really, as has been demonstrated, it's clear that the impeachment found Trump did X and, per Guy's article edit, we should let this dog lie. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Charged - I think that fits the best. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Charged. The definition of impeachment is not in dispute, and accuracy is not original research. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Charged as per discussion above.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:RFCBEFORE, RfC is needed only if other process fails to reach consensus. The only times we have otherwise required RfC were when we sought to modify a consensus established by RfC (and correct me if that's the case here). And, as we've said before, straw polls are never a substitute for discussion but are often the only effective way to clarify editors' positions, and have proven indispensible in that respect. That's why we use them so much; we do what works.BTW, it's important to draw a distinction between polling without discussion and polling with discussion, so I oppose the use of "straw poll" to refer to both precisely because it makes that distinction impossible. I would have called this a Survey. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A straw poll on this issue is ridiculous. We need RS from constitutional scholars.Oldperson (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't a political issue, its a matter of fact. You may not like the impeachment process in the consititution, but that's how it works. First, I directed you to the wikipedia article on impeachment, but that's not a reliable source. Okay, then I did provide a reliable source, NBC News (which is all other circumstances would be considered reliable), but now because it says somethign that you do not like, we need constitutional scholars? You need to not only read the constitution, but also a hisotry lesson. In 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached and then acquitted by the senate. The house does not convict, its a matter of fact.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to grasp that your WP:OR is not a substitute for WP:V. Let's stick with the sources. - MrX 🖋 01:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sticking with sources, since when is NBC's explaination of how impeachment works not reliable? It is not orignial research, this is not my own interpetation of the constitution. It is a long-accpeted fact. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is simple. The first relevant source [822] specifically says "found". If you want to debate the impeachment process in general, this is not the right venue.- MrX 🖋 01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Query - Which of the sources say " charged" or synonym of that word? A straw poll cannot negate our core content policies. Especially in a BLP. - MrX 🖋 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are two from AP and Aljazeera. PackMecEng (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're confused. We're discussing the inquiry, not the impeachment vote.- MrX 🖋 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A fair point. But that nuance – inquiry "found" but impeachment "charged" – would likely be lost on a majority of readers, so it would be better to drop the inquiry from the lead and re-word to discuss only the impeachment, using "charged". This could still include about the same amount of detail as to the reasons for the impeachment. I'd be supporting that anyway, since the impeachment renders the inquiry far less lead-worthy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as long as we change the wording so that it refers to the vote on impeachment articles and not the inquiry. - MrX 🖋 13:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the ultra-liberal Trump-hating New York Times good enough? First paragraph. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Found is not only inaccurate (as I explained above), it is itself a BLP violation. Since someone charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. What sources actually use the word "found", the only place I see "found" being used quote from Adam Schiff.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The report itself says "Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Intelligence Committee has found that:..." and "The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection,". - MrX 🖋 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! You don't even understand reliable sources. Those are WP:PRIMARY sources, you're using original research, not me! The first source is a report by a congressional committee and the second uses a quote from Adam Schiff with the word "found".--Rusf10 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Those are primary sources" immediately followed by "you're using original research"? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I'm surprised at you. You're suggesting that a document produced entirely by Democrats is at all relevant to our choice of what word to use here? Of course its language is going to be slanted. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There were Republicans on both committees. "Findings of fact" is a legal term used in a serious document that resulted from extensive sworn witness testimony. I would not not brush it off as "slanted".- MrX 🖋 13:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alleged or accused, per May His Shadow Fall Upon You. Not charged.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  00:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Found - this is pretty clear.  Asking what the impeachment inquiry said - just FOLLOW THE CITES - the impeachment inquiry has a final report.  The preface starts “The Impeachment inquiry has found...”  And functionally, an inquiry finds things, then it is the Judiciary committee that ‘charged’ if you mean drafted articles of impeachment.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, Markbassett has hit the nail on the head. Found. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I have to disagree. As per MOS:ACCUSED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." That's what we're dealing with here. We don't say that a prosecutor or grand jury "found" that a defendant acted criminally as they are not the decisionmakers for that. In this case, the Senate is. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You - the analogy and hence language is wrong as this is not a criminal case. (It’s more of a civil service HR proceeding where at most the job is at stake.  It’s similar to any court action tried on the facts without a jury, where a court must find the facts separately from stating conclusions of law.). The impeachment inquiry theoretically did all the fact-finding, and similar to Mueller report the results are “findings”.  That’s a term for information from experts, such as findings of a court Masters, the findings of an Ecclesiastical Council, the findings of a medical research, or a coroners findings.  The inquiry had findings.  The Judicial committee drafted counts. The House made them official grounds of impeachment.  The Senate will produce the Verdict. These are the words the sources will use, WP should be careful to paraphrase but not OR into mutating the language and mishandle or misportray it as about crimes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the analogy and hence language is wrong as this is not a criminal case. Well... no. The very title of the impeachment resolution is "Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors." Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 of the Constitution state that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments" and if successful, refers to the removed president as "convicted." This is absolutely analogous to a criminal proceeding. