Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 63

Reminder: lead section trim
The ongoing discussion on trimming the lead section is close to consensus. Please voice your opinion on the draft trim at. A separate thread is discussing to add an extra lead paragraph after the rest is trimmed. — JFG talk 07:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Double-sourcing or removing disputed facts about this public figure
We can improve the article by double-sourcing or removing any disputed facts about him. (For helpful background material, see § A BLP policy aide-mémoire.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is unnecessary. We ALL know this stuff. Stop it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dervorguilla, why have you posted a piped link "for helpful background material" which links back to your own post? I don 't see the point. Did you mean to pipe to something else? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
 * 1. My understanding of TALK#COMMUNICATE is that I ought to explain my opinion -- here, my opinion that we can improve this article by adding to some facts a second source per PUBLICFIGURE (as limited by the BLP intro).
 * According to Black's Law, a "background" signal calls out a "cited authority [that] presents helpful background material related to the proposition". Black's encourages "the use of a parenthetical explanation of the source material's relevance" -- especially when this relevance "might not otherwise be clear to the reader". (§ Introductory Signals; § Parenthetical Information.)
 * And so my comment contains a link to the Talk section that leads to some background material (Leslie, First Amendment Handbook, with clarifying quotations from Merriam-Webster Unabridged) that helps explain my opinion.
 * "Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for his or her own purposes... Don’t rely on someone else to be accurate." ("vendetta. A prolonged [mutual enmity] marked by bitter hostility [between individuals or factions]. Corroborate. Confirm.) Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 10; Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) . ..
 * Let's say you have reason to think that an RS (the Post) and the subject (Trump) could be hostile to each other. According to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, even a responsible, reputable organization could have a vendetta against someone and could unintentionally misrepresent some facts about that person. So, you can't rely on the Post to be accurate here. You need to confirm what it's saying. You need to find a second, independent RS.
 * (I go on to acknowledge that the quoted passage is no more than analogically helpful in deciding whether an edit violates PUBLICFIGURE.)
 * 2. My understanding of TALK#TOPIC is that I ought to focus my comment on some particular way to improve the article. Meaning, I ought to direct editors' attention to something specific -- like, one particular part of a policy.
 * So, I focus on the most relevant part of the 184-word Public Figures policy, condensing it down to 25 words. I likewise condense the BLP intro (255 words) down to 22.
 * Some of the facts in the article are likely to get disputed. A few may be about persons non-notable or dead; those can stay. The others would need to get double-sourced or go.
 * And I direct editors' attention to one particular part of the article itself.
 * Illustration. "Trump is officially under investigation... Special counsel investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice..." Julie Vitkovskaya, "Trump Is Officially under Investigation. How Did We Get Here?", Washington Post, June 15, 2017. Had Trump been officially under investigation, some independent third-party RS would most likely have made that allegation too! They didn't, so JFG had to leave it out. ..
 * No second, independent RS had alleged the fact, so if JFG had chosen to go ahead and add a statement about it to the article, I could have just removed it for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion.
 * Many thanks for pointing out that I needed to put more effort into explaining all this! --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for pointing out that I needed to put more effort into explaining all this! --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand all that, Dervorguilla; it's quite irrelevant to my question. The link you specifically referred to as containing "helpful background material" is completely self-referential: this is the form of it in edit mode: A BLP policy aide-mémoire . Following it will take the reader to this very section, which at the time you posted contained only your own post. What are you talking about "my comment contains a link to the Talk section that leads to some background material"? No: your comment contains a link to this particular section. (And it contains a couple more links, that I didn't ask about.) This section doesn't lead to "some background material". I don't know you, so I don't know if your reply is a troll or a simple misunderstanding, where you didn't notice what I specifically asked about, and/or never followed the link I mentioned. In any case, I'm done. Please don't put any more effort into "explaining". Bishonen &#124; talk 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC).

Text correction:

The quoted piped-link

is not identical to the hypothetical piped-link

In context, the second would be "self-referential" as written. But not the first. It becomes (equivalent to) self-referential only when the target section is hidden or removed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Section fix
Now that I understand the problem here, I think I can fix it on my own. To memorialize the history and context:


 * 01:08, 21 June 2017: I post some background material in the 'Public-figure policy' subsection of the 'BLP policy aide-mémoire' section.
 * 04:03, 21 June 2017: I create this section, 'Double-sourcing or removing disputed facts about this public figure'. It includes a piped link pointing to the 'Public-figure policy' subsection.
 * 13:15, 21 June 2017: A user hides all of the comments in that 'BLP policy aide-mémoire' section. His edit makes the piped link become equivalent to self-referential. It now leads back to its own anchor section -- not to its original target. So by hiding my comments there, his edit makes the link go to the wrong section, thus altering the meaning of my comments here.

To fix the link problem, I can just undo the edit (per WP:TPNO, misrepresentation by altering; and per WP:TPO, to restore the original link target). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

✅ --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is insane. This is a complete misuse of an article talk page. You have been told many times by multiple editors that this is no place for your "explainer" about policies. It doesn't even refer to the subject of the article! It's just a generic lecture of editors, many of whom have far more Wikipedia experience than you do. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See the related User talk discussion.
 * Per WP:POINT, my comments were direct: I applied no policy or policy interpretation to any content dispute where the community as a whole didn't agree that my action or presentation under that policy or interpretation was reasonable.
 * Per WP:TALK#Topic, my comments focused on ways to improve the article. On 02:31, 21 June 2017, for example, I added this relevant material to the ' A contemporary illustration [partly completed] ' subsection: "If JFG had chosen to add a statement about it to the article, I could have removed it just for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion." My comment discusses a statement ("Trump appointed..." that does directly "refer to the subject of the article". Your 'hab' edit hides that comment and alters the meaning of my comments here, by breaking a link ('A BLP policy aide-mémoire') and making it act as if it were self-referential..
 * As advised at WP:POINT#Examples, I "watched recent changes and fact-checked anything that looked at all suspicious". On 7:08, 21 June 2017, for example, I fact-checked the suspicious statement that "The Washington Post later reported that ... the FBI started investigating...", and I tagged it for "". On 08:21, 21 June 2017, I added the corrective statement that "The Post's allegation was later contradicted by ABC News." The community agreed that my action and presentation were reasonable. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 00:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 01:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples. They are in the past. If you have future examples I assume you will bring them up in specific section headings, not this generic talk about guidelines. So can we hat this now? It seems to be a source of more heat than light. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"Despite" VS "While"
With this the word "while" was changed to "despite" by  with the reasoning consensus has been against "despite" in this sentence; POV; seems to imply that he shouldn't have won. It is implied that he should not have won, the victory at the College but loss at the popular vote is an unexpected result. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it implies that he might not have won. See "Learner’s Definition of Despite". "Without being prevented by (something). • Used to say that something happens or is true even though there is something that might prevent it from happening or being true."
 * Compare with "Learner’s Definition of While". "3. In spite of the fact that; although." <"While (he is) respected, the mayor is not liked.">
 * Also, note that while is a conjunction, not a preposition. So the phrase "...while losing the popular vote" = the clause "...while he was losing the popular vote". Some English-language learners (especially recent immigrants) may well misunderstand the text as written.
 * While MOS says the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style, that doesn't always happen. Your call here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of "and the fifth to have won election while losing the popular vote" needs to be included in the lede. However, the entire lede is being re-written on this talk page. I would discuss the concerns there and leave the article as it stands (saying "while") until the lede is replaced or the proposal discussion dies out. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wise counsel. (I must assume you're excluding any WP:BLPSTYLE violations found.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless "Donald Trump" is misspelled, I'd recommend avoiding any edits to the lede until the above discussion is finished. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See aide-mémoire above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the RfC consensus from March rejected any versions of "losing the popular vote", after many threads about this issue over several months of debate. The wording "while losing the popular vote" was added in May via a much smaller informal survey. The word "despite" is a very recent proposal. If we want to keep any of this, we should hold a new RfC to validly overturn the March consensus. But I agree with that this can wait until the lead trimming discussion is settled. Please voice your opinion on the trimmed versions at  so we can at least close that part soon. — JFG talk 06:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

