Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 111

In my opinion, this article is extremely biased.
I don't want to start a fight here, but I think that this article is really biased. Just look at an comparison to the Barack Obama article and this one. In the Barack Obama article, in the leading paragraph is lists his accomplishments. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just perplexed about on how this article sets a negative tone against him. That's not a bad thing, but try to balance out his negatives and positives equally, same with the Obama article. I know that many people do not like him, and that's fine to have opinions, but don't show it to much. Be equal. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump had some ups and downs. What I'm saying here is don't be biased. Treat each president equally. Sorry for the long read, and have a nice day.

Cheers, Username Goes Here 062805. (Find out more!)-(Chat to me!) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. I don't think you will find anything there suggesting that Wikipedia should Be equal with regard to those two presidents or any two presidents. If you do, it will be vague and general language to which you add a lot of your own interpretation, such as "fairly and without editorial bias", and in that case you simply need to read further. The main point is that Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources. Since they treat Trump and Obama very differently, so should Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that. Thank you. Cheers, Username Goes Here 062805. (Find out more!)-(Chat to me!) 19:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly concur with the assessment of bias, Chat to me!. For example, the article maintains President Trump pressured Ukrainian Prime Minister Zelensky, yet Ukrainian Prime Minister Zelensky himself has repeatedly denied any such pressure, most notably in the September 25, 2019 Time article entitled, Ukrainian President Denies Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son  Attempts to correct the persistent but false characterization while introducing citations for PM Zelensky's own rebuttal of the claims of the Democrat party have either been reverted or flat out erased.  Refusal to include highly pertinent, documented details i.e. reliable sources about the primary charge is most certainly, unequivocally and undeniably biased.  I've noticed a number of other examples, but my comment is not a litany.  I write this in support of Chat to me! and his comments as to how "this article is extremely biased."Clepsydrae (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Zalensky's denial does not prove the characterization is false, but that is immaterial to this point. The accusation was made and supported by certain persons, and it is properly attributed to them. Zelensky's denial is also noted in the article. Were we to omit the negative characterization of the president's acts by his accusers, the reader would be left quite confused as to why the president was impeached.   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Open discussion archived
The open discussion on how to mention impeachment in the intro just got archived before consensus was reached; can we bring it back? Sdkb (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I put the proposal at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 110 at 94, which we would generally consider a consensus when we count !votes. The discussion had all but died, so I don't see a need to restore it. The only question in my mind is whether we should accept the 94 consensus or wait months for an uninvolved close. Most likely, opinions on that among the participants would be split at about 94. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Zelenski's denial is key (no quod pro quo without Zelenski feeling a pressure). And should considered as key element in any article treating impartially the Trump impeachment. Thiermub (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

An important question
How is it that I can't find anything about on Wikipedia? 117.249.237.205 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * identity as the whistleblower has never been proven by anyone. It is only speculation, something which does not belong in wikipedia.  We are not interested in what may or may not be true, but rather what is verifiable.  Mgasparin (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.229.70 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally avoided because of a desire to give privacy, some from folks confusing which whistleblowing acts apply, and some that coverage wasn’t covering that during events so it had no WEIGHT.
 * If the name gets reported e.g. about his past leaks from White House, his coordination with Schiff and others - then it might have WEIGHT. But it would go into other articles such as the inquiry article, or the conspiracy theory article, etcetera.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocking of witnesses
In this edit I added mention of the fact that witnesses were blocked from testifying during the trial, but it has since been removed. I feel that the blocking of witnesses during the impeachment trial is noteworthy and merits inclusion in the lede because it is unprecedented in American politics (both Andrew Johnson's and Bill Clinton's impeachment trials included witness testimony), and the blocking of witnesses (for either the prosecution or the defense) during any trial violates the spirit of due process and undermines the integrity of the justice system. Vrrajkum (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed that as excessive detail for the lead of this top-level biography, which was already too long. The blocking of witnesses is not one of the major events of Trump's 73-year life, and the lead of this article is not the place to explore issues surrounding the impeachment and trial. The lead of Impeachment trial of Donald Trump is an entirely different matter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a major event in his life..the biggest single obstacle to getting rid him..why wouldn`t it be in the article ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the article, but about the lead of the article. The considerations for inclusion are very different. That it was the biggest single obstacle is your unproven and unprovable viewpoint, and mine is that the Senate still would have failed to reach the required 67 votes to convict after witness testimony. To speak of getting rid [of] him shows that you are not even attempting to set aside your personal bias in discussions about Trump. That is not how we we should develop Wikipedia articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you mean we ?  2600:1702:2340:9470:BD2E:3A2A:274F:34B6 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for lead per LEAD. Just not a major part of the article or his life.  Yes, the trial coverage pursued the question ... but that’s not his actions or his BLP.  For what it’s worth, note Clinton’s article does not go into the similar material, I.e. conspiracy to perjury, that’s left to the article about it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , In addition the other posters above, it was also inappropriate from a neutrality perspective as it implies that a lack of witnesses was the causative reason for the acquittal. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not clear, but it didn’t seem being decided by doubt over the facts or events that witnesses would resolve, it was more being argued over what is suitable for impeachment (or even wrong) and issues over House process and evidentiary amount. Frankly, it seemed a torturous few weeks and they just weren’t inclined to prolong it without it being really clear it would make a meaningful difference.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs in the lead. It's just a detail. The vote on witness predicted the verdict, but it didn't cause it. Responding to the OP, I don't think it was totally unprecedented. I don't think Clinton's trial did have witness testimony. And actually witnesses are excluded from trials all the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , is it a "detail"? Isn't it one of the two articles of impeachment? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the articles of impeachment was obstruction of congress. In other words, blocking witnesses and documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And, there were witnesses in the Clinton trial. Monica Lewinsky gave video testimony. Others did too. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Appearing in a video-recording is not appearing as a witness.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the WSJ smoking? It's behind a paywall. Is that an opinion piece? No witnesses testified in person in the Clinton impeachment, but there was witness testimony by video recordings. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a comment written by Professor Jonathan Turley who appeared at the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. He says, "In the end, the senators considering whether to remove Mr. Clinton from office heard only excerpts from depositions by three witnesses—and even that was over Democratic objections". Excerpts from video-recordings. No cross-examination.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The good professor seems to have flip-flopped on both sides of the issue. Under U.S. law, courts may allow use of depositions   taken earlier.  The difference between the Clinton and the Trump impeachment trial is that in Clinton's case Clinton did not barr Starr, Kavanaugh, etc. from obtaining testimony from witnesses, and that senators viewed evidence obtained. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All of that is basically irrelevant. Did Clinton's trial have witnesses? No. Depositions from witnesses are not witnesses.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong on all three, says RS . I'm not saying that this should be put into the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not in the lead of this article, but the impeachment and impeachment trial articles should definitely say this was the first U.S. Senate impeachment to not include witnesses. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if you're right, there wasn't much difference between the Clinton and Trump trials on this issue. In both cases, supporters of the president blocked witnesses. In Clinton's case, the Republicans wanted witnesses to testify in front of the Senate but had to be content with excerpts of video recordings from only three witnesses with no cross-examination. Maybe you could say that Trump was more successful, but presenting his trial as unprecedented is a partisan distortion of history that has no place in a neutral encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, the Trump impeachment trial was different because there were witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial. House managers interviewed Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. That's a cross-examination. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Muboshgu - Umm, the Impeachment is made the House - so you are perhaps inadvertently correct
 * - - this was the first impeachment that denied witnesses requested by the Republicans and did not have cross-examination ?    But this BLP really isn't the article to go into details that aren't about Trump and weren't done by Trump et al, or to highlight a partisan postmortem soundbite that had no direct involvement or impact.  Topically, we'd be more inclined further in what actually were Trump actions during the Trial and he or his defenders positions ... for example:
 * - - It was remarked by Turley (one of the four legal scholars) "The record does not not establish obstruction in this case," Turley said. He also said that "if the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president."
 * - - There was a lot of discussion over whether it was consititutionally correct for the Senate to construct a case (the job of the House) during the Trail, objections by Dershowitz that the articles themselves were not valid grounds for an impeachment, and conservative comentators remarked on the issues of weak substance, flawed inquiry process, issues of evidence, and structurally deficient articles.
 * - - Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Trump administration blocked many witnesses (especially Bolton and Mulvaney) from testifying to the House, and then again withheld documents and witnesses from the Senate trial, with the complicit help of Senate Republicans. I don't know what you mean about no cross-examination, I heard House Republicans lob lots of questions at the witnesses. No, they didn't get to call Hunter Biden. They did get to call Jonathan Turley. And Alan Dershowitz came up with some odd theories that got pilloried all over the place and had to try to walk it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * However, the Senate's control over what witnesses to permit the parties to depose, and what live testimony to hear, has at times been exercised quite restrictively. In the Clinton impeachment trial, for example, the Senate allowed the House Manager to depose only three witnesses and refused to permit the House Managers to call any witness to testify. Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (3rd ed, 2000) p162.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Muboshgu - Nadler blocked all 8 witnesses the Republicans wanted in the inquiry. (NBCnews, PBS). The Trump administration on 8 October issued an 8-page letter about being denied cross-examination or to call witnesses, the illegitimacy of such hearings without a house vote, etcetera as why they were stopping cooperation.  (The Guardian, Reuters, NPR) Shortly after that House Republicans stormed into the closed-door inquiry here.  There eventually was a vote in the House to formalize the inquiries that had been going on, after proposal of a Senate resolution to reject House proceedings without that.   (And later, on November 26, there was a belated offer made to allow cross-examination [https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-and-misleading-claims-at-impeachment-trial/ factcheck.)    Now impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, so nothing actually guarantees 'due process' given to Clinton would be given to Trump except embarrassment.  (The Senate proposals seem like they were doing that - just nudging by pointing out the embarrasing behaviours, not that they were seriously able to reject such.)