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You - This is not a criminal case. Crime, except as a false hyperbole, is a matter of Criminal law, and particularly Felony that WP and common use refers to is established by statute, involves potential loss of property, freedom, or life.  It comes in any variant of English law with protections of Due process rights to the accused, and requires proof to a definition of the statute crime which exceeds a stringent Reasonable doubt level, jury trials that require unanimous agreement, and Judicial oversight compliant within precedents of Case law and open to Appeal.  None of those is present here, impeachment is potential loss of job due to alleged abuse or negligence, simply the political loss of confidence as defined ad hoc by the body of Congress.  High crimes and misdemeanors explains this a bit, caveat distrust the recent bits in the lead or elsewhere there.  There is no prior definition of such offenses as these charges are, it has been initiated by Pelosi dictates and done first in secret and then under Democratic methods, her direction to draft charges and under her control for delivery.  WP should not apply BLPCrime or other criminal policies.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * impeachment is potential loss of job due to alleged abuse or negligence, simply the political loss of confidence as defined ad hoc by the body of Congress No, this is completely wrong. The impeachment process is not to be used for lack of confidence. As per Article II, Section 4 of the constitution, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanor". The process is only supposed to be used for the most serious crimes, not because congress just doesn't like what he's doing.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , This is not a criminal case. The Articles of Impeachment themselves and the Constitution both disagree with you, because they both use language pertaining to a criminal trial. There's really no way around that, even if you think the decision to impeach was wholly political. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You - Again ? This is not a criminal case.  You should read High crimes and misdemeanors which covers the distinction.  Or Atlantic's The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’, or here and here.  Or just google about it.  While one might be impeached for an actual felony, such as Bill Clinton's perjury to grand juries, impeachment does not require a felony and it would be separate from any criminal prosecution.  For this case in particular, "Abuse of power" and specifically "asking for investigating a political opponent" is not a felony nor defined in the criminal statutes.  If it was, there would be many people locked up over the 'collusion' investigation requests.  Impeachment is a political action - for whatever a House majority deems suitable grounds and whatever result a two-thirds majority among Senators decides.  Over & out Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Charged is the proper term here and the parallel in criminal court. The House used "probable cause" a few times. Charged indicates more weigh and evidence than alleged, but "found" sounds like a jury or trial ruling and is too strong.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * NOT charged, because that very term "charge" is used for articles of impeachment (Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of congress). An inquiry does not charge articles of impeachment - the House is the one that charges. As to what I find appropriate - found, yes, or alternatively, reported - since they literally wrote a report.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed it, this. My bottom line is that the word "found" is too misleading without clarification that would be excessive detail for the lead. Therefore if there is objection to "charged" on the basis of what I would characterize as hair-splitting, the only solution acceptable to me is to omit the inquiry from the lead, which I would do anyway – and which wouldn't mean omitting the reasons for impeachment. The lead does not have to mention the inquiry specifically, now that we have an impeachment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - I didn't miss it. Hence, check out the below.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alleged or Accused are the best terms as per MOS:ALLEGED. As per that MOS, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." That's exactly the situation here. Until the Senate conducts a trial, "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." So, alleged or accused is what the MOS directs us to use. "Charged" is inappropriate because it connotes a criminal offense, and Trump was not charged under a criminal statute nor are criminal statutes cited in the articles of impeachment. "Found" is definitely inappropriate because, ultimately, the Senate is the one who will make that determination. Using "found" in this context is akin to saying "the prosecutor found that Mr. Smith committed a crime" or that a grand jury "found" the same. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The impeachment inquiry Found (as in, findings of fact) that Trump solicited foreign election interference. The Impeachment charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. These are two different things that some editors seem to be conflating. - MrX 🖋 18:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (as in, findings of fact) - If they are "findings of fact", why does the Constitution make us waste time in a silly and pointless Senate trial? You're talking about semantics, and we look to sources for matters of fact, not semantics. While there are sources that use the word "found", they don't mean that the U.S. Congress (as contrasted to the House) has now judged the charges to be true and factual. That is the impression that we are trying to avoid giving readers, many of whom lack your sophisticated understanding of this usage of the word "found" – particularly in the lead, where (1) we don't have the space to explain the nuances, and (2) many readers stop reading. Our target needs to be 10th grade reading level at most. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "(Key) Findings of fact" in the sense used in the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report does not adhere to the same legal standard as a case tried in a civil or criminal court. I guess you can thank the founding fathers for creating such a broken process a impeachment. You see, they said they didn't want a king but actually they sort of did. As I have wrote before, I'm not concerned that using the word "found" will confuse or mislead readers. Hell, I understood that impeachment was an accusation by congress by the time I was 10 years old. It only became complicated when modern media made it so. - MrX 🖋 14:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you in fact understood that at 10, I'm not surprised; you're a smart guy. But you are NOT the typical or average reader who must be our target. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Or MrX could be Chelsea Clinton and learned it at the dinner table? But even if he's just some guy, I don't think we should overload this article. If editors don't know the details. That's why we have wikilinks. Most readers I think do understand. Each reader can learn the details at her own speed, and we needn't embarrass or condescend to those who need to look beneath the surface and click through for clarity. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why we have wikilinks. Well then we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement (there's a shocker). I don't think following links should be required for understanding of the content. Links are supplemental, not essential. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a matter of degree, isn't it? We don't explain what "born" means in the opening lines, although it would certainly add excitement to the story. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is what "reading level" is all about. "Born" is well below our 10th grade target. This nuanced meaning of "found" is quite a bit above it, people just generally aren't that articulate, and many (most?) of those who are that articulate are also educated and politically informed and don't have a lot to learn from our lead content about this impeachment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it depends on any technical meaning of "Found" - it could be any of a dozen English synonyms: Concluded, determined, established, and at least 9 more. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To the uninformed (who are our sole audience on this) it can imply case closed – as could concluded (also a synonym for "ended"), determined, and established, and probably most of the remainder of that dozen. It is not a word usage commonly found in American life, and don't forget those for whom English is a second language (most of Europe, etc). It is not 10th grade reading level. We are now circular. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've gone pretty far afield looking for a good debate here, maybe even up the creek. The tide may carry you back out. It's pretty clear that the intelligence committee reported that ABCD occurred. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing like a good metaphor for literary flourish, but we'll see. The intelligence committee is not the U.S. Senate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Found is indeed the correct word. It is the correct legal word, and appropriate in layman's terms. Honestly, I find(see what I did there?) opposition to this rather peculiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Honestly, I find(see what I did there?) opposition to this rather peculiar. The opposition comes from our Manual of Style. I don't see why there should be a separate standard for Donald Trump. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal B
Nobody has a problem with inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid..., so I ran with "reported" in the earlier sentence as well..  starship .paint  (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "House of Representatives" should target United States House of Representatives. "[F]oreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election" should probably target the more specific Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This would be fine if you change "reported" to "found". The House committees conducted an official investigation with sworn witness testimony. The substance of the official "report" are the findings of fact. - MrX 🖋 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like there's a bottomless pit of dyk footnotes that could be added to every sentence of most articles. Critical content should be explicit, and I'd hate to see us start doing pirouettes after each sentence of the article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view there is a middle ground between information important enough for open prose and information not important enough to include. Notes serve that purpose fairly well. We are nowhere near a note for "every sentence" in this article, and any note is subject to challenge like any other content. No need to wholesale oppose the technique. I think this particular note is worthwhile. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal C

 * I could live with word "findings" provided we also include the word "charged", absent an acceptable alternative to "findings".
 * I'm underwhelmed by "reported".
 * Starship's last sentence is covered by "solicited foreign interference" and I don't need that level of detail in the lead.
 * I don't need the word "inquiry" for the purposes of the lead. "Investigation" is accurate enough and would be more meaningful to the average reader, for whom "inquiry" usually means "question". I "inquire" about room availability.
 * While I would love to squeeze all of those links into it, that's secondary to good writing and MOS:EGG. We should write prose first, link what we can second, and not fret about what we can't. Some of the links can wait for the body prose.
 * Other assorted objections ranging from substantive to nitpicky.

&#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Too fussy. No need for history lesson list of poti. The link to the 2020 article is no EGG and should remain. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What 2020 article? What is poti? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think poti is the plural of POTUS. See also scoti, floti, et al. - MrX 🖋 13:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What link to the 2020 article are you referring to? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this 2020 article? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Yes. Thanks for the ping. The right-side bracket in this version should go after "election" so that the linked text more closely matches the piped article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a good version. I like the idea of a footnote to explain how rare impeachment is and to clarify that Nixon wasn't impeached. I would also support this version without the footnote if that's what other prefer. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC), ETA "Support" 13:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with SPECIFICO's suggestion to expand the piped link: … findings that he solicited interference from Ukraine in the 2020 presidential election, and that he then obstructed …. I'd also remove "in history." All wording proposals, including my own, and numerous sources use it but it's not needed.  Have there been any U.S. presidents outside of history, pre-, post-, alt-, ex-? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal D
We don't need the footnotes since we can link to the article on U.S. presidential impeachment. The general Impeachment in the United States article IMO needs some overhauling - three presidents lumped in with a senator, a cabinet secretary, and 15 judges (one was convicted for champerty). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have retargeted the "impeached" link in proposal C per your comments. It's slightly EGGy, but not unacceptably so imo. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the footnote to your EGGy third president. And it's not only EGGy, but at first glance at the target's TOC it looks like Trump is #4, not #3. That's suboptimal for a link from "third president". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At first glance, the | paragraph seemed clear enough, at least to someone who's familiar with the subject, but you're right. I edited it to clarify that three were impeached and a fourth wasn't because he resigned before the proceedings got that far. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal E
This is a modified version of the version I currently favor that was offered by, but with tightened language. Agree with that "found" is the correct technical term, and this tightened language makes use of that:

Submitted for your consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support this version. - MrX 🖋 17:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as second choice. "Found" feels a bit stronger than "findings", somehow, and unnecessarily so. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Shorten to one line. The word “findings” are appropriate in the thread above about ‘the impeachment inquiry xxxxxx’.  But when summarizing the impeachment alone it just needs to state the result.  “The articles of impeachment were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, by soliciting interference from Ukraine in the 2020 election and then obstructing the House investigation into those actions.”  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Is editing premature at this point?