US Wars under Trump
As one of those things that the general public pays no attention to but will have relevance in 100 years, I think we should develop a short section on US war efforts under Trump. We have seen some important expansion in those wars and some additions to ongoing US conflicts that need input into the article. I started a barebones suggestion, above. I would ask some help in further development.Casprings (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Casprings, are we supposed to see the forest for the trees? Drmies (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope. Expansion of wars and the delegation of authorities to the Pentagon to further expand them seems pretty forest-like to me.Casprings (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * . I checked your cite to Landler & Gordon. They do say he's made a decision to expand, they don't say he "has expanded". I'm not going to fact-check the rest of your information. Publish none of this material until you've provided us with direct quotations from multiple high-quality sources that directly support the claim (per WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP, and so forth). Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One, there are two cites there. Both cites show that US troop numbers are increasing. That would mean if we use common english and Summary style, that the wording "the war is expanding" should be fine. We don't use copy and paste for copyrighted work, I didn't think.Casprings (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Both cites show that US troop numbers are increasing." OK, where do they show it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My concern isn't the sourcing, it is the synthesis. Syria policy is already discussed elsewhere (Syrian Civil War and Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration); I'm not sure it's possible to summarize the situation briefly enough to include in this article. The other situations aren't particularly "hot" conflicts. In Iraq, the US has permanent military bases where troops are stationed, it could be WP:MILL coverage of periodic troop-count fluctuations. In Somalia, it's only "dozens" of troops. None of these were as eventful as the Qatar situation. It's too early to claim any general trend. Without any fundamental changes in the nature of the war efforts to cite, this appears to be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The text isn't done. It needs work. I am certain the first sentence is okay, but wording and sourcing need adding.Casprings (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Best keep such details for Presidency of Donald Trump and Foreign policy of the Trump administration. Nobody knows what "will have relevance in 100 years", that's a totally subjective and speculative opinion. Unless sources explain how and why Trump's foreign policy is particularly aggressive, we shouldn't mention it. Personally, I don't see much difference yet with the permanent wars the U.S. has been embroiled in under the Bush and Obama presidencies. — JFG talk 07:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE what to include in an article on Trump is subjective. There is more material then one could possibly cover and one is going to have to make subjective judgements about what is the most important. 2. The expansions of wars is something that is covered by many WP:RS. See
 * http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/04/trumps-dangerous-expansion-of-executive-war-powers-000387
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/10/not-just-syria-trump-ratcheting-up-wars-world
 * https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-22/president-donald-trump-is-doubling-down-on-wars-in-the-middle-east
 * As for rather to include this or other facts, 10YT seems relevant.Casprings (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This debate would be better suited to the aforementioned presidency and foreign policy pages. — JFG talk 13:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Try photo with smile


Try photo with smile:

File:Condoleezza Rice and Donald Trump in the Oval Office, March 2017 (cropped smiley).jpg.

Change it if you don't like it.

Whatever, feel free to change it. Sagecandor (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been hashed to death. Check the archives. The photo on the White House website didn't have a smile, why have one here?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's gotta be a public domain official photo of this guy ??? Sagecandor (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. — JFG talk 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And please don't "feel free to change it." While we haven't had a new RfC to decide what photo to use, the photos were edit-warred and the subject was discussed to death for months. For god's sake let's not start another photo edit war. The current photo isn't bad (certainly better than the "official photo" that turned out to have copyright problems) and seems to be stable. Let's leave it alone. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't you think he looks tired. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not gonna get into debates about it. It's OK, it's better than many other suggestions, my advice is to just leave it alone. YMMV. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That picture is terrible. It looks like someone that just passed gas and hopes everyone will blame the family dog. TheValeyard (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * LOL, indeed! Now it's clear why Trump has no dog… The press wouldn't give his everey WP:FART so much covfefe! — JFG talk 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with his smiley photos is they look staged and all other thoughts vacate the premises. Agree with MelanieN, YMMV but please leave this alone. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, Trump is not the smiling kind. Neither was FDR. — JFG talk 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

lol, whoever put that FDR photo with that caption is a God. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Protests" sentence in the lede
We have had numerous changes and even a bit of edit warring over the sentence about protests in the final paragraph of the lede. That paragraph, as inserted by User:‪Power~enwiki‬, contained this sentence: User:JFG replaced that (edit summary Copyedit on protests; inauguration was already linked above, and protests started on election day) with I replaced it (edit summary Replacing passive-voice, vague sentence with clearer, active-voice sentence) with JFG then replaced that (edit summary Shorten bit on protests; linked article has all details) with
 * Version A: Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States.
 * Version B: Trump's election and certain policies were opposed in numerous protests.
 * Version C: There were numerous protests, both in the United States and worldwide, against his election and some of his policies.
 * Version D (currently in the article): Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies.
 * Version E: His election and some of his policies sparked numerous protests.

Can we get a choice among these four versions, and not make any more changes until we reach consensus? I actually prefer the original version A (but saying "election" instead of "inauguration", and possibly "provoked" instead of "produced"). Second choice would be my own version C. I don't like version B as passive voice, and I thought "opposed in protests" was an odd way to put it. Version D seems to me like a watered down statement that could be made about any president; also, to me "stemmed from" is an odd idiom to use here; it kind of suggests that the protests were a normal or even an intended result of his election and policies. BTW our text in the article says "His election sparked" numerous protests, and I would be OK with that approach as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the lede section, we must keep things short, while conveying that protests were out of the ordinary for an elected US president. I don't see any other president's lede section talking about protests, so the mere fact that we mention them here is exceptional. Further qualifying them as "in the U.S. and worldwide" is unnecessary. I absolutely oppose "provoked", which would make it sound as if Trump wanted protests and deliberately induced them, I don't think we can reasonably say that. Trump was rather annoyed at the ongoing protests during the transition, before he was even in office, and asked a few times when people would finally accept that the election was over. I would agree to use "sparked", I think that was in one of the drafts but got changed along the way. Adding version E accordingly, with "numerous" to emphasize the magnitude of the protests. — JFG talk 17:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RE "We must keep thing short":I'm not aware any policy that says a sentence in the lede cannot be 18 or 19 words; it must be 10 words. In fact, if this sentence is trimmed to 10 words it may well become the shortest sentence in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that any policy dictates sentence length; I was just referring to the relative weight of this event compared to the rest of the lede and to Trump's life overall. — JFG talk 19:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Version F: His election and policies sparked numerous protests.
 * No need to qualify "policies". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain I picked that wording somewhat arbitrarily, any of the choices here are fine with consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support F – Shortest and to the point. — JFG talk 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support F – Short and avoids the word were which suggests protests have ended, which we don’t know. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove all. We already say that he has caused a lot of controversies, so there's no need to add that he caused protests, disputes, disgruntlement, fisticuffs, threats, et cetera.  Especially since we don't mention supportive rallies in the lead.  We can wikilink "controversial" to the protest article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that would create an WP:EASTEREGG. — JFG talk 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support F - It's clear and conciseexactly the kind of writing we need in the lead.- MrX 13:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support F. Prose-wise, "His election and policies provoked numerous protests" would beat "...sparked numerous protests", which sounds like headline language. Nonetheless it's a much-needed improvement. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

'Protests' material is parked here
This sentence, "Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies," leads to the contrary statement, "Protests against Donald Trump ... have occurred ... since Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential campaign." Let's get it out of the article now (per BLP) and park it here till we come up with a version that's less misleading. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This material has been removed from the lead per NPOV, § PROPORTION, and parked here for further discussion.