 * But again, this BLP isn't the article for all this of detail, much less the Lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Democrats denying Republicans the chance to bring in Hunter Biden is not at all the same as the Trump administration violating checks and balances by withholding evidence. Clinton and Nixon both cooperated with Congress during their impeachment inquiries. Trump obstructed Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Muboshgu - Democrats blocked MANY Republican requests for scholars and many witnesses -- in the pre-inquiry, the inquiry, in the formation of the articles, and in the trial itself. They even turned down the offer of Bolton in exchange for Biden, and neither Trump nor the Republicans were willing to have a one-sided 'only you get to call witnesses' game.    Clinton and Nixon were granted the power to call witnesses and to cross-examine during their inquiries, which were officially launched.  The Trump letter identifies his administrations refusal to the lack of the lack of such process in his case and to the lack of procedural official standing for the requests.  If you want to have material here it should be Trump oriented -- his letter  was somewhat notable -- and would in good paraphrase convey the non-participation AND the basis of requests being unofficial and blocking hos witness requests.  All the other blocks of Democrats against Republican members is basically not involving Trump so might suit the Impeachment articles but not this BLP.  (e.g. Schiff blocking Nunes .gov, qz examiner, ; then Nadler refusing Collins request in the Judiciary committee for more scholars .gov, CBS, MSN; and 8 others ReutersTheHill; and then the trial blocking even witness trading cnbc, Slate.)  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Violated checks and balances, and obstructed congress? Both without a source you say? Sure you want to go there with those BLP violations? PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , surely you recall that the House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress? I don't have to cite when the WP:SKYISBLUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely you recall the senate trial that acquitted him of all those by a mile right? Which is kind of like a guy getting found not guilty for a crime then you saying he committed said crime. Understand the difference? PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , "acquitted" isn't "not guilty". That doesn't change that Trump blocked Mulvaney, Bolton, and others from testifying. There's millions of references out there for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does. That is how a trial works. Also you do not need to ping me everytime, I watch this page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh also you should probably read the essay you are presenting as a reason to violate our BLP policy WP:SKYISBLUE, specifically the "Citing everything" section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, whatever the merits here, I can't see any way there's a BLP issue. For such a public figure there would have to be specific detailed and credible allegations of some falsehood.  So I think we can all breathe easy on the BLP front.  SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, from what I see they are making up crimes they think Trump committed while refusing to provide a source for it. Citing an essay as a reason. Not a good look. Even with public figure a source is required for such claims. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of RS for what's being proposed, in addition to the House investigators' report and Comey Robert Mueller's. Do you think Trump would sue for libel if WP says there was "obstruction"? I would say that's a longshot.  SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, I doubt it. Though finding sources that go past alleged, especially after the senate trial is the issue. Stating as fact that he violated checks and balances, and that he did obstruct congress will be tough. PackMecEng (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote Comey when I meant to write Mueller above, now corrected. Courts have ruled that the Trump Administration invoked invalid and extreme theories of absolute exemption from providing documents and blocking testimony. So that is "violating checks and balances" I think.  SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really think so, and still no one has given sources for anything. This seems to be a reoccurring problem. PackMecEng (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. Clearly this particular detail is not worthy of the lead, since it is about the trial, rather than the subject of the article. I suggest we close this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Extremely biased article, should be removed
It’s more than obvious this article is biased, maybe opening it up to editing would fix that. But standing as it is the whole thing is basically just the false statements of a few very obvious never-Trumpers Travis leitzel (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , something should be removed, but it's not clear this article is that thing. Guy (help!) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote
has added to the lead that Trump lost the popular vote "by 2.9 million", with the edit summary, "If we lose the note, then we need to mention the number. Many people reading this article are used to parliamentary democracies where something like this cannot occur". Firstly, I removed the note because there were far too many notes in the lead. There is no point in having a note when the information is covered in the article anyway. Same with adding the number. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Secondly, I don't see the need to mention the popular vote in the lead anyway. It sounds like we are trying to make a point, but the popular vote doesn't mean anything in practice. Trying to deflate everything Trump achieves is POV. Thirdly, "2.9 million" is designed to inflate the gap, whereas "2%" gives a better indication of the actual difference. Fourthly, the claim that this can't happen in "parliamentary democracies" is totally false. In fact, many countries do not choose their heads of state government by a popular vote. In Australia, for example, which has a Westminster parliamentary system, two long-serving prime ministers won elections without getting the popular vote: Bob Hawke in 1990 and John Howard in 1998.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't Queen Elizabeth the Australian head of state, and the prime minister selected by a majority in parliament? I.e., subject to removal by a vote of non-confidence by a majority in parliament? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant heads of government. I have changed it. Yes, PMs are chosen by majority in parliament. And it doesn't need a vote of non-confidence if their own party moves against them. But a majority in parliament isn't determined by the popular vote; it's determined by the election of MPs in every seat. But that just undermines your point even more. Many English-speaking countries do not choose their leaders by popular vote. Anyway, this assumption that the article needs detailed explanations about the American political system is wrong and patronising. We don't give people a summary of Ukraine. If people want to know more, they can follow the link. We need to facilitate people finding information, not assume that they need to know something and force it on them.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of my edit summary was a) unnecessary and b) should have said "parliamentary republics and some constitutional monarchies like Sweden." Back to this article: I could also accuse you of engaging in what you are accusing me of, trying to skew the article, by removing info that you consider to be negative for Trump and therefore—in your opinion—POV. I don't see the need to mention the popular vote - that's your opinion. We mention it because RS mentioned it, over and over again (,, , , , , , , , , , etc.). Trump himself saw the need to mention it, calling the electoral college "a disaster for democracy" and claiming that he would have won the popular vote if it hadn't been for the "millions of illegal voters". As for your other point ("2.9 million" is designed to inflate the gap, whereas "2%" gives a better indication of the actual difference), 2.9 million being the actual difference what would 2.1 percent be a better indication of? The actual number is neither positive nor negative, it is what it is. Or is that also patronizing and/or forcing information on readers that they can figure out for themselves with fifth-grade math, assuming they know—or know where to look up—the total number of voters? It's more noteworthy than his "attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization" which were a total bust so far. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed quite a bit over time. I personally think if people want to get into the mud about numbers they can goto the election article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , "in the mud about numbers" would be looking at state-by-state numbers. How is presenting one number going "in the mud"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the mud is stating past lost popular vote. The exact number is more of a shock number than something specifically useful. Kind of like saying he lost it by 2.1%. PackMecEng (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary to present numbers (or discuss the electoral colleges) in the lead when the information is presented in context, further down the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Excess detail, not suitable per LEAD. In lead just mention the topic, and ‘popular vote’ does that.  If we start going into more detail, next someone would want to mention this claim is a partisan talking point recommended by Michael Moore, or to say Trump falsely claimed he won the popular vote except for illegal immigrants or Southern Cal, or to compare it to the Canadian elections.  (Parti Québécois got an inordinate number of seats for their % of the nationwide total vote.)  Skip adding more detail to lead.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Really, the popular vote is irrelevant. It's like saying someone won a game of rugby league but got less field goals. Or an American example I don't know about. If you win, you win. The electoral college was part of the contest. Both sides knew about it. Sure, Trump criticised it, but why wouldn't he? It's a STUPID system. But if someone engages with a STUPID system and wins, and then you start whining that the system is STUPID, well, I think that makes you STUPID. Those were the rules of the STUPID game, and Trump played by the rules and won. I think many editors here are bad losers. Sure, deal with the technicalities in the appropriate section, but this is tantamount to saying Trump's win is illegitimate. It's not. He played by the rules of the STUPID game and won. There's nothing illegitimate about it at all. And it's potentially confusing to readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. Since the inception of the US, the President has been chosen via electoral college, not the popular vote. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack, it may look strange to an outsider, but the American founders had a well-reasoned basis for the Electoral College. Those reasons have been part of American mainstream thought all the time. But there have been economic and demographic shifts in the post-WW2 era that have increasingly led to some equally well reasoned skepticism about it. I don't think it was ever stupid and I don't think that critics are using it to gripe about the 2016 election. Anyway, Trump's critics have many stronger arguments about why they feel he is not legitimate.  SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Biased Wiki Page
The author qualifies that POTUS was acquitted by a “Republican-controlled” senate but in the preceding text about the Congressional impeachment, he never mentions the fact that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that impeached POTUS. Also, the special prosecutor found there was NO COLLUSION with Russia by the president or his campaign. This sounds like a Wiki by a partisan author. Rmangelini (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you go back to the article page, and click on "View history", you will see that the article has had hundreds, possibly thousands of authors over the years. It changes frequently. Constructive suggestions to improve the article are welcomed here. Allegations of bias less so. A really valuable policy here is the assume good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Their first sentence is a constructive suggestion, and is a valid complaint unless it can be shown that reliable, non-opinion sources bias their reporting in the same way. Since it would likely be very difficult to show that without cherry-picking, I'd favor removal of "Republican-controlled". And AGF is a guideline, not a policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve seen at least a dozen reliable sources saying as much in the last several hours. What policy makes this a “valid complaint”? If you want sources, I’ll provide them, but honestly... Googling “Trump” brought up five last time I did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just searched for "Trump" and selected the News tab. The first source was The Daily Beast reporting about something Trevor Noah said about Trump.(?!) The second was Reuters which wrote:
 * "Republican-controlled senate" seems pretty accurate to me. - MrX 🖋 02:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And a cursory look shows Reuters, AP, LA Times, Politico, etc, speaking of the impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House. See "cherry-picking" above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually that clause is excessive detail for the lead of this top-level biography and I have removed it on that basis. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This non-American observes that the ONLY reason Trump has been acquitted is that the Republicans control the Senate. One might equally argue that the same logic applies to the Democrat controlled House impeaching him in the first place. Omitting this from the lead in order to pretend these decisions have much to do with real justice would be quite misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the consensus of non-politician notable analysts, jurists, scholars, et al is that the impeachment was justified, whereas the acquittal -- according to McConnell, Graham, and others -- was done purely for partisan reasons. Also, nobody should come to this talk page to repeat Trump's "NO COLLUSION" bit as anything other than his own narrative. This has been litigated dozens of times.  SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Collusion" is not the same as "conspiracy". Mueller ignored the first. While the Mueller investigation did not "produce enough evidence" to prove the existence of a formal written or oral "conspiracy", some consider the actions of Manafort, Trump's welcoming of Russian help, and the myriad secret contacts between other Trump campaign members and associates with Russians to be the alleged "co-operation" with the Russian's "'sweeping and systematic' operation in 2016 to help Trump win", which the Mueller Report describes as "Steele's central claim". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Collusion" is not the same as "conspiracy". Mueller ignored the first. While the Mueller investigation did not "produce enough evidence" to prove the existence of a formal written or oral "conspiracy", some consider the actions of Manafort, Trump's welcoming of Russian help, and the myriad secret contacts between other Trump campaign members and associates with Russians to be the alleged "co-operation" with the Russian's "'sweeping and systematic' operation in 2016 to help Trump win", which the Mueller Report describes as "Steele's central claim". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing in the opening paragraphs about the economic growth of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That`s because he inherited it from Obama..you obviously have a bias..i do as well 2600:1702:2340:9470:BD2E:3A2A:274F:34B6 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a biography of Donald Trump. US growth is currently unremarkable, and grew faster during the Obama administration. So I don't know why you would think this is relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't have the entire thing negative. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As soon as Trump manages to do something that's actually good, I'm sure it'll go in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