In this edit, User:MrX reverted the wording back to "found" despite the fact there never was a consensus to use that word to begin with and only three editors have expressed support for the word. The majority of participants in the discussion clearly support the use of charged or my original wording of alleged. The word "found" needs to be removed immediately because it is misleading readers of the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some editors, including one admin who shall remain nameless, think it's constructive to edit based on how discussion is trending but before there is an actual consensus. I strongly disagree. That it's "misleading readers of the article" is your opinion, which, when it comes to editing the article, is irrelevant without a consensus to that effect. I prefer "charged" but I feel less urgency to protect humankind from the damaging effects of the word "found" at this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Rusf10. You seem to be conflating impeachment inquiry with impeachment. I think I've explained this at least three times? Have you read the proposals below? That's where we're at now. - MrX 🖋 20:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Impeachment" vs. "impeachment inquiry" is just going to confuse the average reader in the lead. Impeachments don't "find" anything, they are like indictments. Referring to an impeachment inquiry as having "found" something is like saying as a result of the investigation, the prosecutor found the suspect to have murdered his wife. You are presenting one person's version of the story as a statement of fact when in reality a trail has not even been held.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse content with process, which are separate and distinct. This subsection is about process, the content discussion is elsewhere. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Found/findings is the terminology used in the report from the investigation, and in news reporting about the reporting. I disagree that our readers will be confused by distinguishing between the impeachment (charging) and the inquiry (investigation). Also, impeachment is not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, so that analogy is inapt. - MrX 🖋 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments but come to different conclusions.  Yes ‘ “found” is like saying as a result of the investigation’ - that is what the impeachment inquiry did.  And yes, it is like presenting one version of the story, which is covered by it has stated attribution.  So “found” or “findings” is OK.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter that he is "third"?
Seeing that all proposals above spend a considerable number of words stating that Trump is the third U.S. president in history to be impeached, I wonder why that is an important qualifier for the lede section. Especially considering that we then indulge in a footnote to explain that he may have been fourth but really was third because technically Nixon resigned before the House had time to vote on impeaching him (which was a foregone conclusion). Just say "Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives", and leave presidential history to historians. — JFG talk 22:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that's what makes it historic, which is too important to be consigned to a mere footnote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. For now, I made a separate short sentence out of this factoid. — JFG talk 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead tells us he is the 45th president. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service. Now he's the third to be impeached. It's like a baseball card. I don't think it's necessary to say third in the lead. (By the way, I don't think you can say that Nixon was "really" impeached. Resignation is not a technicality.) The only advantage is that it tells us that Trump's presidency is very unusual. The same is true with his lack of military or government experience. I think, however, being the "oldest first-term U.S. president" doesn't mean much. He is not the oldest president (yet), and, given increasing longevity, his "record" is sure to be eclipsed. (Joe Biden is 77.) No, this should not be a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that "oldest" should be removed, but we had consensus to keep it about a year ago. Maybe try a WP:CCC poll on that one? Personally, I also agree that the "baseball card" approach is not appropriate for encyclopedic articles about political figures, but editors and sources seem to give weight to every count fo unusual things in Trumpism… — JFG talk 23:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on. This is not "third deadliest shooting in U.S. history", let alone runs batted in (hyperbolize much, Jack?). It's the impeachment of a president. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend not to like ranking facts, especially in prose. While I agree that such material sounds like a baseball card, the impeachment is historically significant and rare, so putting it into that context would seem to benefit readers.- MrX 🖋 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember the max-size newspaper headline, CLINTON IMPEACHED. I saved that newspaper for awhile as it reminded me of DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding "oldest", I think there is a fetish about the longevity of US Presidents. There are two articles: List of presidents of the United States by age and Lifespan timeline of presidents of the United States. Gerald Ford has a section about "Longevity", making it hard to tell if he should be classed as a short-lived or long-lived president.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we stay on topic, maybe? We're trying to reach a consensus on wording about the impeachment, which is already difficult enough. Or maybe I'm due for a wikibreak. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is on topic; it's just looking at the lead holistically. I think if you just say he's been impeached, that sounds momentous. If you say he's the third, with the inevitable footnote discussing Nixon, I think that's a distraction. People can go elsewhere to read about the history of impeachment. As to whether it is "rare", I don't think we can give a historical assessment of that yet. While it was rare in earlier times, there have been two presidents impeached in my lifetime, plus Nixon who was almost impeached. Or to put it another way, two out of the last four presidents have been impeached. I think it would be better to avoid this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read about the worries that impeachment will become far more common. At this point they are nothing more than worries, we don't use crystal balls here, and two of the last four could easily be an anomaly. If two out of four becomes four out of seven, we or our children can revisit this question around 2044, give or take. I'll go on record as supporting the removal of those words in that case (maybe wiki-archaeologists will find this in the archives and I'll be the deciding !vote). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO we should include "third" since virtually every news story reporting the impeachment mentioned it, usually prominently, usually in the first sentence. This is not to be decided by our opinions of whether it matters or not. It must be decided by the weight of coverage in reliable sources. See for example NBC News "President Donald J. Trump was impeached on Wednesday. For the third time in the nation's history, the House of Representatives voted to impeach a sitting president", NYT "The House of Representatives on Wednesday impeached President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, making him the third president in history to be charged with committing high crimes and misdemeanors and face removal by the Senate.", NPR "House lawmakers voted to impeach President Trump on Wednesday in only the third such rebuke in American history.", and so on. Note that these sources don’t find it necessary to explain about Nixon; they just say Trump is the third. And so should we. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC) For the record, if this is structured as a proposal to remove "third", I oppose that proposal and favor retaining "third". This is based on Wikipedia policy, not personal opinion which seems to be the main reason cited above for removing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then again, the daily media are not burdened with a too-long article that goes into the details of Doc Bornstein, Ronny Johnson, World Wrestling, etc. And they don't have wikilinks that can give infinite detail and color commentary to those who are interested. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal F
After a number of edits attempting step-by-step improvements to the impeachment paragraph, here is what I have reached:

I think it's clearer, more concise, and better-linked than the prior version. Opinions and updates are naturally welcome. — JFG talk 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is more or less the same bad text that you have proposed at least twice before. After much discussion on the talk page, your insinuation of Biden and your removal of the link to Interference in the 2020 U.S. Elecions were both rejected. Please drop it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I cannot support this as long as the word found is used. Perhaps the "impeachment inquiry" should not even be mentioned in the lead and only the impeachment vote should be there. The word "found" comes from a partisan report issued by Adam Schiff's committee. While it may be Schiff's opinion that he "found" something, the jury is still out on that matter.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, and apart from this one-word issue that is still under debate (and that I did not touch), what do you think of the rest of my attempts at improving the readability of this paragraph? — JFG talk 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, disregarding that word, it is much easier to read and flows better.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I give this proposal an F. We have already moved way past the Joe Biden side show. "requesting the announcement" grossly understates the coercion aspect. The phrase "The inquiry reported" is just awkward. - MrX 🖋 23:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Biden a "side show" when the current paragraph says Trump asked Ukraine to investigate his "political rivals"? His request is the whole basis for impeachment. Had Trump asked for an investigation into a random businessman instead of a potential election opponent, we would not be there. Besides, when did we get a plural in there? Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate another US politician? 2A01:E34:EE49:4250:759F:944A:DC0C:D7DE (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC) (JFG on the road)
 * There was no justifiable reason for investigating Biden. Trump was trying to extort Ukraine to tip the upcoming election. The basis for impeachment was the attempted coercion, withholding congressionally-approved aid, recalling Yovanovich, signaling China to interfere, obstructing congressional subpoenas, lying, using his personal lawyer as a state department proxy, and using the power of his office for personal gain. I probably missed a few, but you get the idea. - MrX 🖋 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Had Trump asked for an investigation into a random businessman instead of a potential election opponent..." - Seriously? That would still be abuse of power, subversion of Congressionally-mandated national security aid, deprecation of official process, etc. Those are core issues that have been front-page news for three months now. Random is in the eye of the beholder. WP:CIR. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excessive detail for the lead of this top-level biography. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's funny, considering that my version is much shorter than the current one. 2A01:E34:EE49:4250:759F:944A:DC0C:D7DE (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC) (JFG on the road)