The "protests" link leads to the statement, "Protests against Donald Trump ... have occurred ... since Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential campaign." That article takes into account, for example, the 2017 Women's March rallies, which largely stemmed from his "statements ... and positions" that were regarded as offensive to women. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 06:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One, that should be in lede. Not sure why that was removed.Casprings (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The piped WP:TALK guideline mentions that the Talk page can be used to temporarily park material that you remove from the article "due to verification or other concerns". As noted by MelanieN, at least one editor's concerns were so significant that they took it upon themselves to change the consensus material unilaterally.
 * I likewise have pressing concerns. In particular, NPOV § PROPORTION policy requires us to give the "Protests" aspect of the subject's life no more weight than the "body of published reliable material" on the subject gives it.
 * Two reasonable assumptions: (A) The total weight of published material about the "Multiple protests [that] stemmed from his election and some of his policies" has grown since our last consensus. (B) The total aggregate weight of all published material about Trump has too. If both are growing exponentially, we can expect the fraction A(t)/B(t) to have decreased since that time.
 * As it would appear to have done. None of us here dispute the judgment of all mainstream RS that the magnitude of the last five months' protests has yet to approach the magnitude of the January 2017 Women's March. Moreover, the weekly volume of coverage of Trump-related protests also seems to have fallen markedly from that peak. It is unreasonable to expect that our last consensus wording would still meet the minimum policy requirements set out at NPOV (PROPORTION). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede Updated
There's a clear consensus for point F and I've added it. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of 'investigation' statement
"An assessment of evidence and circumstances will be completed before a final decision is made to launch an investigation of the president of the United States regarding potential obstruction of justice." Pierre Thomas, "Where Things Stand with Special Counsel Mueller’s Russia Probe", ABC News, June 19, 2017.

It looks to me like Thomas is disputing Vitkovskaya's view that the FBI is "investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice". So, the statement that "The Washington Post later reported that ... the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice" may not fairly represent the view of one prominent high-quality RS that the FBI had not yet launched an investigation of Trump. Consensus notwithstanding, we have to add that conspicuous viewpoint.

Terminology note: Investigating whether A did X = an investigation of A regarding potential incident X. No meaningful difference. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added Thomas's view and removed the POV tag. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've used this new source to clarify the status of the obstruction investigation on the Russian interference page. — JFG talk 11:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually "contradicted" didn't do much to clarify the situation. I have now put in what the ABC report actually said: that there is a preliminary inquiry but not a formal investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's even better, thanks. — JFG talk 18:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

too loaded with no prior military or government service
Methinks it's sufficient to replace that with no prior public service.

38.88.111.193 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but we discussed that at great length a few months ago and decided on this wording for clarity. See "Current consensus" #8 at the top of this page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we discussed the IP's suggestion with is clearer than the current wording and avoids the inherent bias. TFD (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The military record of presidential candidates has long been a measuring stick in American politics, it is quite relevant to this biography. Trump's lack of government experience is similarly important to discuss, as most if not all past presidents has either military or government credentials. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We absolutely did discuss "with no prior public service". Here's the link: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 41 --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What kind of coverage did his false (and true) campaign statements generate?
About those many controversial or false campaign statements... Did they generate much 'free (or earned) media coverage', much 'owned-media coverage', much 'paid-media coverage', or much 'media coverage' in aggregate? Using the definitions given in the Earned media article:

(1) Earned (free) media: They were mentioned in "traditional media outlets, word-of-mouth conversations, and online posts". (2) Owned media: They were mentioned in "websites, blogs, Twitter accounts, and Facebook pages" owned by the Trump and Clinton campaigns. (3) Paid media: The Clinton campaign notedly paid for "television, radio, print, and online advertising" that mentioned them.

Saying that Trump's statements generated much 'free media coverage' could suggest that they didn't also generate a noteworthy amount of owned-media and paid-media coverage.

Worse to come, this time from Merriam-Webster Unabridged: "controversial. 1. Relating to or arousing controversy." "controversy. 1. Discussion, dispute, debate." It looks like we're saying that the subject made a lot of discussion-arousing statements (both true and false) and that they aroused a lot of discussion. Some readers may understandably think we're trying to make a point (but what?). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this section earlier: I shortened it to "much media coverage" while keeping the link to Earned media. Alternately we could say "earning much media coverage" instead of "generating much (free/earned) media coverage". What do you think? — JFG talk 05:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to be as brisk as possible here. "...earning much media coverage" is admirably brisk. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Applied to proposal above. — JFG talk 06:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Much media coverage" is better, but I think "generating" is a better than "earning".- MrX 13:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer what is currently in the article, "generating much free media coverage". The fact that he got all that free coverage has been cited as one reason why he was able to win despite spending about half what his opponent spent on the campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmmhhh... That cuts both ways: many commentators argued that most of the free media coverage was negative and hampered his chances. I don't think we can judge. On the wording, I don't really mind if we keep "generating" rather than "earning", I was just trying to be brief. — JFG talk 15:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing to say if the free media coverage was good or bad for him; I was just pointing out that he got it, and that Reliable Sources refer to it as free media coverage. So should we - not as "much media coverage", but as "much free media coverage". In discussion above you seem to have removed the word "free"; I think it is important and reliable-source based, and should be restored. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN. It's important to keep "free coverage". Many RS noted that it was highly unusual, and for such a wealthy candidate it created a huge disadvantage for others. He literally sucked all the air out of others' campaign coverage. They were drowned and not heard. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The term of art is "earned media", i.e. coverage you don't have to pay for, and we link to an article explaining all about it. That's more precise than "free media", which might imply that media channels donated free advertising slots or gave Trump's campaign spokespeople extra time. I don't think that's what happened, as we usually saw more Trump-bashers on air. The typical scenario was rather: Trump says something stupid, false or shocking; media invite outraged guests and debate the unhinged insanity for 3 days; Trump wins some primary; "how is that even possible?"; Trump says something stupid again; "it's the beginning of the end"; rinse and repeat. A live soap opera. Meanwhile, Clinton went along for weeks or months giving no interviews, so the media had nothing to talk about. And when she did say something, it was often along the lines of "vote for me because Trump is dangerous", so the spotlight was on Trump again. I don't know if it was a brilliant strategy on his part or a clash of messages unwittingly helped by the media. One thing is certain: the attention was on him all along the campaign. — JFG talk 17:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion, to avoid the earned/free distinction, while being truthful to sources: "generating much media attention." An earlier version of the lead had something like "generating an unprecedented level of media attention" but that was too long and pompous. — JFG talk 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think "free" is important, not just "media attention". As for "free" vs. "earned": "earned" may be a term of art but it is not in common use. Google hits for Trump and "free media" : 300,000. Google hits for Trump and "earned media": 56,800. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about saying "free" but piping it to "earned"? In other words, free media? --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's what we have now. The term "free" is what RS used. They didn't highlight any term of art, but our piping provides a service to readers. Hopefully it fits and isn't a SYNTH violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "free" is more used than "earned", but both terms are potentially biased. How about another adjective, such as "extensive media coverage", "intense media attention", "widespread coverage", "yuge covfefe"? — JFG talk 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about going with what Reliable Sources call it, instead of trying to make up our own description? --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about Wikipedia's stated purpose (to "better inform the reader"). What we're trying to inform readers here is that so many of Trump's statements were so false or otherwise provocative that he stole his opponents' thunder. (Not that this may have cost Clinton the election, which is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis.)
 * But our current wording may be somewhat misleading in its implications.
 * 1. As pointed out at Jared Kusher, Trump spend 59% as much as Clinton, not 50%. So he spent nearly 60% as much as she did on paid media coverage.
 * 2. As pointed out at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign (citing AP), more than 40% of Clinton's campaign ads featured raw footage of Trump. All that was paid media, not "free". Paid for by Clinton's campaign. (This was her doing, not his or the media's.)
 * 3. The same article points out (in the Basket of deplorables section) that Clinton has acknowledged making a very controversial false statement alleging that grossly half of Trump's supporters were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic. Some mainstream sources have hypothesized that Clinton's consequent free media coverage could have been one of several particular, named factors significant in her losing the election. Note that Trump's campaign didn't pay for any of this (rather, it sold merchandise featuring her language).
 * All that aside, here's some revised phrasing that may be a bit fairer to the subject: Many of his campaign statements were so provocative or contrary to fact as to earn him an unprecedented volume of free media coverage. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Our purpose is not to make the subject look good by twisting reality and violating our WP:NPOV policies.- MrX 20:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Controversial or false" has been subjected to many, many discussions here. It always has consensus. Don't even think about substituting some other wording for that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's correct, we can't change this strong consensus. However, the rest of Dervorguilla's proposal has merit. I'd be comfortable with Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating a large volume of free media coverage. ("unprecedented" may be true but sounds a bit over-the-top). — JFG talk 22:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support this. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. Using "much" would make it more concise, so I'd support that as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The word unprecedented has been way overused since newscasters discovered it. The word fits perfectly; but I'm OK with its removal as it has lost its impact. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * a large volume of -> much &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many + Much = Meh, not encyclopedic tone. — JFG talk 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should say oodles, because OODLES. It sells itself with its awesomeness. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the lead should say "considered controversial or false by Scjessey". :-)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and by most RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