First step act passed with bipartisan support, no mention of the space force, https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biggest-accomplishments-and-failures-heading-into-2020-2019-12#accomplishment-defeating-isiss-caliphate-and-taking-out-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-5 I mean there’s not even a pretense of neutrality in this article. It’s disappointing let’s at least try to be fair. Bsubprime7 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7


 * Adding that the House was controlled by Democrats could at least help readers to understand the partisan nature of the impeachment controversy, and would match the Senate is described as one under Republican control. I don't see why one should be mentioned, and the other shouldn't be mentioned. Nuke (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From Trump's point of view the intro is a record of success. He has implemented a lot of policies and has seen off Mueller and impeachment. Where is the failure?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable Sources do not view the inquiry as having been partisan. You should only discuss sources and article text here, not your personal opinions.  SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The House vote wasn't partisan, because an independent voted for impeachment. The Senate vote wasn't partisan, because independents AND a Republican voted Trump guilty. Trump admitted his guilt several times, in fact, but doesn't care. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The votes of one or two independents are irrelevant. The fact is not a single Republican in the house voted to impeach Trump, making it a partisan vote. If it was bipartisan, the Democrats would need to convince members of the opposite party, not an independent.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, one House Republican announced his intention to vote for impeachment (Justin Amash). He was mercilessly attacked by his fellow Republicans. He was treated so shabbily by the GOP, he was forced to resign from the party and become and independent. Another way of putting it is that everyone voted for impeachment except the partisan Republicans. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Justin Amash chose to leave the Republican party, he was not forced out.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , please list all the Senate trials where a single member of the president's own party has voted to convict. Guy (help!) 12:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was specifically talking about the house vote. I was not talking about Never Trumper Mitt Romney (a senator) who has opposed Trump since before he became president. If you want to mention a Republican controlled senate acquitting Trump, then you also have to mention that the House vote to impeach was partisan.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This comment is hard to parse because it's laden with GOP talking point jargon. Could you please restate your view in terms of sources and WP editing guidelines?  SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not going to waste time digging up sources on Mitt Romney's longstanding opposition to Trump (which you call a "GOP talking point") You can read the Mitt Romney article where its already been documented with plenty of sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the only Trump opposition that counts is inconsistent Trump opposition. Got it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "No senator ever voted to remove a president of his party from office. Until Mitt Romney. In doing so, Romney torpedoed Trump’s assertion that his impeachment was wholly partisan." -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True, how about wholly partisan minus one never Trumper for one of the two charges? PackMecEng (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any RS analysis that starts from the category "never Trumper" so I really think that will be persuasive only if you can provide sources and content guideline rationales for your views. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you looking for sources that say Mitt is a never Trumper? PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC) edit-added a couple sources PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack:, No. I'm saying that it is spitting in the wind to concatenate some "never Trumper" jargon with matters relating to impeachment. I believe several editors are waiting to see the many RS assertions that deny Romney's statements of conscience and duty and say he was really just nevertrumping. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do us all a favor and tone down your commentary about me just bit, maybe then I'll start taking you seriously. Let me know when you want to engage in a WP:CIVIL discussion and then maybe, I'll answer your questions.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have commented only on your arguments and asked for clarity and substance. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where this is going, you attacked me and now you refuse to admit that you did anything wrong. We are done here.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Democracy Index ranking
User:Rusf10 bizarrely claims that the Democracy Index ranking is "just one opinion". We have a whole second-level section on "Approval ratings" that discusses a number of polls that are far less notable than the Democracy Index, which is a very widely recognised index of global prominence. We all know that Trump is no big fan of democracy (note: this is utterly uncontroversial and has been remarked upon by countless commentators), but nevertheless it's WP:DUE and notable that that the world's premier ranking of democracies downgraded the US to a flawed democracy the moment Trump took office, and each report on the US since have extensively discussed Trump and how his behaviour and policies contribute to the deterioration of US democracy. --Tataral (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks undue to me, if I had seen it sooner I probably would of done the same thing and removed it as undue weight. For those wondering this is the edit that was removed. PackMecEng (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add, SPECIFICO re-added it. I want to also point out the whole second sentence does not fit the source and it is a primary source. PackMecEng (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it certainly belongs in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. I don't know that it belongs here.... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, so User:Tataral added the information to this article that the Democracy Index downgraded the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy” after Trump’s election. The information was subsequently removed and replaced several times, most recently removed by me pending discussion. I think there are several points to discuss here:
 * How respected is the Democracy Index? Is it valid? Is it neutral? It is apparently complied by a business, the Economist Intelligence Unit within the Economist Group which publishes The Economist. So it is a subsidiary of a respected journalistic institution, whose editorial stance is described by us as classical and economic liberalism. The DI’s ranking are reportedly based on 60 indicators. The definition of their categories is here. Their latest index, from 2019, gives the United states a score of 7.96, which is 0.04 points away from what would be called a full democracy. That isn’t very dramatic - virtually a rounding error - and the fact that the index is owned by an entity described as liberal gives me pause. Tataral points out that the rating was lowered "the moment Trump took office", which to me calls their neutrality into question.
 * How widely reported are its findings? In particular, how widely reported is its finding about the United States under Trump? My impression based on a quick Google search: not very. I found only a few reports from mainstream media: I did find reports from 2017 in the New York Times (the only independent source cited by Tataral), the Washington Post and CNBC; in 2018 from The Independent; and in 2020 from the Economist itself.
 * My conclusion: This rating is only a tiny fraction over the line from “full democracy”, may not have been issued from a neutral point of view, and did not get widespread coverage. IMO we should not report this at the Trump article, and I am dubious about reporting it under the Presidency article. -- [User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We'd need independent RS linking this to Trump, specifically. I am sure that such sources will exist: the Senate farce was a result of his intimidation of his own party, and his ability to do is is in turn the result of around 40% of America living in a propaganda bubble where they will vote based on that propaganda. So I do think he is a cause, but we can't say so without third party sources making that explicit link. Guy (help!) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. This article already has too much detail about his presidency. And this content would fairly clearly violate #37 as this is not summary level information. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think Trump is a fan of democracy. But, the sourcing and ranking seem weak for a dramatic finding in any Trump article. Maybe in the Economist Intelligence Unit article. O3000 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Economist is "liberal" in the sense that it supports free markets, not in the sense you mean.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From our article The Economist: The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalisation, free immigration and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage or drug liberalisation). -- MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. It is known for supporting Reagan. --Jack Upland (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Liberalism is mostly a centre-right or centrist ideology. Having a centre-right pro-business stance is not a disqualification for a RS. It's not a disqualification that a source is not far-right or that the source disagrees with Trump politically (all non-fringe European sources are very critical of Trump and typically regard Trumpism as a far-right phenomenon). "It is apparently complied by a business" – so is the New York Times and most of the world's media, and what's your point? The Economist is a highly respected source, and the Democracy Index is widely recognised. --Tataral (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How respected is the Democracy Index? Is it valid? Is it neutral? Mediabias/Factcheck rates The Economist "Least Biased based on balanced reporting and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Economist survey and ranking, which is widely followed throughout the world by business and governmental leaders, would be dismissed as "just an opinion". If you look at WP's article on the ranking, you can see many references that confirm its notability. It would, however be useful to cite the later year rankings and commentaries to resolve Pack's concern about the missing Verification for the second sentence.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I linked to the country page, but I should have cited the report directly. (it's available online, but a registration is necessary for "legal" access). After noting that "Mr Trump has not been the dealmaker he had boasted he would be" and discussing a range of Trump's policies, behaviour and ongoing problems, the report concludes regarding political culture that  --Tataral (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but when the poster makes an extremely biased start to this discussion such as "We all know that Trump is no big fan of democracy" I stopped reading the balderdash at that point assuming the rest was biased also. This is an encyclopedia folks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal comments about editors are irrelevant and unwelcome here. Did I mention irrelevant? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Democracy Index is notable, but the Economist Intelligence Unit specifically says Trump wasn't the cause of the change in ranking. The USA's score has been slipping for years, and the EIU cites events in the 1960s as part of the explanation. (This is sort of strange because it implies that the USA was more democratic before the civil rights movement began.) Anyhow, I don't think it belongs here.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Economist's point, and the one that makes this worth inclusion in this biogrpahy, and not under Consensus 37, is that the Economist's researchers conclude that Trump is an historic figure who personifies his era and the decline of American Democracy -- only a one peg decline, but one that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean they lead with “The downgrade [in the US rating] was not a consequence of Donald Trump." So why would it be part of the Trump main article? PackMecEng (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What does and not under Consensus 37 mean? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's correct that that the score in the 2016 Democracy Index wasn't "because of" Trump in a direct sense; he was more a symptom of the underlying democratic problems in the US. But e.g. the most recent report (per above) specifically cites Trump's policies and way of doing politics as a reason for a downgrade in the political culture score and there is a long Trump discussion in the report. In any event, he is head of state of a country that has been ranked as a flawed democracy throughout his tenure so far, and that is relevant to his legacy as president, whether or not it is (entirely) his fault; for instance the article mentions economic developments in the US during his tenure, although it's not certain that this is something that he personally achieved. Articles on heads of state tend to discuss how their countries fare with regard to important issues (economy, democracy, human rights), even if the head of state isn't entirely or personally responsible for all the developments. --Tataral (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the downgrade were merely because of Trump, then arguably this would belong only in a politics article. But the Economist says Trump personifies a sea change in American life. He is an epochal figure.  That certainly belongs in his bio.  Frankly I don't care about that consensus 37 bit. The content has been reverted and consensus is whatever we decide here, so that's straw man 37, really, for our current purpose. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is strange that there is nothing under "Public profile" that deals with views of his presidency apart from the opinion polls. But I think it's too early to talk about his legacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No legacy yet, but I think it's noteworthy that a distinguished publication currently assesses him to personify an historic shift. This could change, as much of this article's content will no doubt change in the future. Some day it's possible WP may no longer care about World Wrestling.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * so that's straw man 37, really, for our current purpose. No. That editors ignore a consensus doesn't make it a "straw man". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I explained above why it is a straw man.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your explanation rested on the false premise that it's legitimate to ignore a consensus. If this content makes it into the article, I will separately propose that we cancel #37. An ignored consensus is worse than useless. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, please review what the "consensus" section is about. It is about reverting changes to established text prior to discussion with a handy list. If you like #37, or you don't like the Economist bit, it would be great to hear your analysis on the merits. The consensus list gives you safe harbour to revert and discuss. Consensus #37 has been activated with the revert. New text was proposed. Now it's being discussed. All is well. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment is inconsistent with what has been about for several years. We have either followed a consensus or we have sought to change it. We have respected a consensus even when we were on the losing side or didn't participate at all, lending continuity and stability to the process – things haven't depended on who was present "today". We may have occasionally had discussions when it was unclear whether or how a particular consensus applied to a certain situation, I don't recall. But to my knowledge we have never reached a consensus to ignore a consensus outright. This discussion is not about a proposed change to #37, it simply tries to ignore that #37 exists – or proposes an exception to #37 without making any case that the content is qualitatively different from any other non-summary-level content related to the presidency. No one has even attempted to dispute the fact that this content is contrary to #37; as far as I can tell the approach is "Ok, maybe it's contrary to #37, but we don't care." That would set an unhelpful new precedent, and that would not be "well". So, as I said, we will observe #37 at least in the clearest cases of proposed new content, or I will seek to cancel it. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Many, many people have made assessments of Trump. I can't see why this particular one needs to go in. I think if we want to assess Trump's role in world history, we should at least wait to see if he wins the next election! But, no, we shouldn't make predictions. We should document what happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What prediction is entailed by the proposed text? Another straw man. This is just an attributed evaluation by a globally respected source.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the proposed text is now. The original proposed text was clearly misleading. I think the claim that Trump is an "epochal figure" entails a prediction.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that, Jack, but those were just my words on talk and not in the article text. Epochal might be a bit over the top - the source says he personifies significant underlying factors in US politics. That version of it does not entail prediction, in my view. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While the edit's wording (Following the election of Donald Trump) reflects the Independent's headline, the headline misrepresents the content of their article. The subheading reflects the content more accurately, saying that Trump benefited from the low esteem in which US voters hold their government. The article quotes EIU as saying that The downgrade ... was caused by the same factors that led Mr. Trump to the White House: a continued erosion of trust in government and elected officials, which the index measures using data from global surveys. A Snopes fact-check in 2018 said that the “Best and Worst Countries for Democracy” chart is, of course, simply one media group’s own assessment and should be regarded in that light.  According to the charts itself, the U.S. dropped into the flawed category in 2016 (you can find the charts online by searching for "Democracy Index" followed by the year). I don't doubt the numbers (the index is a widely respected and cited source), but I don't see where it would fit into this article at this point. Their interpretation of what caused the erosion also doesn't take factors into account that multiplied the deep strain of political disaffection (Russian bots, right-wing conspiracy theories, etc.). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, later reports have more directly attributed the deterioration of political culture in the US to Trump and his actions. But regardless of that, it's normal for articles on heads of state/government to discuss how their countries' fare in regard to important issues, such as the economy, overall political stability, democracy and so on. And the fact remains that the Democracy Index used to rank the US as a full democracy and has ranked it as a flawed democracy in all reports published from early 2017 onwards. So it can be used to make a general statement about US democracy on his watch as president, without implying that he is solely or personally responsible for all the developments that led to a decline in democracy (although he is responsible for some parts of it, as later reports, and numerous other commentators, noted). This is really about treating him like a normal president with political responsibility for his country and not some obscure reality TV figure and private individual; other presidential articles like Putin's are full of material of this nature; in Putin's article the Democracy Index is even mentioned in the lead, and rightly so. --Tataral (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Tataral, Because this has aroused some dissent, I think it would be helpful if you could cite the later surveys and the parts of their commentaries that you feel support your proposed text or amended text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that was what I did above, more or less. The last sentence was just an attempt at a brief summary of discussions involving Trump in subsequent reports, mainly the most recent one, but the key thing in my opinion is the rating of the US as a flawed democracy throughout his tenure. It would make sense to work more on how exactly to phrase and source a possible second sentence if there is agreement to include the Democracy Index rating here in the first place. --Tataral (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely UNDUE item, and not really BLP either. Might try taking it over to the Presidency article, but note since the 2016 rating (to Flawed Democracy) would have been gathered during 2016, that would be the Presidency of Barrack Obama.  It’s reported to be a decades-long process, not caused by Obama nor Trump.     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Doest not belong in this BLP. The U.S. has been criticized as a flawed democracy for decades before Trump came into power. Some even see his election as a consequence of this democratic deficit, not a cause. In any case, that's a more generic phenomenon. — JFG talk 07:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020
Can you change the wording of it so it's less biased? The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, said that any biography of a living person should not be negative (paraphrased). Thanoscar21 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanoscar21, where does Jimbo say that? NPOV requires us to faithfully document the POV in the RS we use, and those sources may be biased, so we must document that bias. It is only editorial conduct which must be "neutral", not sources or content. We don't write hagiographies here. We tell the whole story, both positive and negative, and in some cases the content will be mostly negative because that's how RS report it. For an example of how we are supposed to deal with even false accusations of public persons, read this: WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We are actually REQUIRED to document such very negative accusations if they are described in several RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * where does Jimbo say that? Irrelevant since Jimbo does not write Wikipedia policy any more than Queen Elizabeth writes British law. He's an inspirational figurehead, nothing more. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow on discussions? Its the standard WP:NOTAFORUM fluff. PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's directly related to article improvement, even if the OP is incorrect. We are discussing Wikipedia policy as it pertains to this article, not Donald Trump. That means NOTAFORUM does not apply, and for the purposes of manual archival it matters not that we have to go through this on a regular basis. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Listen yes RS good, scroll up and you see that line repeated several times though the talk page to the point that it gets annoying. So yeah, it is getting into forum levels. PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, annoying is not NOTAFORUM vio. We could have stopped at O3000's response and the thread would be gone after 24 hours. Since BR added follow-on discussion, #13 says that can't happen. That's the current consensus but feel free to propose a change separately. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No it fits point 4 of forum. So would you support such a change to #13? PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No it does not fit point 4 of forum (actually point 4 is forum, or rather NOTAFORUM). If we had been discussing Trump's fitness as president, or discussing the state of American politics, it would violate NOTAFORUM. We were not, rather we were discussing whether this article is biased. That is a legitimate subject of discussion on this page even if it's repeated over and over ad infinitum et nauseam. In response to your question, no, I would not support early manual archival of an edit request because somebody finds it annoying. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You found the loophole, congrats. Now, per #13, the thread can be archived 24 hours from now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.
This sentence in the introduction became part of the "current consensus" in 2017; "have" was added in 2018 on the grounds that the protests were continuous. As far as I can see the protests peaked at the time of the inauguration and have dwindled away. Perhaps now some people are protesting his acquittal, but that's not covered by this sentence. I think protests about his election are largely a thing of the past. I think this needs to be updated, perhaps to say "His presidency has sparked numerous protests".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with proposed wording.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine with me too. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The specifics (election and policies) are important. The election of someone sparking protests is an anomaly in the U.S. and leadworthy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, where does that lead? "His election, policies, impeachment trial acquittal, and re-election sparked numerous protests"???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So remove "have"?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the meaning is somewhat different. "Have sparked" implies ongoing. "Sparked" suggests a finite period of time. Also, "protests" does not refer only to pussy-hat marches and London diaperbaby blimps, so I think the protest in the media and commentary space is ongoing and that should be reflected in the text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem there. "Sparked" doesn't imply that the fires of protest have died down (waxing poetic on the Talk page - next: making it rhyme). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the proposed wording, which you're supporting, reflects ongoing protest in the media and commentary space. It reflects protests. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that require a new RfC, assuming that that's how it was added in 2018? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not an RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the tone of much Trump criticism, e.g. Geo. Conway and other WaPo op-ed and columnists, has some tone of protest to it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Have sparked protests is gratuitous wording, George Conway, etc. have continued to protest his policies and behavior during his Presidency but aren’t specifically protesting about an election nearly 4 years ago. “Have sparked” makes it seem as though people are still protesting the results of election night 2016. “Sparked”’is the proper wording. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7  —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of "specifics", there was also protests about his attitude to women and many things more. We can't list everything.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing much evidence that major protests are continuing. Of course, there have been protests against every president, but it appears to me that the sentence was added in 2017 because the protests were huge. That doesn't seem true any more, even if you include social media etc. It's also worth noting that this sentence links to Protests against Donald Trump. Most of that article's sources come from 2016 and 2017; there's very little from 2019. That article also says the protests' goal is impeachment, which seems a bit dated.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That article also talks about The Resistance (American political movement), but that article is a stub. I think the fires have died down.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep just "sparked", not "have sparked" – There was a notable spike of protests around the election and during the first year afterwards. No longer a thing, so present continuous would be inappropriate. — JFG talk 07:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Keep", according to the Consensus List would be the established text "have sparked". Moreover, given the comment to keep Consesnsus 20 in the source text, you would need first to gain consensus for your change here on talk. I do not see consensus here for your having pre-emptively changed the text to remove "have". <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, I misread consensus item #20, which happens to have been amended a couple years ago while I was on wikibreak. New discussion needs more participation before we can change the text – and I'm involved, so can't judge consensus. — JFG talk 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The president’s rhetoric
See The president’s rhetoric has changed the way hundreds of children are harassed in American classrooms, The Post found. What article should this be discussed for inclusion? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably too narrow for this high-level article. Try Bullying, School bullying, and articles in their "See also" sections and Categories. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * UNDUE, we don’t want each article every single paper has anyway. And this article is (supposed to be) President Trump’s WP:BLP so the piece doesn’t really fit.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It may fit for a new article called School bullying in the United States. I would not create a stub. A draft could be created with many sources. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 14:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, don't we mention "non-violent protest" in the biographies of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr? This may or may not be UNDUE, but the biography is an entirely suitable place if this is significant and widely held analysis.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Given the absolutely massive state of this article, if it should be included, then it should be included in the "Presidency of" article as it directly relates to his actions as President. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not thought about whether it's DUE for inclusion. I would say however that per my examples, this is more personal and more about his core mission and personal style than some of the silly detail we have in the article. Silly detail includes, for starters, much of the Business Career and Media Career sectons' text. There are articles about those subjects, but they are not personal, they are career narratives just as the Presidency article is a career narrative. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO - Ghandi and MLK directly *did* non-violent protest, as a major part of their life and hence BLP. President Trump did *NOT* personally bully this kid or that kid, it's not a big part his life or BLP.   This is also UNDUE - not a lot of coverage given to speculation re some bullying episodes and blaming Trump.  So no, UNDUE and not BLP.   On a side note, this also seems fairly silly -- I think I can guarantee you bullying kids have existed and been bullying other kids regardless of who is in the White House.  As in every school, every year.  That one can google up a few hits is no big surprise.  Show me where BBC or Fox covers it and I'll take it as widespread -- otherwise meh, an isolated small-WEIGHT conspiracy theory.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