 * (JFG on the road) I'll believe that when the JFG account confirms it. That reply doesn't sound like JFG to me, on two counts. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no way a version of this that mentions Joe Biden is getting into the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A resounding no to this one. I agree with Scjessey above. User:JFG, please stop proposing things like this. It should be clear by now that we are NOT going to mention the Bidens in connection with the impeachment. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it should be OK to mention Biden -- seems as OK to mention alleged wrongdoing by Vice-President Biden as it is to mention alleged wrongdoing by President Trump.  Don't see a reason mentioned why where a couple editors said no.  Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The lie about Biden has been debunked, again and again (,, , , , etc.). : Repeating it serves one purpose only, trying to make people believe that what they've heard so many times must be the truth (Illusory truth effect). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, that at least offers a why. But it seems rather silly avoidance to not say “alleged Joe Biden”,  as Joe Biden is only one link away and pretty much everyone knows it is Joe Biden.  That the son of the VP got a sweetheart deal is a given fact, and allegations widely debunked.  Yet if content doesn’t say “alleged Joe Biden” it can not use these cites and say “alleged Joe Biden, widely debunked”.  Think it better to clarify between the true payola, the silly allegation, and the widely debunked.  In any case it still seems as OK (or as wrong) to mention alleged wrongdoing of Vice-President Joe Biden as to mention alleged wrongdoing of President Trump.  If WP is to be simply conveying news in due WEIGHT, an covered allegation (described as allegation) seems OK.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Not requesting, demanding. And the sentence fails to point out that the investigation was pretextual. Guy (help!) 18:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't post that kind of nonsense on this website. Please XxX it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , not sure what he meant, but as I read it he's saying that Hunter Biden was offered a sinecure job, which is true (as was Devon Archer). This is pretty routine: I don't believe Deutsche Bank hired Justin Kennedy just for his fiscal acuity, especially not when you look at the way he signed off loans for dodgy real estate guys. Guy (help!) 18:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's widely viewed as an unfortunate choice for Hunter Biden, so that's not the issue. But he's a Yale Law grad, pedigreed at Boies and this is the profile of hundreds or thousands of corporate governance types hired by healthy corporations and recovering fraudsters around the world. He could well have gotten that job without the Biden name, and the pay is absolutely unremarkable when attorneys with that resume are compensated between $1 and $2,000 per hour for their time. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Don’t be silly, that’s not a plausible line nor does it have WEIGHT. That a Ukrainian oil company suspect for corruption suddenly started paying $$$ in a sinecure to someone who had no prior contact or relevant experience other than being son of the VP was widely reported at the time as currying favor or  other characterizations -and questioned for a conflict of interest to Joe Biden as VP.   It is not illegal to get PR by hiring the children of the famous or to make a political connection.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Amigo Bassett, I just explained to you 6 lines north of here why a guy with Hunter Biden's resume gets that job at that pay. The Ukrainians may have thought he was well-positioned, beingg a lobbyist and affiliated with a top Washington law firm, but so what? And please don't repeat the narrative that top attorneys can't work at oil companies unless they are also petroleum engineers or something. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iran escalation
The media unanimously agrees Trump has taken a significant step in escalating tension between the United States and Iran with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. A well-respected correspondent at BBC News questions the peculiar timing of the assassination, noting that it is meant as a deterrent, rather than a response to action. I have no specific proposal to put forward for the article, but I do ask my fellow editors to consider what is happening and think about how best we can cover this event, the inevitable consequences, and the impact it might have on the upcoming election (which Trump himself ironically opined on in 2012) as events unfold. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not here. The assassination might get a line in Presidency of Donald Trump, but it’s not enough BLP or WEIGHT to go here.  And an impact to election seems weak speculation - the election is far off and not plausible this would be significant to it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not enough weight? Sorry, but that's just an absurd suggestion. Soleimani's assassination is a big deal. Fortunately, someone has already sensibly included a line in the appropriate place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is definitely significant enough to go into the body already. One can easily find the sources. The general was the de facto #2 man in Iran who had influence all over the Middle East. If major conflict begins, it will be lede-worthy. We can take out Jerusalem and North Korea, the first doesn’t seem to have led to much impact, and the second isn’t seeing much success.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "escalating tensions" is a euphemistic way of putting it. The US is in armed conflict with Iran. Whether that turns into a war largely depends on how Iran responds and how the U.S. responds to Iran's response. It's possible that things could settle down before escalating further. Obviously this is already significant enough to briefly include in this article. - MrX 🖋 13:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

One or several political opponents?