N.G. See MOS:LEAD, § BLP. "When writing about controversies, make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." We're taking 3.1% of the lead to reflect 0.4% of the article, a 7× magnification. Also, we're focusing on our own concerns while overlooking our associates' historic concerns as manifested in the consensus-founded article text: In part due to his fame, Trump received an unprecedented amount of free media coverage... He attracts free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See How to create and manage a good lead section -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged "generating" with the Citation needed: lead template. The article just says part of the coverage was generated by his fame, and some by his outrageous comments. ("Outrageous", not "false".) See WP:BURDEN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Either the text about media coverage or the tag shouldn't be there. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can eliminate the causation by writing "Many of his public statements were controversial or false, and his campaign received extensive media coverage." Or in two sentences: "His campaign received extensive media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false." — JFG talk 07:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even more neutral with a semicolon: "His campaign received extensive media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." — JFG talk 13:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first proposal creates a non-sequitur (and if it doesn't then we should explain that the reason for the media coverage were the statements). Same for the one with the semicolon. I'm fine with the second two sentence sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. would you be satisfied with the two-sentence version? "His campaign received extensive media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false." — JFG talk 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I could reasonably object. (Although a political speechwriter might prefer: "They were con-tro-ver-sial and con-trary to fact!!!"... --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great; I'll update the article accordingly and we'll see if it sticks… — JFG talk 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

While the two of you happily agreed on a brand new wording and put it into the article "to see if it sticks", you ignored the fact that we had a pretty clear consensus here to say "free" (piped to earned) media. I am OK with your two-sentence format but I would like to see "free" added. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about "His campaign earned extensive free media coverage."? No change in meaning, but it may help some readers understand the sentence better without chasing the link. Otherwise they might wonder whether maybe the media had to give him free coverage under some federal law requiring equal coverage. This wording makes clear that he had to do something to receive it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it was clearer the way it was before (saying or implying that the controversial / false statements were what earned him the coverage). But that might be an overstatement, going beyond the sourcing. This is an improvement and I'll go along with it if the rest of you do. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 05:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Travel Ban in lede
The Supreme Court ruled to (partially) allow it, hopefully we can have a more definitive wording now.

I proposed "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries that was partially implemented." Feel free to suggest any changes. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks decent, but I wonder if mention of the travel ban should be in the lead at all since it is not supported anywhere in the body. PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Make it six countries (as per the second executive order, which superseded the first one). And "partially implemented" doesn't make sense unless the previous court stays are mentioned. How about "...countries; it was delayed by court injunctions, but the Supreme Court allowed partial implementation in June 2017". That may be TMI for the lede. And don't put anything in the lede unless there first is referenced information in the body of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken none of the travel ban stuff is in the body of this article. Just mentioned in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated the number to six countries. It's discussed somewhat in the section "Immigration orders". Power~enwiki (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it now, my search failed me! Though it needs updating for the supreme court changes. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the 'Dismissal of James Comey' section
Someone mass-removed the 'Dismissal of James Comey' section without so much as an edit summary. Could someone please restore it? - MrX 11:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was only moved. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Thanks.- MrX 14:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean we are back to adding a controversies section? PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It should be moved back.- MrX 14:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, looks like someone already did. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination threats against Donald Trump (3rd nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination threats against Donald Trump (3rd nomination). - MrX 18:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation 279
A line in the "Political Affiliations" section asserts that Donald Trump was a Democrat until 1987. The link to the Boston Globe article purporting to show this is dead.

I have seen video of a very young Trump saying he's a Republican, but the full version of that video doesn't appear to be available anymore. I will keep scouring the internet for it.

I believe Trump has been a Republican almost all of his adult life. Because the fact alleged in citation 279 is in dispute, and the link to the citation purporting to prove it is no longer available, I urge that the sentence citing to citation 279 be deleted until better evidence becomes available.

Bug1333 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug1333 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Donald Trump was (briefly) a candidate for the Reform Party in the 2000 election, and won the California primary. Although 3rd party primary elections generally aren't notable, it does prove that he considered himself a member of the Reform Party at that time. I have definitely heard rumors he was a Democrat at some point; though I don't have any sources offhand.  The broken source is likely available on archive.org. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation 282
A line in the "Political Affiliations" section purports that Trump identified as a Democrat from 2001 to 2008, but links to no citation. The next sentence about John McCain cites to citation 282.

Thus, the way it reads now, it looks as though the sentence identifying Trump as a Democrat from 2001-2008 is supported by citation 282. But the article linked in citation 282 makes no mention of Trump's political affiliation in the 2000s.

Until some evidence of Trump's political affiliation in the 2000s emerges, I urge that the sentence asserting that Trump was a Democrat from 2001-2008 be removed.

Bug1333 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is a reference that says he was a Democrat from 2001-2009. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Books in sidebar
Can we have more eyes  on this discussion please: Template talk:Donald Trump series — JFG talk 16:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Russia wording
The sentence about Russian interference recently added to the lede section does not have a stable wording yet. Please comment on — JFG talk 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Russia attempted to influence the election to favor Trump."
Incorrect. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus000 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A discussion about this sentence is under way; you can voice your opinion at — JFG talk 07:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead
I'm not a big fan of the way the lead was recently overhauled (should have been done one paragraph at a time with a separate header and survey for each, and using strikethrough/underline to indicate changes), and I objected during that process. Anyway, the changes have created several difficulties:


 * "His campaign received extensive free media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false." This is choppy writing, and these two sentences should be combined into one sentence as they were previously, because the desire for free media was reportedly a big reason for the controversial statements (or at least the latter contributed to the former), and the free media characterized the statements as controversial or false.  Inserting a semicolon rather than a period would be a good start.✅
 * The discussion about the new lede considered that linking media coverage to Trump's controversial statements was WP:SYNTH. A semicolon is semi-synth, but grammatically better; we shouldn't go further than that. I suppose that readers who think there is a causal relation between both events will be comforted in their beliefs, whereas those who think extended covfefe was mostly due to other reasons will think Wikipedia is super neutral on this. Win-win. — JFG talk 21:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; they're independently important points, and sources show they're related. I don't even know which one is supposed to cause the other. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible coordination between Trump's campaign and the Russian government." Bad syntax makes it sound at first like Trump fired Rosenstein, so insert the word "then" before "Deputy".✅
 * Why do we even mention Rosenstein? "Former CIA Director Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to take charge of the investigation into Russian interference, links with Trump associates and potential obstruction of justice." Covers all bases. — JFG talk 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation." This makes it sound like the ban was because of religion, was permanent, was not appealed to SCOTUS where litigation is ongoing, and was applicable to US citizens coming from these countries.  Better to say something like "He temporarily banned travel of non-U.S. citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries that he deemed to be a security risk, and the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to let the ban proceed."
 * "Russia interfered in the election to support his candidacy." This appears to suggest that the Russians' motive was more to help Trump than to hinder Clinton, and that Russia successfully engaged in electoral fraud.  So, I'd suggest "Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud."  Moved to immediately-preceding talk page section. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the first two proposed changes without any further discussion. The Russia thing is already discussed above and you should comment there. The travel ban sentence is awkward in both versions; I'm neutral as to which is better. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was told above to address these matters in a new section.. That seems appropriate.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, I was referring to "Russian efforts to interfere" directly above this one, not the mega-super-jumbo-thread. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, moved.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with Anything's proposals #3 or #4.
 * Suggestion 3: "sounds like it was because of religion" As a matter of fact the courts issuing the injunctions said that Trump's earlier campaign comments suggested that it WAS because of religion. The lower courts HAVE blocked the travel ban for now, and SCOTUS has not agreed to hear it so don't mention them. The sentence currently in the article is accurate and neutral, and does not need to be modified with a bunch of "temporary" and "security risk" and other justifications for the ban.
 * Suggestion 4: The Russians did a lot more than simply hack (we are still finding out what all they did). Nobody has suggested election fraud which is an entirely different thing, Nobody has claimed (because no one knows and we will never know) whether their actions altered the outcome of the election. Keep the sentence currently in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC) moving to the section above.