See [https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/02/15/teacher-tells-student-go-back/ She sat out the anthem in protest. Her teacher said ‘go back to your country,’ students say]. This is a another news article. I'm sure there are many more news articles. Is anyone interested in starting "School bullying in the United States"? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 14:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The reporting in today's Washington Post does give some perspective on this that might make for encyclopedic sourcing. I'm not for writing from daily news accounts, but the press coverage of this is summarizing long-established and conspicuous trends, and I now think this is worth considering. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See "Trump's tweets prompt celebrities to share the times they've been told "go back to your country"" There are other sources that give background information. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 00:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for Trump BLP. That story has people reflecting on the same taunts being common prior to Trump.  Not something from or by Trump's life.     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well, it does not belong here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Veracity graphs
Uninvolved close requested at WP:ANRFC. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support - I am strongly in favor of retaining the false or misleading claims graphs added by . This is an excellent format for conveying information in an online encyclopedia. If anyone feels it clutters the article, I suggest removing any of the building photos (this is not an article about buildings) or we could remove any of the generic images of Trump speaking.- MrX 🖋 19:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Graphs are detail data and would appear to be inconsistent with the "summary-level" part of #37. The graphs are already in the Veracity article for readers interested in that level of detail, easily accessible via the  hatnote. My objection has little to do with clutter (although file size remains a nagging problem) and I am not opposed to removing any images that serve more to decorate than inform. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The graph is a summary of the underlying falsehoods. Your objection would be valid if we listed the actual lies in the graphic. This is possibly the most compact way of conveying the magnitude and significance of of Trump's lying, without being excessively verbose.- MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The magnitude and significance are already adequately conveyed in the prose – including the midterm-election spike –  including specific counts and averages. The graphs add nothing except finer granularity, which is excessive detail for this article. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information. The same argument you're making could be made about any other image in the article, the infobox, or the electoral map which is only tangentially related to the subject but at least as detailed as these lie graphs. why are you being selective in applying Rule 37?- MrX 🖋 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully support broad application of #37, but I don't run the place. My time and energy being limited, I am more inclined to oppose addition of new violations than to propose elimination of long-existing violations. The existence of bad stuff is never an excuse for more bad stuff. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information. Said visual information is available in the Veracity article – as it stands today, in the lead of the Veracity article. I pray my mind will never become capable of holding the contradiction that we should spend tons of time developing Trump sub-articles while making decisions based on the assumption that they won't be read, that  hatnote links won't be clicked. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. In any case, disputed content should be omitted pending consensus to include it, so I think you should self-revert, . &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed it, pending resolution of this discussion. (I originally created and posted it.) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Fine detail of this nature should be omitted in favor shunting it to the supporting articles, per WP:SS. These wee little thumbnails do not do the data justice anyway. And Mandruss is absolutely correct in that the default position should be for the exclusion of challenged material. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "fine detail"? - MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Trump tells porky pies" is a good summary. Actual numbers displayed in graph form is "fine detail". Also, I don't really think it adds anything useful to the accompanying text. They are absolutely useful in the context of the main veracity article though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think using Cockney slang in an article about the U.S. President is a good idea. I wonder why you are not opposed to other similarly-summarized information in the article, like the electoral map. Why this, but not that?- MrX 🖋 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm not suggesting Cockney Rhyming Slang is used in the article. My point is that the graph represents more detail than is necessary for a summary. And I did not weigh in on "other similarly-summarized information" in my response because I haven't considered them. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Scjessey: From File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png I've removed the "actual numbers displayed in graph form". (You may have to refresh your browser or clear your cache to see the most recent version.) This is an elementary and simple graph that adds visual indication of the intensifying trend of falsehoods that isn't conveyed by text. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It makes absolutely no difference to my view that the graphs should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a conclusion; not reasoning. And "adding visual appeal" (below) is less important in an encyclopedia than the substance of the intensifying trend of falsehoods. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see why we need to visually show this "intensifying trend" in the first place. The prose adequately explains the situation, and readers can go to the dedicated veracity article for specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Scjessey: The key word you use is "show"—as in the meaning of "convey". Per another editor: "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a graphic visually shows in an instant what text takes much longer to convey. Another editor also notes that many/most WP readers won't read longer texts but are drawn to images (you mention "visual appeal"). Again: this image—which is not "tiny"—conveys in an instant the falsehood intensification as a summary; clicking on the image lets readers investigate details. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The graphs are trying to convey details about Trump's mendacity that are over and above what one would normally consider part of a summary. They are, however, ideal for the article that is specifically about Trump's mendacity. To answer your response about the size of the graphs, they are tiny. I would rather have the user click on the LINK TO THE ARTICLE for more information, than click on the link to the larger versions of the graphs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tiny" (thumbnail) chart: easy for even lazy readers to instantly see extent and trend. Clicked-on graph: shows details. Yes, charts are also ideal for the Veracity sub-article, but ideal here because a picture instantly conveys as much as the proverbial "1000 words". Also, it's easier for the public to click-on-a-pic than go to another whole article to read. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're making circular arguments and entirely missing the point. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THE EXTENT AND TREND to understand Trump is a liar at an unprecedented level, because we ALREADY USE THE WORD "UNPRECEDENTED". Please read and inwardly digest WP:SS. If you read it and still don't understand my objection for including the graphs, there will be no point in further discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The charts immediately, visually convey a significant veracity trend—and without being "too detailed". Regarding Consensus Item 37: the historic levels and conspicuous escalation pattern of false claims are definitely "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy", and probably on the presidency itself. Disclosure: I am the one who created and uploaded the chart.  19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Supplemental: Consensus2019-11-19 (see "Discussion summary", below) recognizes that visuals are superior to text.(sourced explanation, FYI) The two main Opposers argue  that the chart is too detailed for this 'parent' article, despite the longtime presence (implied consensus) of an electoral map and excruciating textual detail in the second paragraph of the "False statements" section—which text the two Opposers actually disagree about (here and here). Accordingly, it's a question about "where to draw the detailed-vs-summary line", about which consensus has spoken (see "Discussion summary", below).  —Updated RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but they are not summary level no matter how you cut it. If you're going to cite #37, please consider all of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They are summary level. Non-summary level would be a listing of all 13k+ lies. Also, knowing how the lies are distributed over time is extremely useful information.- MrX 🖋 20:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mandruss: Which part of Consensus #37 do you think I did not consider? The chart is an excellent summary of Trump's historic >13,000 falsehoods; a list of falsehoods themselves would violate #37. I can remove have removed the numbers in the top graph, if that's what you're concerned about. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC) updated RCraig09 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the chart is summary material full of factual content. I also note that this article has at least half a dozen photos of nothing in particular, or visually poor photos that should be removed. We can't be thinking that e.g. the picture of the Turkey ribbon-cutting or a golf clubhouse is better encyclopedic content than an info-graphic. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You do, unfortunately, need some random images to give the article some visual appeal, but tiny little graphs are not it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing unfortunate about great images. Bad ones in Saudi, Chicago tower, or generic Hollywood Star not so much. There must be a better less cluttered inaugural photo, btw. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Images are not decorations (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). It sounds like the size of the graph is your main concern. DYK you can click on it to make it bigger?- MrX 🖋 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @RCraig09 - One could always argue that something is "summary level" provided it doesn't include every detail that is available and belongs anywhere in the encyclopedia. I'm the one who proposed #37, but it's proving to be too vague to be useful and I now regret doing so. This is shaking out as one question – How much detail is too much detail for this top-level biography? –  and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.But the issue is larger than the immediate one about these graphs. Trump is not a career politician and this article should not be guided by what our articles on career-politician presidents have done. His presidency may be the most prominent part of his life –  and there is a strong unencyclopedic desire to use this article for maximum visibility of recentist content about his presidency –  but it is far from all of his life and this article devotes far too much space to it in my strong opinion. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As opposed to all the things that could be removed from a biography, incidental achievements, secondary presidential actions, etc. this is content about his core personal style. It would be better if the chart went back to his early public days -- e.g. starting with the demolition of the protected art works at the Trump Tower site, but he was not being so closely fact-checked then. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit non sequiturish. Nobody disputes that it's about his core personal style; in dispute is whether it's too much detail about his core personal style for this top-level bio. I continue to view articles including Veracity as extensions of this article that are separate articles only for technical reasons related to article size. I could imagine software support for linking to them from this table of contents, but the support is to use instead. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not merely his "personal style". For decades to come, his presidency will be what WP readers will search for, and it's likely he'll be remembered most for openly validating the post-truth era from the world's most powerful office. Think Nixon. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake to think Nixon, as I said above. As I've said in multiple other places, this is not Wikipedia's only article about Trump, it's merely the top-level one and it provides easy links to others including Veracity. We have now achieved circularity. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mandruss: I was referring to Nixon's legacy in real life, not WP articles themselves. I don't know anything that captures for future generations of WP readers, Trump's intensifying falsehoods faster or better, at a summary level, than this graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re Table: @Mandruss: Only 3 of 5 commenters here have entered bolded text at the beginning of their posts. It's not clear. The Table helps with gauging consensus, and strength of opinion, and doesn't violate WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Please replace it. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely you're aware that the word "strong" (and the word "weak") is often used in the bolded part of a !vote to indicate strength of opinion. I suggest you ping the editors who haven't made their positions clear and ask them to do so. Sorry, I'm not inclined to restore that departure from the method that has worked just fine at this article for years. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note to ask you to add a bolded Support or Oppose etc. label to the beginning of your post, to make it easier to gauge consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't believe that we would even consider nonsense like remote-diagnosis from psychiatrists or self-serving physicians' tall tales and then reject a factual diagram that quickly conveys well-documented behavioral information. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems more appropriate for the veracity article not here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not both? 🌮- MrX 🖋 01:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, seems redundant.🌯 PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tacos are never redundant with burritos. ¡Yo quiero! - MrX 🖋 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can find no flaw in that logic! PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I see no reason to include them.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Partly per SPECIFICO, also, these are clear, easy to understand graphical representations of things that have been extensively covered by RS. No reason not to include them. Mgasparin (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regardless of the consensus that emerges, I will note that this is almost certainly, by definition, summary level. Regardless of the content, it’s exactly the sort of graphic most articles ‘dream’ of. It can be created here due to the close press scrutiny of Trump, obviously. Visual aides are encouraged, and something like this is not only encyclopedic, it’s informative and easily verified.