I have restored the lead wording that placed in the article on December 11 following a talk page discussion among many editors. It had been replaced with a that omitted the fact discussed on talk that POTUS did not seek disparagement only of the Bidens but also sought to have Zelensky promote the DNC/Crowdstrike/Clinton conspiracy theory. Edits that change the meaning of lead wording discussed on talk should really be brought back to talk before going in the article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I forgot about the Clinton conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 16:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the current speed of conspiracy propagation, we might soon have heard the news that Buttigieg's uncle is a Ukranian hacker and Eliz. Warren's uncle was actually up to mischief in Odessa. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems better the other way. I don't think the line in that "discussion among many editors" was much of a much, it seems better and reasonable to copyedit fix the error of "rivals" (plural) into "opponent" or just "rival".  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the editor who corrected the lead statement from "investigations into his political rivals" to "an investigation into a political opponent", I commented: If we're not gonna name Biden (per talk page opposition), at least let's not mislead readers into thinking Trump requested investigations of several "political rivals": there's just one. Also, "opponent" is more neutral language and a traditional description of contenders in presidential races. I stand by this rationale. Trump is not getting impeached for mentioning the Clinton email server, but for asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. — JFG talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review the sources that describe the July 25 phonecall and other Trump statements. On the call, Trump mentioned the Crowdstrike/DNC/Clinton conspiracy theories 8 times (I believe). So denying that is not "correcting" anything. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is correcting the inappropriate plural "rivals". Adding Crowdstrike might be a separate improvement, but is OTHERSTUFF and not part of any copyedit fix of the pluralization error.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles of impeachment charge Trump with requesting an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, punkt schluss, nothing about Clinton. As Hunter Biden is not a politician, I have changed the sentence back to mentioning a singular "political opponent" (though said opponent shall remain unnamed per various editors' mesmerizing opposition). — JFG talk 09:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah I have to agree, plural is misleading in this situation. I see where you are coming from what the Clinton stuff, but this is about the Ukraine incident. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, please see above and the investigations committee report and the 7.25 call transcript.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence is about the impeachment inquiry, their findings were about Biden not Clinton. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note - nobody recorded it here, but User:JFG made a copyedit, User:MrX reverted, citing SPECIFICO but cited to outdated 11 December talk and not current consensus. I have restored the correction as the current TALK with no opposing discussions active.  SPECIFICO doesn’t seem talking about the plural.  If MrX opposes, needs to put some TALK here or comments referring to here, otherwise it looks like consensus is change and his revert looks like a mistake.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. Cheers. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As usual, I don't really understand what Markbassett is trying to communicate ("needs to put some TALK here"; "SPECIFICO doesn’t seem talking about the plural." 😕???), but I think he is claiming that there is a consensus for changing the wording. There is not. To be clear, I oppose JFG's edit, for reasons explained above. - MrX 🖋 00:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussions are not votes. If you believe that Trump is being impeached for requesting investigations into several political opponents, please name said opponents and cite sources supporting this statement. The lead section of such an important biography cannot be left in a misleading state for Wikipedia readers. — JFG talk 08:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 15:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MrX - well this does imply you want plural and are aware of the current thread, things not previously visible. But otherwise ... it seems unsurprising that one can google for “rivals” and find some hits.  But many others plus the impeachment articles say “a political opponent” or “rival” singular. I’m sure one can google for any flavor of typo, but it’s still bad info and not showing the WEIGHT of sources.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO made the case (and I cited plenty of sources) that Trump sought investigations of his rivals. The fact that other articles focus on Biden (rival) does not negate the larger scope evident in Trump's own words, the committee report, and numerous reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What Markbassett said + your sources refer to the investigation, not the impeachment. Trump is not getting impeached for asking about an investigation into Hillary Clinton, just into Joe Biden. Please refer to the text of the articles of impeachment, page 3, lines 20-21: A political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Jr. — JFG talk 08:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the impeachment investigation was the basis of the impeachment, right? Are you claiming that the WP:SECONDARY sources that I listed are wrong and that we should use your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source? - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 15:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MrX - well this does imply you want plural and are aware of the current thread, things not previously visible. But otherwise ... it seems unsurprising that one can google for “rivals” and find some hits.  But many others plus the impeachment articles say “a political opponent” or “rival” singular. I’m sure one can google for any flavor of typo, but it’s still bad info and not showing the WEIGHT of sources.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO made the case (and I cited plenty of sources) that Trump sought investigations of his rivals. The fact that other articles focus on Biden (rival) does not negate the larger scope evident in Trump's own words, the committee report, and numerous reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What Markbassett said + your sources refer to the investigation, not the impeachment. Trump is not getting impeached for asking about an investigation into Hillary Clinton, just into Joe Biden. Please refer to the text of the articles of impeachment, page 3, lines 20-21: A political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Jr. — JFG talk 08:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the impeachment investigation was the basis of the impeachment, right? Are you claiming that the WP:SECONDARY sources that I listed are wrong and that we should use your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source? - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 15:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MrX - well this does imply you want plural and are aware of the current thread, things not previously visible. But otherwise ... it seems unsurprising that one can google for “rivals” and find some hits.  