I don't know if it would be too long for the lede, but for the travel ban I would word it like: "Trump issued a temporary travel ban on nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries as an attempt to prevent terrorism, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation. A revised ban, which exempted Iraqis and US citizens and permanent residents, was similarly blocked by federal courts and the Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to revert earlier court decisions". The problem with both the original sentence and your suggestion is that they don't make it clear there were two different executive orders, and that SCOTUS is considering the revised ban. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Way too much information for the lede, and especially for a biography. One short, summary sentence for the lede, a few more details in the "presidency" section, with most of the detail in related articles such as "immigration policy". The fact that there were two different executive orders is certainly not important enough for the lede. SCOTUS is not actually considering either version of the ban at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's use the most authoritative and accurate wording: "He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like that a lot. It's short, and short is good. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree; great condensed phrasing. — JFG talk 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better than "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation." But the title of the Order is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States..."  So at least the ostensible reason is security not religion.  I disagree with only mentioning religion and not security.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it, certainly more direct and compact than my suggestion. Although I think "federal courts blocked it" should be at least mentioned to clarify to all readers that the ban is not in effect. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, how about this? He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries with insufficient security controls, but several U.S. courts blocked the measure arguing it was discriminating against Muslims. — JFG talk 23:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pending in SCOTUS, so why not just say SCOTUS is considering whether to let the ban proceed? That implies it's halted.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's all moot: the 90 days have elapsed, and Trump's original justification ("we must figure out how to vet those people") should be fulfilled by now, if customs and immigration service are doing their job. The notable fact today is that federal judges took the rare step of double-guessing the president about what he called a security issue, and what they called a religious discrimination issue. My new summary addresses this central point, wouldn't you agree? — JFG talk 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That wording seems very POV to me. The rationale for the order is in dispute and one should fairly provide the other sides arguments..Casprings (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm suggesting: this wording shows the arguments of both sides: the White House says it's a travel ban for security reasons, the judges say it's a Muslim ban disguised under a security pretext. — JFG talk 00:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JFG, it's not moot, because the district judge in Hawaii froze the 90-day internal review, and later the 9th circuit unfroze it. AKAIK, the 90 days is not up yet, but if it is then SCOTUS can still address a matter capable of repetition yet evading review.  Some federal judges upheld the ban, others rejected it, and the matter is now before SCOTUS, so it's about as unsettled as can be.  Instead of the current "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation" I would support "He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries with purportedly insufficient security controls, but the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the measure unlawfully discriminates against Muslims."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * By "moot", I don't mean the legal process, I mean the effective use of the temporary ban. The White House and DHS said they needed 90 days to straighten up their vetting process, and that in the meantime they deemed it too dangerous to let people from those countries come in (because of fake passports, dysfunctional states, etc.) Now, with all the legal delays, the time they requested has elapsed and Trump should have his cherished "extreme vetting" in place. I'm sure he'll fight the legal battle to the end, but it's moot. Or he lied and really wanted a permanent ban on those countries as a first step towards banning 1.6 billion Muslims! This hypothesis sounds utterly ridiculous to some people and extremely scary to some others. Isn't politics fun? — JFG talk 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JFG, you write "Trump should have his cherished 'extreme vetting' in place." That's factually incorrect, because the Hawaii court slapped an injunction not just on the temporary ban but also on the "internal review" to determine what the temporary ban should be replaced with.  The ban on internal review was only lifted by the Ninth Circuit a week ago.  See "Appeals court allows Trump team to begin vetting review", USA Today (June 11, 2017).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk)}
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of this bit. Looks like an epic political battle indeed! — JFG talk 12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wording of travel ban
The travel ban is certainly lede-worthy but the wording is way too long, and the more we argue details of the legal process, the longer it will get. This becomes excessive for the lede of Trump's biography. What is the weight of this event in his whole life? Even my latest proposal is too long, in reaction to various comments attempting to clarify details. I would suggest trimming all this to say:

Leave all details to the linked articles. Agree? Disagree? — JFG talk 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Thus far" been blocked. It's an active legal case, not a final decision.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, this would be:
 * OK? — JFG talk 12:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Should tell the reader why the courts blocked it.Casprings (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be very difficult because different courts said different things. The Hawaii district court relied on the First Amendment's religion clauses, but the judges of the Ninth circuit instead relied on statutes that purportedly inhibit discrimination based on nationality (as opposed to religion).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to tack "thus far" on the end, especially since it goes against WP:RELTIME. It's fine to say that it was blocked by U.S. courts. If at some point in the future it is unblocked, we modify the wording to say that it was temporarily blocked by U.S. courts. ~Awilley (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but it would not prevent us from mentioning that the matter is on appeal. Anyway, SCOTUS will probably speak to the matter tomorrow.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but it would not prevent us from mentioning that the matter is on appeal. Anyway, SCOTUS will probably speak to the matter tomorrow.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal. There is a lot more that could be said on the subject, but not in the lede of his biography. I would suggest a few tweaks to the proposed wording: "He ordered a temporary travel ban on citizens from six countries, but it has been blocked by U.S. courts." "which was blocked" sounds too final. I think "temporary" is enough without specifying ninety days. Your wikilink goes to the wrong travel ban, it should be the second (current) order #13780. That ban applies to only six countries. (He dropped Iraq.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Updated wording about travel ban
The article was updated after the Supreme Court announcement. (Basically all the discussion above became obsolete.) The article now says "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries that has been partially implemented." Is that wording OK with everybody? It is with me. The details about court rulings can be left for the article text. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Expanded war efforts?
The sentence U.S. war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. was added to the lede. I oppose this content for three reasons: Accordingly, I suggest to remove this sentence entirely.. — JFG talk 21:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Prior to this addition, there was absolutely no mention of those events in the article body, except the one-off missile firing in Syria; now some people may want to shoe-horn the information to the body, but lede must follow body, not vice versa;
 * 2) This is not a widely covered part of Trump's first few months as president, therefore undue for the lede of his bio; maybe worth discussing for the lede of Presidency of Donald Trump;
 * 3) Any effective expansion is minor; the key difference outlined by sources is Trump's expanded delegation of powers to his generals.
 * Remove per BLP, BURDEN, and PUBLICFIGURE. The CinC is well-known living person, so if we can't find multiple high-quality RS documenting each allegation or incident, we leave it out. Neither Salon nor The Agenda is a high-quality RS. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Abstain Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration makes no clear statements on anything. The 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis isn't mentioned there, and it appears to be mostly a grab-bag of campaign positions and official news stories. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Include and add to body One, it is simply false that the expansion of the various US wars isn't being covered by media. A simple google news search of the the words "Yemen Afghanistan Somalia Trump" reveal stories such as:
 * The United States is stumbling into another decade of war
 * Civilian oversight of military: How Trump is testing its minimum levels
 * US military carries out first offensive airstrike in Somalia under Trump's new authorities
 * And on and one..
 * What may be true is that currently the US public (and many wikipedia editors) are not that interested in these stories. That may be true, but the fact is that the quick expansion of these wars under Trump is likely externally significant historically and deserve to be in any encyclopedia article about Trump. I think WP:10YT firmly apples here and that this should be included, despite the publics general disinterest. As many editors point out, this shouldn't be a newspaper and should have its eye towards long term relevance. Casprings (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't say it's not covered, I said it's much less covered than other stuff. Second, we can't judge today what will be significant tomorrow or in 10 years. Third, there is no major expansion of war efforts yet. Conclusion: undue weight for the lede of Trump's bio; better suited for Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. — JFG talk 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this not currently a major expansion? We have two new areas of active hostilities (Somalia and Yemen), we are putting bases in Syria and now regularly engaging the government of Syria (shot down a SU-22, etc), and we are increasing our troop size in Afghanistan by 40 percent. What do you call that?Casprings (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I call that undue weight for Donald Trump's bio, borderline off-topic because we never heard Trump say "I'm gonna bomb the hell out of Somalia". By all means go add this to the other more relevant articles. — JFG talk 00:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing how his statements or non-statements are relavent. He is POTUS and it is occurring. Are we really arguing a major expansion of war under a person is undue for that persons bio? I don't buy that for a second. Should it be added other places? Sure. But if we are in agreement that this is a major expansion(which you don't dispute above), how is it not due for his bio?Casprings (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, we must agree to disagree. Let's see what our fellow editors say. — JFG talk 00:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, also: other proposals to include Trump's foreign policy actions were rejected in the "new lede" discussion: Riyadh speech, arms deal, NATO position, North Korea standoff, Syria and Afghanistan bomb strikes. I don't see why we should single out the topics you personally deem more important (full disclosure: I deem his Riyadh speech more important when I look into my 10-year crystal ball – at least there was a Trump orb there! ). — JFG talk 00:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They were. We must include the most important facts here. The TPP, Paris, etc. A US expansion of war thoughout muliple countries is on that level.Casprings (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "What may be true is that currently the US public (and many wikipedia editors) are not that interested in these stories." I understand your perspective here, which I share. Wikipedia needs to get more people from the Middle East interested in working on this and other articles. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove Facts should not be presented in order to push particular views, in this case that Trump has changed course from the Obama administration. Caspring's first source, which is an opinion piece in WaPo probably summarizes the information more accurately:  "The United States is stumbling into another decade of war."  I wouldn't mind if the lead actually said that, something like Trump has continued the military approach to the Middle East of previous presidents.  TFD (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. For comparison data, see Obama, at Foreign policy. "Early in his presidency, Obama ... announced an increase in U.S. troop levels [of] 17,000 military personnel [up from 15,000 = a 113% increase]... In March 2015, Obama ... authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis in their military intervention in Yemen." His administration's War in Somalia gets a section in a separate article. "The Administration ... deployed special operations forces, drones, air strikes and some military advisers." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those details. This goes to show that Trump is mostly continuing the Obama administration's war policy (adjusting a few operational parameters), which itself was probably continuing the Bush administration's war policy. Nothing to mention in Trump's biography, but certainly worth mentioning in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and Presidency of Donald Trump. Let's drop this please. — JFG talk 07:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. These are major changes from the Obama administration and we can certainly debate the details with WP:RS. That said, when he took over there were 9,400 troops in Afghanistan; he added 4K. We are now putting bases in Syria and engaging Syrian government forces. We have also greatly expanded the authorities and the number of bombs dropping in Somilia and Yeman. Whereas Obama was slowly pulling US troops out of conflict, this is a major reveal and should be covered.Casprings (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you covered it in the relevant articles first? Please do that and get consensus there, then perhaps come back here and add something to the body, get consensus for that, and finally it will be time to argue whether it's lede-worthy for this bio. — JFG talk 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the data. You appear to be saying that the 2017 Trump troop increase (43%) is about a third as large as the 2009 Obama troop increase (113%). And your "simple google news search of the words "Yemen Afghanistan Somalia Trump"" must have shown you that the article is giving that aspect of his life too much weight. (Compare with a news search of the words "Donald Trump".) WP:BALASP policy requires that we tag that sentence for POV and then remove it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Casprings, if you think that Trump's war policy marks a shift from Obama, then you need a source that says that. Setting out facts to prove the shift is implict synthesis.  Your first source, the WaPo says that Trump is making the same mistakes as his predecessors.  TFD (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