 * Secondly, I also likewise agree that a few (or likely several) of the images already in the article could be removed. A few a certainly fit into the photographic equivalent of WP:CRUFT, and there are clearly more relevant and encyclopedic images out there that we could replace them with. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note to suggest you add a bolded Support or Oppose etc. label to the beginning of your post, to make it easier to gauge consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support. A picture is worth a thousand words, so this serves a very good purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. We can't get into fine detail, but a graph is a summary, almost by definition. The lies and deceptions distinguish this presidency from any other - not in that they occur, because there was never yet a completely honest politician - but because of the scale and magnificence, easily grasped by looking at the visual representation of data. We are here to inform, not to fight political battles. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I was about to !vote weak support as the article is long. But, Trump’s flexibility with facts is a defining part of his lifelong career. As for clutter, this is certainly more valuable than having 23 images of the subject. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FTR, no Oppose argument has cited clutter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Clutter is a concern of mine when an article is lengthy and why I first considered weak support. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose charts - it’s details, and gives UNDUE emphasis to a POV talking point. There hasn’t been an enduring impact to Trump’s life from a chart anyway, nor has a chart been a big feature of his life, so it doesn’t belong in BLP.  It’s mentioned to be at Veracity article — no need to xerox it here.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? You @Markbassett seem to be saying that the standard for inclusion of a chart is whether the chart impacted Trump's life? That would prohibit charts in biographies of anyone who died before the chart was created! —RCraig09 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:RCraig09 - I'm saying three things - First, UNDUE emphasis to the POV talking point, when there's just minimal coverage of a counting and in particular not of these week-by-week variations. Second - not for this BLP article, as it's had no enduring impact to him. (The Washington Post in particular seems irritated by that, and the Star ... well they skipped several weeks and then quit doing this at all back inn June.)  Nor is it a personal decision or event that directed his life.  Just not something for BLP.  Third - if it's already covered in the details article, there's no need to also have it here.  It's supposed to go the other way around.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers @Markbassett. Fact-checking is not a wp:pov violation, and the highly notable nature of Trump's veracity issue ensures it doesn't violate wp:undue. Second, it's not about how a chart affects Trump (!); it's about whether it succinctly present facts about Trump. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:RCraig09 Nope, ‘highly notable’ is disproven by this doesn’t have WEIGHT. A “highly notable” item is shown by facts in WEIGHT of actually *being* highly noted.  It would get a pass on that for his BLP if it actually was significant in his life.  But there is no BLP significance.    There simply is not frequent mentions of numeric totals nor any impact resulting from them - and this OR of the week by week variation comparison is pretty much just an odd display of no meaning or impact.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again, User:Markbassett! Lack of veracity is an integral part of Trump's life: a Google search for "Trump lies" yields 693,000,000 results (2019-11-12) and the oft-cited WashPost fact-checking specifically states that Trump made 13,435 false or misleading claims since inauguration. Are you saying that Trump's ignoring the fact-checkers implies that fact-checking results are not a notable element of his life? That's backwards. . . . And definitely: newspaper fact-checking isn't my WP:OR. . . . P.S. WashPost and TorontoStar show monthly and weekly totals, respectively, and are consistent; also, TorontoStar stopped in June 2019 because the fact-checker resigned and not because of "lack of interest"! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:RCraig09 The article already covers that. Now as to my inputs for *this* proposal being added... Read the already-stated points in DISCUSSION section.   The material in the proposed content is UNDUE, relevant hits down in the thousands not hundreds of millions.  Try googling for the content proposed instead of vague topical area, looking at coverage of the Toronto Star defunct count, and for complex detailing of ‘this weeks count’ format which is the proposed display.  If the proposal is to show Trump ignores fact-checkers (a) that’s unclear from a varying ‘this weeks count’ bar versus there already exists a better presentation in article text (and a whole details article) for the topic, and (b) the proposal as given has not met the WP:ONUS to show WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.  Look, it’s loosely interesting that some WP editor crafted a mashup showing the two counters did not agree in details, but that just doesn’t have national press and has not had BLP effects on Trump to make it suitable for a BLP article. Not every possible presentation of everything possible belongs in the BLP article. And reiterating article content as a caption to a diagram that doesn’t show the captioned text... ? Does not relate to my inputs, put it down in general Discussion area.  Markbassett (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa. The "proposed content" (graph) shows the general topic (veracity), not merely weekly "complex detailing"; therefore the 693,000,000 Google hits figure is probative of wp:weight. . . . Googling (2019-11-12) shows 12,200 hits for this one WashPost finding alone. . . . Journalist fact -checking epitomizes WP:V! . . . The weekly chart is consistent with the monthly chart. . . Again, your reference that the charts have "not had BLP effects on Trump" has the analysis backward; content is supposed to describe Trump, and it does. . . . Good day, sir. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And for me... The diagram shows a complex detail of dozens of bars varying in height, with Toronto Star counts different from Washington Post. The google of “13,435” being only 12,200 out of over 1,300,000,000 Trump items would show UNDUE - except that’s not actually *in* the diagram.  The count of either paper just wasn’t widely present week to week, let alone a comparing counts of these two across time that this diagram involves. Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Good job to whoever created the chart. Wikipedia needs more graphs and figures to communicate info clearly and simply, not less. I suggest this chart also gets added to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, where its addition would allow us to trim some text which explains what goes on in the chart. Trump's lying is a defining feature of his character and of his presidency, so it clearly meets DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Undue, POV, and weight concerns as described by others above. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How can two fact-checkers' study of Trump's extremely notable(ergo not violating wp:undue or wp:weight) veracity be a wp:pov violation? Your claim that fact-checking is POV, is the POV violation, true? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @RCraig09 - The problem I have with this chart (as well as anything along these lines) is that the term "false and misleading" is not particularly clear. By its very nature, the chart cannot explain that. Does it include deliberate falsehoods? Does it include mistakes? You could go on and on. Because this is a BLP, we should be concerned about those kinds of issues. Discussion about alleged falsehoods should occur solely in prose. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, @MHSFUY, the language "false and misleading" is clear: as one would expect of fact checkers, the charted data makes no judgment about Trump's deliberateness, as explained further in the sources. That explanation could be easily added to the image's caption here, if needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Graphs are the very best way to portray information. You can't attend a conference without being exposed to a graph or chart. Oldperson (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this summary style article, we don't actually need this information. We only need the summary that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let Veracity of statements by Donald Trump be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * By your interpretation of wp:ss,, would this article have one single sentence describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to User:Mandruss. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My preference would be that we would keep the first paragraph of Donald Trump (although I'm not a fan of the way the third sentence is currently worded) and eliminate the second. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, one sentence would not be enough WP:WEIGHT for the (quantity × quality) of RS coverage. I would differ with Scjessey on this point, as I don't think four sentences would be enough weight, either. The status quo is fine with me for now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The charts would give undue weight to a POV talking point. In many cases the allegedly false statements are based on fact-check sites that are themselves biased, and can take a slight error and blow it up into a supposed bald-faced lie.  There is already enough language in the article stating that Trump repeatedly makes false statements.  We don't need the POV further amplified with charts and graphs. Besides, if this is how the Trump article is treated, why not do the same for every prominent politician?  We could make a whole chart up showing statements like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", "57 states", etc.  But of course that would be equally ridiculous. GlassBones (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're simply, personally accusing fact -checkers at The Washington Post and Toronto Star of being biased—which would undercut WP's reliance on WP:RSs. Also, adding the charts would allow deletion of some of the second paragraph of the "False statements" section of the article (suggested here by Scjessey), so adding the charts wouldn't be just "amplifying" existing textual content. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because Scjessey suggested that, you can't assume that his suggestion would be followed – but that's what you did.
 * @GlassBones - If a large fraction of the Post's 13,435 fact-checking items could be shown to be exaggerations or worse, there is little doubt that Trump supporters would have ponied up the cash for a website to do just that. Since that website does not exist, we can assume that the Post's fact-checking is solid for the most part, and solid fact-checking is not simply "POV talking point". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - your whataboutism doesn't fly, especially when Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy. academic access needed.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per e.g. SPECIFICO and Mgasparin. I have read through the Oppose votes, and the most prevalent argument there - that the graphs would represent too much "detail" - stand in contrast to the fact (by now widely accepted based on research about communication) that infographicss are often able to convey basic information to readers more quickly and easily than text. Also, there appear to be no serious concerns about the validity of the underlying data itself. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My opposition argument is not that the the graphs are too much detail, but that they are too much detail for this top-level biography. The article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump already contains the graphs prominently in its lead, and that article is readily accessible from this article via the hatnote link at the top of the "False statements" section – the very section where the graphs are proposed. Unlike some editors, I don't claim my position is self-evident, but I just wanted to be sure you understood it. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I disagree with the POV claims. One should read the sources in the article, here - that Trump's falsehoods are HUGE. Believe me, many people say that.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support monthly graph only – A graph is indeed more communicative than many words, but two graphs are overkill, especially as they convey essentially the same message. — JFG talk 19:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @JFG: I had purposely graphed a second fact-checker's findings ("false claims"), as confirmation of the credibility of the first fact-checker's findings ("false or misleading claims". To me, the juxtaposed graphs project credibility. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unencyclopedic, useless trivia. <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 📧 00:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that the sources (WaPo and CNN) are biased and highly inconsistent, in particular due to the WaPo inclusion of "misleading" material. These graphs' thumbnails are also rather unconventional and are aesthetically displeasing, with very small text that is not easily read, and thus at least one of them must be removed regardless. In addition, no other President has such graphs, and I'm not certain if anyone kept track of "false claims" in a similar matter to even construct similar graphs for them. The fact that Trump simply makes more claims could also be a factor; as such, it would be better to include them using a percentage to claims made, with repeated false claims counted as both claims and false claims. But this is ultimately outside of the scope of Wikipedia at some point given the fact that the media is unlikely to actually be able to reliably say how many claims have been made for the plain fact that the definition of "claim" itself can be questioned and argued. Not sure if this discussion is really still open, based on the time since the last comment, but it isn't officially closed either it seems. Nuke (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion summary (veracity graphs)
Why is this table necessary? This entire discussion can best be described by the headline: "In a repetition of almost every discussion, WP:SS is being ignored while politically polarized editors face off." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The following list condenses eleven (11+) desktop-screenfuls of discussion, to help gauge consensus and reasoning.*::
 * Though I consider the following to be "my" list, you are welcome to add or correct information to 'your own entry—provided you keep it extremely brief: about eight words per argument; I may edit. Longer arguments should be added in text outside this summary list. Use " ' " to separate lines within your box. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thumbnail image is above. Link to image page: File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First, as already noted, this List condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion. More important, as the list itself proves, at least five Support editors have mentioned level of "detail" or "summary" or "compact(ness)", so your characterization that WP:SS is "ignored" is simply factually incorrect; and only two editors (both Oppose editors) initiated political issues such as POV. WP:SS states, for example: "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)"; here, clearly, an image with two simple column graphs does not provide "a lot of details", especially at thumbnail size. Accordingly, most editors simply disagree with your personal opinion of WP:SS's application to this situation; they are not ignoring it. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just not clear what your intent is here. If you're thinking one side will concede because the arguments are concisely summarized for closer scrutiny, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you're thinking one side can impose their will because the superior strength of their arguments has been "shown", I think you're asking for trouble. But this process could bear improvement and I try to be open to ideas for how to improve it. Show us how this table is worth the additional effort. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the table will be helpful to a closer, but they will still have to read the detailed comments. This discussions does need to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes.- MrX 🖋 16:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mandruss: The intent is to distill essential arguments that are dispersed across eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls, to make reasoned consensus easier to gauge:
 * Scjessey summarizes his argument (diff) based on his "solid understanding" of WP:SS "from working on many summary style articles"; to your credit, at least you (@Mandruss) have honestly admitted (diff) that the summary-vs.-detail issue is one of where to draw the line. WP:SS is definitely applicable, but as I mentioned two paragraphs above (21:30, 10 Nov), five Support editors specifically contradict your and Scjessey's conclusion about summary-vs.-detail. Meanwhile, Opposers PackMecEng and Jack Upland offer non-policy-based arguments only brief opinions without specific policy citations, while Opposers Markbassett and MayHisShadowFallUponYou assert obviously-misplaced POV arguments against fact-finders or obviously-incorrect assertions re the wp:weight of Veracity itself.