But many others plus the impeachment articles say “a political opponent” or “rival” singular. I’m sure one can google for any flavor of typo, but it’s still bad info and not showing the WEIGHT of sources.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO made the case (and I cited plenty of sources) that Trump sought investigations of his rivals. The fact that other articles focus on Biden (rival) does not negate the larger scope evident in Trump's own words, the committee report, and numerous reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What Markbassett said + your sources refer to the investigation, not the impeachment. Trump is not getting impeached for asking about an investigation into Hillary Clinton, just into Joe Biden. Please refer to the text of the articles of impeachment, page 3, lines 20-21: A political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Jr. — JFG talk 08:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the impeachment investigation was the basis of the impeachment, right? Are you claiming that the WP:SECONDARY sources that I listed are wrong and that we should use your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source? - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 15:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MrX - well this does imply you want plural and are aware of the current thread, things not previously visible. But otherwise ... it seems unsurprising that one can google for “rivals” and find some hits.  But many others plus the impeachment articles say “a political opponent” or “rival” singular. I’m sure one can google for any flavor of typo, but it’s still bad info and not showing the WEIGHT of sources.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO made the case (and I cited plenty of sources) that Trump sought investigations of his rivals. The fact that other articles focus on Biden (rival) does not negate the larger scope evident in Trump's own words, the committee report, and numerous reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What Markbassett said + your sources refer to the investigation, not the impeachment. Trump is not getting impeached for asking about an investigation into Hillary Clinton, just into Joe Biden. Please refer to the text of the articles of impeachment, page 3, lines 20-21: A political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Jr. — JFG talk 08:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the impeachment investigation was the basis of the impeachment, right? Are you claiming that the WP:SECONDARY sources that I listed are wrong and that we should use your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source? - MrX 🖋 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are we not already done with the fix? Look, plural “rivals” is factually wrong, procedurally wrong, and historically wrong: (a) Plural “rivals” is simply incorrect and we don’t want WP giving bad info. (b) JFG changed it from a TALK with 3 of 4 editors calling for change, pursuing CURRENT consensus. (c) In the prior small discussion it WAS SINGULAR at Starship.paint saying “one of” his rivals, but that somehow was lost in entry.  So let’s just fix the mistake somehow and move on.  If someone wants to put up a rfc asking if we should keep the typos they can, but it seems already a bit odd to be still discussing this.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All this edit warring over the lead language has become a big hippopotamus mess. The language refers to the finding of the investigations committee. I get the feeling that several of us are not reading the primary or secondary sources. We need to add these serially challenged little bits to the list of hands-off consensus at the top of the page. I have no idea how to do that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * RE common courtesy. Neither do you. Seems to me that there's a difference of opinion on the subject of this thread, i.e., is it the wording of the lead or that you changed it after a Talk page discussion resulted in a text you didn't agree with. Trump was impeached for soliciting interference in the 2020 election process. He was not impeached (yet) for soliciting Ukraine to take the blame for Russian interference in the 2016 election. Several editors have proposed "Impeachment wording proposals" that will take care of the problem. Well, except F, of course. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Initially I made an edit that SPECIFICO reverted, and she started this thread, then several editors (including myself) responded. I recently changed the discussion heading to reflect the subject matter of the disputed edit, which is more informative for talk page watchers. Then SPECIFICO restored her process-oriented header, which I reverted to my content-oriented header. As usual, I'd rather discuss content than process. On substance, none of the wording proposals seem to get widespread approval, and in such situations I believe it's better to improve the contents piecemeal. My change from "political rivals" to "a political opponent" was made in that spirit, and I have not yet seen a strong argument why it should be reverted. Regarding your comment that Trump was "not impeached (yet) for soliciting Ukraine to take the blame for Russian interference", please note that the official articles of impeachment do mention this allegation (page 3, lines 22–25), stating that in addition to the Biden story, Trump requested an investigation into a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine–rather than Russia– interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election. — JFG talk 12:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed … [because] more informative; I'd rather discuss; I believe it's better; My change … made in that spirit; I have not yet seen: um - why are you making changes while a discussion is going (or dragging) on?  As for page 3, lines 22–25:  noted.  Please note that your proposal F also fails to mention that demand while naming a current potential opponent. (It's not an allegation, it's a fact - the WH released the memorandum of the July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Zelensky, the one with "I'd like you to do us a favor though ... Crowdstrike ... The server, they say Ukraine has it.")  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Both sides of this debate have merit, and there are sources that support either position. I would be perfectly happy with either option; however, perhaps we can be deliberately vague by way of compromise? Consider the following:
 * I have started an RfC to get a clearer view of consensus. - MrX 🖋 13:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's too early in the discussion to start an RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is factually accurate, supported by sources, and accommodates either of the interpretations being discussed above. Just to be clear, I would be happy with any of these three versions. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)