'US war efforts' material is parked here
This material has been removed from the lead per NPOV (§ PROPORTION) and parked here for further discussion.



How conspicuous is this aspect of Trump's life in the global body of high-quality source material about him? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 05:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 16:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski conflict
When the first tweets were posted, my position was to keep the content in the social media article. At this point, however, I would be in support of a separate article for the ongoing public conflict. It has received a large, bipartisan amount of criticism and has only escalated, several days in. Let's discuss this, so we can understand consensus, so if it is created, we wouldn't have to waste time dealing with an imminent AfD. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I would have said definitely no. Today he re-doubled today after all the criticism. Now I’d say wait and see. Objective3000 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking here, where there are a lot of eyes. This is the controversy of the day. Yes, it has received a ton of coverage, as he undoubtedly intended. In a week we will move on to the next controversy. Not worth a mention in this biographical article, for sure. Not worth a separate article, as lacking historic significance. Social media mention is probably appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. On the subject, we'll see. I think the devil in the details is the *projected* threat of blackmail, on top of Trump doubling down. In all likelihood, the blackmail talk will amount to absolutely nothing, but I think we should keep a weary eye on this topic. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 19:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say leave it out for now, but it sparking rumours of a possible impeachment so it is worth keeping an eye on . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wishful thinking. Not gonna happen, not over this. The comments are from a few JAFOs, not from anyone in power. And BTW they are not calling for impeachment, they are calling for using the 25th Amendment. Still not gonna happen. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Trivia. Not significant weight for this article relative to the other content, and really just not WP:BLP kind of content.   Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a few steps above trivia, considering the disproportionately large amount of acknowledgement it's receiving from the legislative branch. But, I think the real test will be to see if it holds water beyond the weekend. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 22:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here we define "trivia" by how RS treat a matter, not by how insignificant it might otherwise seem. If multiple RS treat it seriously and in depth, then it ceases to be "trivia", as far as Wikipedia, its editors' opinions, and all other normal definitions of the term, are concerned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the article, ignore it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifer The trivial nature has now been demonstrated as coverage moved to a newer tweet (About CNN) so this one was not enduring. By WPNOTNEWS leave it out. Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree it's not for this article. It belongs in some other article which documents the history of his controversies, lying, and attacks on the press. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of people use Twitter regularly for going public. Maybe not daily, but there is no means to restrict Trump on this. If there is an article on the use of Twitter by leading statesmen and female statespersons, so you can mention Trump there. Without explicit accusations of lying. Very probably you would not have sufficient evidence for this. I hope Mandruss won't delete what I wrote again. I was not amused. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s the messages, not the medium. (Sorry McLuhan.) Objective3000 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would be opposed to having a separate article for the conflict, unless there is a new development that stops everyone dead in their tracks. I think the section from the article about Trump's social media presence will suffice for now. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 21:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Campaign against clean energy
I added the following text but I was reverted by User:Joobo. Can we revise this wording so we can include the content into the article? Thanks.

Campaign against clean energy
Donald Trump has repeatedly denounced wind power. In his twitter account, Donald Trump tweeted: "Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people's health." He aggressively campaigned against the Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm in Scotland. In a commercial, Donald Trump compares wind farms to terrorism. Donald Trump also denounced wind power while campaigning in Iowa in June 2017, stating: "I don't want to just hope the wind blows to light up your homes and your factories... as the birds fall to the ground."

Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But, your sources are poor, and this would probably work better at: Political positions of Donald Trump. Objective3000 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Objective here, would be better in political positions. PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe my sources are sufficient. Furthermore, some of Donald Trump's political positions are included in the main Donald Trump article already. I believe the importance of Trump administration energy policy more than justifies a mention in the main article, rather than just in political positions article. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources mostly predate his campaign and presidency other than "We are Iowa" which I am not really familiar with. Has he spoken on it recently? PackMecEng (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Donald Trump's most recent statement about wind energy was on June 22, 2017 at a campaign rally in Iowa. Donald Trump talked about energy policy more recently, praising nuclear power as "renewable" and praising "clean beautiful coal" a few days ago but he didn't mention wind power at all. Furthermore, the America First Energy Plan doesn't mention wind at all, it only endorses the 3 biggest polluters: coal, oil, and natural gas. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a place for this information at Wikipedia, but it is not in this article, which is a biography. You might try Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See "Why CNN ‘Assault’ Tweet Should Surprise No-One," BBC News. Trump has been acting the role of a "hero" character in professional wrestling. A lot of what he says is meant as performance art. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nominator's note: I feel that having a stand-alone article for this is WP:UNDUE, and do not expect people on the talk page to be interested in merge proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Header photograph change
Is there any reasonable explanation why someone substituted the official government portrait of Donald Trump (i.e, the same one that hangs on post office walls) for a photograph from a private citizen/organisation?

Stevo D (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please read Current Consensus #19 above. If you read all the linked threads you will understand that the photo to which you refer had to be deleted. The photo we are using was made by a U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant for the Department of Defense., which is hardly a private organization. Nothing is as it seems. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Striking part of my response. This subject is nasty enough and there was no reason to take it out on you. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Professional wrestling motif
According to the BBC, Trump has been acting like a professional-wrestling "hero" character going after "villain" characters.