 * The weight of reasoned consensus over ~six days and >7500 words outside this Discussion summary is clear. Absent new substantive arguments, it's time to re-introduce the charts into this article. Or do you think we need an outside admin to formally decide? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world we would have an uninvolved closer for every discussion of any significance. Since that isn't practical, we often just count !votes as a matter of expedience, but rarely when the margin is this small and the issue so strongly contested. So, unless you're prepared to omit the content as a "no consensus" situation – or the margin increases considerably – we'll need an uninvolved close – as MrX said above. It doesn't have to be an admin, just an experienced and competent editor, as per the information near the top of WP:ANRFC. And there would probably be a long wait due to the backlog; the last one was over five weeks from request to closure. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think dismissing the comments of several editors as "non policy-based arguments" is pretty shabby and incorrect. I may not personally believe in their rationale, but their arguments do appear to be based on their own interpretations of actual policy, just as my argument is based on my interpretation of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A fair point. I've changed my description above. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I like these graphs and I certainly think they have value in the veracity article. I'm just opposed to putting them in this article because it would lead to an inconsistent application of WP:SS, and perhaps even open the door for bringing back other detailed material we've successfully excised in a quest to limit the article's footprint. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Consistency? The second paragraph of that section of the article has long contained outdated detail and other agonizingly microscopic detail. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a different conversation worth having (and indeed I mention this at the beginning of below), but the focus of this discussion is about the graphs. We cannot allow whataboutism to be the deciding factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Let somebody else assess the consensus and decide. As someone who has closed a few long and complicated RfCs like this, I can say that charts like the above can be helpful, but not when they are made by a person heavily involved in the RfC. If I were closing this I would likely ignore the above chart completely and just make my own in Excel if I thought it was necessary to get a clearer view of the consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone: please begin the process for formally requesting an external admin/reviewer to decide. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion was opened a mere six days ago, although it feels like three weeks. MrX said Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes. and I'm fine with that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss It’s been a while since you said posted for close, shouldn’t a closer have been here by now? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still in the request list, so it hasn't been forgotten. FWIW, it's number two in the "other types of requests" section and there is no requirement to take requests in sequence. Unless one side cares to concede, there's nothing to do but wait. In my opinion Wikipedia needs to find a way to incentivize uninvolved closures as it's a very difficult, largely thankless (more stress than reward), and very important function. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The whole article is obviously biased. Trump was never found guilty of collusion, this article states it as fact. It also states Trump was acquitted by a republican led congress but doesn’t state he was impeached by a partisan democrat house. There’s many other biased and blatantly incorrect statements in this article as well it would take too long to list them all. Travis leitzel (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

False statements
Just to expand on the discussion about the veracity graphs, I think that entire second paragraph is also too much detail for a summary style article. The first paragraph describes Trump's mendacity as unprecedented and then we have an entire paragraph and (potentially) two graphs that try to quantify what sources mean by that. Surely that is more appropriate for Veracity of statements by Donald Trump? Do we really need to try to explain it here? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's an issue that's been overlooked here. We editors are experienced users of WP and undoubtedly more interested than the median WP user in further detail we find clicking links on any WP page we view.  But this page comes up near the top of the screen on web browser searches and many users come here for a quick overview or curiosity about what's significant. These users are not highly likely to pursue all the links to detail articles.  They also may not process bare written information as quickly as they process information that's also highlighted by a graphic.  There may be data as to the click-through behavior of our users, but I have no idea whether it's accessible to us. At any rate, does anyone doubt that it would confirm the behavior I've described? If I am correct, the graphic delivers real value to a lot of our users and should be included here in Trump's bio. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For me, the key information about this section is that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented level. The specifics and trendlines of those lies are of secondary importance, and I don't think there's "real value" to the casual reader at all. But I respect your difference of opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That issue is not being overlooked, it's being strongly disputed. For my related comments, see the preceding subsection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion or dispute of this surmise about actual user behavior. Diff, please? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My comments have been about the inherent illogic of that argument. As for actual user behavior:
 * If a user can't be bothered to click through to an article with more detail, they are demonstrating that their interest level is fairly superficial. That user is not going to pay much attention to the graphs anyway.
 * Even if your theory were proven, it would be a relatively short-term consideration, as older generations are replaced by new generations of more web-savvy users who are far less averse to clicks.
 * And so on. I question the benefit of this line of discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am concerned with the actual behavior and preferences of our current users. Your views appear to be opinions about what WP users should be doing or what some other group of users might be doing in the future. If your wishes come true, we can change the article. Meanwhile, I think this discussion addresses a core issue. It makes sense to provide for the needs and expectations of both dedicated link-clickers and casual top-level readers. Thanks for the elaboration. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two observations dovetail nicely here: (1) these thumbnail charts show even lazy readers instantly (as only a graphic can do, and at a summary level) the level and intensification of falsehoods that will characterize Trump in perpetuity"a defining part of his lifelong career" —per Objective3000, above (meeting Consensus #37), and (2) readers"web-savvy" or not easily pursue details by clicking on the image or of course going to the Veracity sub-article. This combination of observations makes these charts ideal for a high-level article as well as the sub-article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody is doubting the elegance of these graphs in what they are trying to achieve. The question is whether or not these graphs constitute extra detail that is best left to the main article on Trump's mendacity. I firmly believe they do not belong in this article, because all they do is reinforce what has already been said, and that is something the other article should be doing, not the summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We might as well get rid of all graphical presentations of data, and point our readers towards source documents such as CSV data, so that they can see the details in context. I mean, if we're following that particular argument all the way. I think people come to Wikipedia to get information presented in an accessible fashion. We're not just a collection of links, after all. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. Why is this so sensitive? Couldn't we use the same "oppose" arguments to remove the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations. And they're also too small to parse unless we click on the thumbnails.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, my opposition to the inclusion of these graphs has nothing whatsoever to do with the inclusion of any other thing, including images. My argument for exclusion is based solely on the solid understanding of I have on WP:SS that I have gleaned from working on many summary style articles over the years. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really hate whataboutism, which pretends that we could be consistent on these things across the board – and often presents false equivalences. I'm afraid this business is far too messy, chaotic, and complex for that. Please limit discussion about the graphs to the graphs. You're free to propose removal of the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations separately (or BOLDly remove them, as I don't think any of them have an explicit consensus). &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My point isn't about photographs. It's about presenting information to our readers in the best possible fashion. A visual summary of data sourced elsewhere. Graphs of Trump's lies (or other 2-variable data ) are commonplace in the media for precisely these reasons. --Pete (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was addressing SPECIFICO, as indicated by my indentation level. As for your comment – I think people come to Wikipedia to get information presented in an accessible fashion. –  we are in full agreement. But I think the Veracity article is quite accessible, and you apparently don't. I don't think further debate is going to get us any closer to agreement on that point. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When you Google search for "donald trump falsehoods", what's the first Wikipedia article you see? Answer: Not Donald Trump, but – wait for it –  Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Same for "donald trump lies". &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the intention of our encyclopaedia here is to present information relevant to Don Trump in an accessible fashion for the benefit of our readers. Is there some reason why information should be presented once only? It's not as if we are short on space, surely? As for mendacity, other editors have made the point that it is a defining characteristic of this person. It's not as if we don't cover information in this article that is repeated in other more detailed articles. The graph is a summary display, not a detailed listing. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not saying anything that hasn't already been said – and countered –  multiple times in this discussion.  Circular argument is a pointless waste of space and time. I and others think our arguments are more convincing, which is why they are our arguments. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Countered in that an opposing opinion has been expressed, maybe. I reject your opinion, which seems to be that it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And I (we) reject yours. We are drawing a line in different places, agreeing on the relevant factors but assigning them different weights. It happens a lot in this business. The mistake is in believing that there is one correct answer, a very common mistake. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? I haven't offered an opinion on this matter. Which of my factual statements do you find problematic? Or is it my view on your opinion that you disagree with? Could you be more specific, please? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My misunderstanding. After a several re-reads, some yoga meditation, and an aborted reply, you're "rejecting my opinion" as to only one narrow point, that it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article. Ok, rejection received and rejected. The fact that it's related to one of Trump's defining characteristics does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in my view. You could make the same argument for all kinds of additional content about the falsehoods thing, but that content wouldn't automatically qualify for this article, either. I suspect you would agree with that, which means you are prepared to draw a line on that. As I said, we are drawing that line in different places, and there is no "correct" place for that line.In anticipation of your rebuttal, the fact that it's graphical does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in my view, either, although I clearly hear your opinion that it should. That's a matter of editorial judgment, and editors will disagree on editorial judgment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To “nobody is doubting the elegance of these charts”, I think that’s incorrect - a month by month iteration is complicated, not elegant; and of two counts that don’t agree and isn’t obvious as to what it’s saying ... meh. The things said above on how this would “characterize Trump in perpetuity” seem more aspirational goal OR than something actual being summarized or of an actual impact in his life.  I don’t know if he’s even much aware of these two counters, let alone a monthly chart, but this isn’t showing something that’s affected him much.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty that sure most readers with a sixth grade education would not struggle to understand the two dimensions of these charts. This is not an article about what affects Trump, so your comment in that regard is disqualifying in my opinion. Trump's frequent falsehoods are one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life. Anything we can do to quantify and organize the extent of his lying will help our readers better understand the subject.- MrX 🖋 11:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a sixth grade education, and I understood the charts. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, Trump's unprecedented mendacity affects everyone else, and RS and fact-checkers have documented this unprecedented phenomenon. That some editors don't think he's the biggest liar ever is irrelevant here, and their personal POV should not cause them to ignore Wikipedia's dependence on what RS say. Their allegiance should be to RS, not to protecting and white-washing Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifer I'll cover the three points I raised again with detail, as the items of my input. If you want to talk about your view of the topic area in general or that opinions vary is fine, verging out of AGF not so much.  But in doing this you're just not speaking to the objections for this specific edit.  If you can dispute these points of evidence and policy, then do so.  If you can't, then accept that maybe not every edit belongs.
 * UNDUE - the bio of Trump should not have Toronto Star above the proportion of coverage that has ... and while the press has snarked at a few things, they do not typically go to the rest nor overall total or discussing these summary opinions in particular. By simple Google counts I see Trump has an absurd 1,910,000,000 hits -- but Trump and "Toronto Star" Google I get 793,000.  So the Star's coverage of him or any mention of the two is 4 ten-thousandths of the total.  If you make it about the fact-count in particular Trump and "Daniel Dale" it is 198,000 hits -- one ten-thousandth.  Basically ALL coverage around his counting in total is down in the microscopic level of coverage, and almost all of that is about hitting a new level or that counting exists.  This week-by-week coverage that was just recently done ... obviously will be down at the hundred-thousandths or -millionths level.  It does not deserve a BLP mention, let alone the highlighted prominence of imagery.
 * No Enduring Impact This article is Trump's BLP, and in terms of what effect or importance these weekly displays have had to his life, or even the existence of counts -- there seems not even awareness that they exist, and if it has made no difference then it just doesn't matter.. This isn't a personal characteristic or event in his life, it's just pushing a POV talking point that has not had any importance and as shown just is not significantly covered.
 * Unclear OK, two similar displays of per-period total next to each other ... So, is this trying to show that Washington and Toronto disagree about 'false' ? (Well they do, but I don't think this is a way to show that.)   Is this trying to show that 'False and misleading' is mostly just 'misleading' by how they differ ?  Is this to show that counts strongly disagree week-by-week ?    It's just not clear what either of them is showing nor what the comparison is supposed to show. and if it isn't at all clear without a caption - then a diagram isn't helping.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In my army days, if the officers wanted explanations as to why we troops weren't buzzing around doing trooply things, we'd explain at great length in a certain mode of dialect. "BBB" we called it: "Bullshit Baffles Brains". Mark, none of the above makes any sense or has any relation to policy here. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, Pete is right. I'm not sure how to characterize your arguments comments, but BBB is a good description. They seem like a lot of words to get around documenting what RS say.
 * The "impact on his life" argument is especially specious (for some odd reason it only gets trotted out for dealing with negative information about him) because Trump is teflon, so nothing sticks to him, and therefore, by your reasoning, we should just ignore what RS say and not mention anything which doesn't have some "impact" on him
 * That is totally unlike how we deal with the same types of content for everyone else, because they are normal and the reality which RS document about them actually has an impact on their lives. No, forget the subjective "personal impact" argument. We should treat him like we treat every effing human being described by RS. "Trump Exemption Policy"(*) is not a real Wikipedia policy. Your three "comments" are not worthy of retort. They pretty much ignore many of our policies. Trump's "teflonness" does not justify protecting and whitewashing him. Look to RS for guidance, not to Trump. His guidance can be safely ignored.
 * (*) FYI, the "Trump Exemption Policy" describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other notable person. This does not happen to other people. Such kid glove treatment (only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. The bar for inclusion of any type of content and/or unproven allegation (and this isn't an unproven allegation) is very low for public figures. We aren't even in this territory.
 * No special exemptions for Trump. Okay? Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * User:BullRangifer reply for ping (what another one ?) Yes, WEIGHT for a week by week chart does not exist, no need to get huffy with me over the fact.   And 'no enduring impact' has been discussed before in whether items are just story-du-jour or don't belong in a BLP before.   No point in getting angry over these charts not having that either.  The rest of your post seems not asking about my 3 input points or about the charts topic, but I will suggest that if normal BLPs don't have questions of negative trivia being shoved at them as often, ehhh, that also seems just a fact.  No special exceptions for Trump criticisms either, Okay ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that the charts are asserted to "duplicate" content that's already in the text, consider: would it be wiser to insert the charts and remove (some of) the text? Humans absorb visual representations nearly instantaneously, whereas abstract textual/language representations (coming along much later in evolution) are much harder to process—the "picture is worth a thousand words" phenomenon mentioned above. . . . . . . . Also consider: the existing text goes into a fair amount of non-summary detail that Opposers object to in the charts! And non-summary "details" can only be seen in the charts if they click on them—presumably because they want immediate access to more detail. . . . . P.S. The thumbnail chart—2x3 inches on my desktop computer—is not "tiny" except on a cellphone. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if the graphs are included, I don't see much duplication unless we speak in very general terms. The closest we come to duplication is the midterm election spike, and even there the prose gives information not readily apparent in the graphs: &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The text is far more accessible than the graphs. Consider what a visually impaired person is supposed to do with a graph, for example. A picture is worth zero words to a blind person. I get why some editors want these graphs, I really do, but I just think those editors have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:SS. By moving the "summary needle" to accommodate the graphs, it effectively moves it to let a whole lot of other shit back in that we have successfully excised. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Who says text is far more accessible than the graphs? I'm sure you have heard of Dyslexia, Hyperlexia, and ADHD. As long as we have the important information in words and graphics, everyone wins. (Besides, the graphs can be summarized in ALT tags.)- MrX 🖋 13:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For those people with dyslexia et al, they can navigate to the main article. It's like everyone here has suddenly forgotten what "summary" means. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think many people understood what was being proposed when they supported passage of #37. I'll wear that as the proposer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Red herrings
Any normal article welcomes the addition of an auxiliary graph to present a visual indication of data. The comments about blind or dyslexic readers are valid, but it is pointless trying to craft pertinent guidelines here in a political article. Wikistyle on these matters may be found elsewhere as accepted over the many years we've been doing this job of presenting information. We should comply with style - of course - but may I suggest that any editor in this current discussion quote relevant guidelines at WP:ACCESSIBILITY rather than reaching into the air?

Wikipedia isn't short on space. Typically we present information in the body of an article, in summary form in the lede, and if the topic warrants it, in more detail in specialised articles. Obviously we can't jam the entire article into the WP:LEDE - that's not what it's for - but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor.

The nature of a graph is to summarise information and present it in an easily-grasped form. Graphs are commonplace in Wikipedia articles. Currently our lede text says "Trump has made many false or misleading statements…" and I suggest that this is something that could apply to any politician. Trump takes it far beyond that anodyne statement, and it is a defining characteristic of the man; a point made by many in discussion above, and not seriously challenged. Adding a graph to underline the significance is hardly controversial in itself.

The only point here should be whether it belongs in the lede according to MOS guidelines, or in the body. --Pete (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are we talking about the lead? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article. I don't disagree that the graphs are useful, but I regard them as finer detail best left to the appropriate daughter article. By the way, "The Rouge Clupeidae" will be my new band name. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to point out that you're mixing languages. That's Clupeidae rubicundus. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't sound anywhere near as good, and it least French evolved from vulgar Latin. I still chuckle whenever I think of WP:ROUGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete makes a good point about due weight as a determining factor for inclusion in the lead of an article:


 * "but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor."

When one reads a large mother article of significance, like this one, it will have many sections, a number of which are short summaries of SPINOFF sub-articles. One could get the mistaken impression (gained from visually comparing the size of sections) that many of those short summaries are of less due weight than the longer sections which do not link to a sub-article. That is often the exact opposite of reality. Those "longer sections which do not link to a sub-article" have so little due weight that they don't deserve a sub-article, and thus only short mention in the lead.

To properly gauge due weight, one should look at the sub-article, and then realize that it often has much more due weight than a section not leading to a sub-article. It was so weighty that we could not give it full coverage in the mother article. So keep that in mind when determining what and how much should be mentioned in the lead. Give those sub-articles their due weight in the lead of the mother article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are we talking about the lead? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article." No, Scjessey, That's not the case. See, there's a reason I used the phrase red herrings above.


 * My point is that we should stick to policy, unless there is a compelling reason to WP:IAR. If you want to talk about blind people as a reason to not have a graph in this article, that has already been discussed at a higher level and the Manual of Style tells us what to do. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make a point about how cutting text in favor of the graphs would be foolish, but my rationale for excluding the graphs remains that they represent too much detail for a summary style article. Bear in mind that this is my view despite my personal distaste for the odious subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not advocating cutting text at all, unless it's the sort of data-dense material that is best put into graphical form. I think with Don Trump, having a graphical representation of the volume of falsehoods over time presents information that is readily accessible without having to resort to "pre-digested" statements, or looking deeper into the source. It's available at a glance, because that is the way we tend to assimilate information. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * WEIGHT? Think this said that backwards.   WEIGHT is *against* the chart being present at all, there factually is not prominence to a series of weekly counts for Trump.  A few noted instances and midterm election period, yes.  Abstract counts for every week, no.   A weekly numbers proportion of coverage or a chart of such has not shown much WEIGHT.  On a related note...weekly number x and y and z also are not in the article so the chart just isn’t a summary of something here. Those are just the facts...  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The Trump Organization/D. Trump earns what the Secret Service pays
Source is the Washington Post. I would like to see that informattion implemented in the D.Trump-article/english Wikipedia, too. Im going to go for it, if there isn some sort of justified objection.LennBr (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would urge caution. While I am extremely doubtful Trump provides free accomodation to his Secret Service protection detail, the source you are quoting is the editorial board of the Washington Post. Editorials are not really suitable references for verifying facts. Moreover, I would argue this isn't a particularly notable story. Certainly it isn't notable enough to be included in this main biographical article. It could conceivably be considered for Presidency of Donald Trump, but you would have to bring it up at that article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scjessey. For this article, it could not be more than a couple of sentences and they would need to cover, perhaps, the other issues about Mar a Lago -- paid members' access to POTUS, security breaches, etc. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the WaPo article the editorial is referring to. WaPo also has a list of receipts and links to documents obtained by watchdog group Property of the People. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be mentioned in the article The Trump Organization. Probably not the presidency article, and certainly not here, unless it becomes a much bigger story (for example if the impeachment had included an article accusing him of profiteering from being president.). -- MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Article of impeachment would be quite a high bar for inclusion, right? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on how often they happen I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)