 * Mr Trump's CNN-wrestling video ... is classic Trump. He has shown time and time again that he views politics as performance art; another reality television competition where the more drama and conflict there is, the better... Throughout his campaign he treated the political process like a World Wrestling Entertainment match.

Anthony Zurcher, "Why CNN ‘Assault’ Tweet Should Surprise No-One," BBC News, July 2, 2017. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want it to be included in the article? Lorstaking (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting interpretation, but I would say no to putting in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. BBC has the highest 'trust level' of any widely known news source. "Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group", Pew Research Center. Its information relates directly to Trump as a (1) professional-wrestling host, (2) campaigner, and (3) president. The author points out a significant connection, and his information is undisputed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the BBC is a highly trusted source, that the article is interesting and telling, and it’s difficult to argue with its premise. I’m just bothered by analysis of this type from one source. Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It happens to be his most retweeted tweet, so it's among the most notable (or "most" notable) of his tweets. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As am I. And WP:PUBLICFIGURE does say we need two RS for any material that's likely to be disputed. But we can use BBC as a second RS for any material already in the body about (1) his participation in Wrestlemania or (2) his efforts to use conflict and drama as tools in politics. We can limit our use of the quoted passage to the citations (as a ref quote). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lede
User:Awilley, I disagree with your two recent edits to the lede. The sentence "Russia attempted to interfere in the election.", which you removed, has been the subject of a great deal of discussion, which you can see still ongoing on this page; this version is a temporary consensus but we think an RfC may eventually be needed. And IMO removing it leaves the other sentence - "to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election," - without any context. (You are right, of course, that the second wikilink isn't needed).

And IMO the phrase "and any related matters" is very important in describing the special counsel's mandate. It shows that the mandate isn't limited to Russian interference and Trump links - he is allowed to investigate anything that arises. And according to reports he has already added "potential obstruction of justice" to his inquiry - an example of a "related matter". --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Awilley, I agree with MelanieN on both points. You may not have been aware that discussion are ongoing. We need to reach a consensus before changing that wording. I do agree that the second wikilink isn't needed, so go ahead on that part. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The "attempted to interfere" language is drawn from the original source (the Homeland Security et al. report). Also, I think the legal term "potential" obstruction would mean obstruction that is 'capable of coming into being' (rather than obstruction that is 'capable of being investigated'). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Potential obstruction of justice" was my term, and I wasn't proposing that it be added to the article. I was just using it as an example of a "related matter" that the special counsel is investigating. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the continuing discussion on that particular sentence. I had just read the lead and that sentence stuck out at me as poor style... like it had been shoehorned into the middle of the paragraph. Me saying "Bold edit" in my edit summary was an invitation for anyone who disagreed to revert, discuss, or improve. I think we should be able to work this out in a way that addresses your concerns and mine, hopefully without the need for an RfC (please). Reiterating some of what was in my edit summary, my concerns were:
 * An overly short sentence in the middle of a paragraph that is not strongly linked to the sentences around it
 * Russian interference split between the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lead, and with both instances linking to the Russia article
 * Ending the lead with the vague "and any related matters" that doesn't communicate any specific information (minor issue for me, willing to cede)
 * And just to make sure I understand your concerns, let me try to summarize them here:
 * Consensus is needed to change the sentence
 * Saying that a special counsel was appointed "to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election" doesn't adequately presuppose that there was Russian interference
 * There are actually significant "related matters" they are investigating beyond Russian interference and campaign ties to Russia
 * Is that fair? Based on that, I think we could reach a reasonable compromise by keeping the short sentence out but adding some more context to the last sentence. Here are some ideas in the following table. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think Proposed 1 is the best and is an improvement over what is there now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've boldly implemented Proposed 1, with the understanding that it's still a bold edit and anybody could still revert to the old status quo. Moving forward, what would you think about removing the words "his predecessor"? I'm not sure how significant it is that Mueller was Comey's predecessor in the FBI, and it's worded ambiguously so that the "his" could refer to Trump or Comey. ~Awilley (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have thought the same for a long time. I would prefer "former FBI director". --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Repeating "FBI Director Comey" and "former FBI Director Mueller" just a few words apart would be awkward prose. I don't think there's any confusion for readers as to whose predecessor Mueller is; in case a reader never heard of him, they can hover on his name and see his credentials. — JFG talk 15:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd go with Current. Also, I may at some point aspire to change the "Russian interference" language so it accords better with the ODNI assessment (which uses the term "influence" 66 times and "interfere" 2 times). The most authoritative wording might be something along the lines of "Russia's attempts to influence..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have longed considered "Russia's meddling" to be good wording backed up by many RS, but "interference" is also good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Original is sharp, clear and neutral. — JFG talk 08:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Current too iff the previous sentence about Russian interference is not restored. — JFG talk 14:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For the moment I would keep the current phrasing.--Joobo (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian efforts to interfere
Let's find out which statement most fairly and conservatively represents the balance of perspectives of high-quality sources worldwide: (1) "Russia interfered in the election"; (2) "Russia attempted to interfere in the election"; (3) "Russia was accused of interfering in the election"; or (4) "Russia was accused of attempting to interfere in the election".

We should consider established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. For the moment, let's focus on statements (1) and (4). If the two viewpoints are more-or-less equally conspicuous among high-quality sources, we should describe both. Let's try to find an authoritative tertiary source that does this for us in a disinterested way.

Meanwhile, here's a compilation of the relevant statements in the body text: ( a ) [three persons stated that the Russian government] "attempted to intervene"; ( b ) [one person affirmed that it] "interfered"; ( c ) [one person told Congress of its] "efforts to interfere"; ( d ) [two persons called the accusation a] "false narrative [of] interference [or a] fictitious explanation"; and ( e ) [one organization] "accused [it] of trying to influence" [but three persons or organizations] "denied the allegations". --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I personally prefer the phrasing "During the election, Russia was accused of interfering to support his campaign". The problem is that "interfere" is a terribly vague word.  It could mean altering vote counts (which, even after some recent testimony, reliable sources unanimously agree did not occur), or Russia paying trolls on Twitter, or Vladimir Putin saying an equivalent of "I like Trump" on national television (and reliable sources unanimously agree that Putin preferred Trump to be elected over Clinton).  If we can't refer to a specific case of interference in the lede, we should mention only the non-controversial fact: that the accusation was prominent and not entirely baseless. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 3 for sure. The original wording simply states that Russia did interfere in the election as if it is an undisputable fact. The US intelligence community accused the Russian govt. of interference, but there's no conclusive proof of that, at least not now. Option 3 is more neutral and accurate. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a disinterested tertiary source that supports (2). From "United States Presidential Election of 2016", Britannica.com:
 * "Federal agents strongly suspected that Russian actors were WikiLeaks’ sources... The daily drip clearly interfered with the Clinton campaign’s efforts..."
 * "Clinton supporters [were] variously blaming ... Russian computer hacking ... for her defeat."
 * "The heads of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had engaged in a systematic effort to influence the election in Trump’s favour."

Conclusion: It would appear that Russia did "attempt to influence" the election. ( See Merriam-Webster Unabridged: "effort. 1. Expenditure of energy toward a particular end; forceful attempt." ) --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other problems too with the sentence in question. The article currently says: "Russia interfered in the election to support his candidacy."  This appears to suggest that the Russians' motive was more to help Trump than to hinder Clinton, and that Russia successfully engaged in electoral fraud.  So, I'd suggest " U.S. intelligence agencies are confident that Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud. "&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the version that's supported by sources. They did interfere to help Trump AND hinder Clinton (are you saying there's a difference?). And no, it doesn't imply they "successfully engaged in electoral fraud". That's moving the goalposts. First it was "they didn't interfere" then it was "we don't know if they interfered" then it was "they allegedly interfered" then it was "ok they interfered but only to sow chaos not to help Trump" then it was "ok they interfered to help Trump but Trump's associates didn't know about it" then it was "ok they interfered and some Trump associates knew about it but they didn't collude with the" then it was "ok they interfered and some Trump associates colluded with them but Trump himself didn't" and... that's where we are now. Bottomline is the text DOES NOT say "election outcome was altered by election fraud". So what are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And this "though there is no evidence..." is total WP:OR and POV. You should know better than to even propose it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see yet again WP:NPA, which bars "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."  It is untrue that the intelligence community believed Russia's efforts significantly affected the outcome of the 2016 election. Quite the opposite.  This is appropriately conveyed by saying "U.S. intelligence agencies are confident that Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What accusations are you talking about? That you are claiming that the sentence says - err, sorry, "implies" - something which it doesn't say or imply and are trying to use this as an excuse for removing it? Well, that's right above in your comment so there's no "lack of evidence".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am talking, for example, about your accusation that I am engaged in "total WP:OR and POV. You should know better than to even propose it." You provide a long litany of quotes that I never uttered --- I was not even involved in the discussion, and yet you accuse me of somehow moving goalposts ("That's moving the goalposts. First it was 'they didn't interfere' then it was 'we don't know if they interfered' then it was 'they allegedly interfered' then it was 'ok they interfered but only to sow chaos not to help Trump' then it was 'ok they interfered to help Trump but Trump's associates didn't know about it' then it was 'ok they interfered and some Trump associates knew about it but they didn't collude with the' then it was 'ok they interfered and some Trump associates colluded with them but Trump himself didn't' and... that's where we are now. Bottomline is the text DOES NOT say 'election outcome was altered by election fraud". So what are you talking about?'").  Trying to communicate civilly with you is a lot like being on the other side of the fan when it hits the fan.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, that VOA article is pretty bad. The headline doesn't even match the article text, nevermind that it's cherry picking Johnson's statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the VOA report, "they said there is no evidence that Moscow was able to change the vote count." A million other reliable sources say the same thing, but you just want our lead to say the Russians interfered, without even slightly hinting to our readers that it made no difference in the outcome.  To me, that seems like a misleading way to write the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should stick to a verifiable summary of what we know which is that Russia interfered in the election. Some of the details like their hacking into election systems, manipulating voter data in a county database, stealing nearly 90,000 voter records, attempting to co-opt members of Trump's campaign, and possible collusion by Trump satellites can be briefly covered later in the article.- MrX 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Russians did a lot more than simply hack (we are still finding out what all they did). Nobody has suggested election fraud which is an entirely different thing, Nobody has claimed (because no one knows and we will never know) whether their actions altered the outcome of the election. I think we should keep the sentence currently in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Given what we know right now, the current sentence best describes the situation. If the situation changes we'll update it. But pretending that the sentence says something that it doesn't say as Anythingyouwant is doing, as an excuse to try and remove it is a strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The US Intelligence Community (USIC) was calling them "alleged hacked e-mails". Not "authenticated hacked e-mails" (or even just "hacked e-mails"). It's possible that they may be "leaked e-mails"; all we know is that USIC isn't saying it knows. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this at the relevant article. Most sources say they did. Hell, Trump and Tillerson themselves admitted they did, just deny "colluding" in it. Waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it interference or influence? And who are the "they", beyond "Russians"? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now the article says "interfered". Why does there need to be any "beyond"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are no additional details as to what "Most sources" are describing, this topic probably isn't relevant to this article at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We go by the RS. Russian interference are the words used by the RS. Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Other words used by the RS include "Russian effort to influence", and so forth. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting your point. The sources say "interfered", we say "interfered" and we have an entire article titled "interfered". And from that somehow people get that... this isn't relevant to this article? Sorry, not following that illogic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Russia was accused of interfering" is an undisputed fact. "Russia interfered to help Trump" is still a disputed assertion, like it or not. Best leave the details to the linked article, and keep things super-short in the lede of Trump's bio, for neutrality's sake. — JFG talk 21:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Russia was accused because they did it! I can't believe people are still trying to add expressions of doubt to this when there is no reasonable doubt. Russia interfered with the U.S. elections to get Trump elected, to prevent Clinton from being elected, and to undermine U.S. democracy. Those are facts that are no longer in dispute among mainstream sources, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Federal law enforcement, and the U.S. intelligence community.- MrX 22:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You may believe they did it, some other people may believe they did not. There are RS going both ways, and 100 shades of grey in between, from "Russia wants to destroy US democracy" to "Dems are looking for excuses". If we're going to details, that becomes undue for Trump's bio (as was argued in the RfC discussing this a couple months ago). Fine for the lead of the 2016 election page. — JFG talk 23:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying that there are current reliable sources that still say that Russia did not interfere with the U.S. election? We don't have to go into extensive detail in this article. Just say "Russia interfered in the election" and "Trump tried to interfere with the investigation of his campaign's role".- MrX 23:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Check Britannica, which says "US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had engaged in a systematic effort to influence the election." ("effort. Expenditure of energy toward a particular end; forceful attempt." Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) The facts no longer in dispute: Russia tried to influence it and failed. The election outcome is valid, and Trump and Clinton got there on their own. (As they both have acknowledged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I said "interfere", not "influence", so we are evidently in agreement here.- MrX 00:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Not so. Check Black's Law Dictionary, then see whether you agree with my argument below.
 * I. "A influenced B" suggests "A induced B to change his decision". (B did change his decision.)
 * II. "A attempted to influence B" suggests "A tried to influence B, but didn't". (B didn't change his decision.)
 * III. "A interfered in [= meddled in] B's business" suggests "A tried to influence or did influence B". (B may or may not have changed his decision.)
 * IV. "A attempted to interfere in B's business" suggests "A tried to influence B, but didn't". (B didn't change his decision.)

Ideally the lead should suggest only that the Russians attempted to change the outcome, not that they may have changed it. Version II informs the reader better than do Versions I, III, or IV. (And Wikipedia's purpose is to 'better inform the reader'.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No. They "interfered". Whether they "influenced" is an open question. You're acting like "interfered" implies "influenced". It doesn't. Version II is just weaselin'.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, "attempted to change the outcome" is vastly inferior than just saying "interfered", and it borders on original research. It misleads readers by suggesting a very narrow scope, when in fact we know that Russia successfully hacked into election systems, manipulated voter data in a county database, stole nearly 90,000 voter records, and so on. Of course, there is also the emerging evidence of collusion by Trump satellites, or maybe it was just a remarkable coincidence that so many of them them lied about their ties to Russia. We'll see.- MrX 11:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's tweet is probably more of a re-hashing of the recent Breitbart  or Washington Post  pieces, rather than being intended as a statement of fact. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy." - This needs to be removed. It's unsourced, unproven rumor rooted in baseless political accusation and bias. There is currently no evidence for such a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:63 (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Several more proposals on Russia
There doesn't seem to be any consensus yet. I support removing this sentence from the lede if there is no consensus to be found; Russia is already discussed in the Comey dismissal sentence. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A new version, from, which I don't support myself: "There is emerging evidence that the Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy, but it has not been fully substantiated and is currently the subject of an ongoing investigation." Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A new proposal from me: "Russia attempted to influence the election results." It's shorter. I don't know whether they interfered or not, and I don't know whether "attempting to interfere" implies anything happened or not, but "attempt to influence" seems well-defined. They clearly did something, and it doesn't imply whether or not it mattered. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A (very different) proposal: "Several figures in Trump's campaign resigned due to undisclosed ties to Russia". The meaning is different than the above, but it is factual and related to Russia. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that any phrase we insert must be both short and neutral, and this may be a challenge! (See aborted RfC from March about this for some hints.) I like your proposal "Russia attempted to influence the election results" but that fails to mention any connection with Trump, which is strange in Trump's bio. I would amend it to "Russia attempted to influence the presidential election in support of Trump's candidacy." Not sure if that may be considered neutral, but that's the gist of what the intelligence reports have been saying since August 2016. — JFG talk 21:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lede; it doesn't feel necessary with the "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." sentence there. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence on Russia should be returned, ASAP. The mention of Russia now has consensus.Casprings (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, even if there's some disagreement as to what the proper wording should be, there's no reason to remove this entirely, since, as Casprings points out, it has consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article body gives it a subtopic weight of 0.011. So the article editors don't appear to consider it particularly important at this time. Maybe the consensus has changed? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What to say in the lede?
Since this discussion started, various sentences about Russian interference were added, tweaked and removed in the lead section paragraph about the election. There seems to be local consensus to say something but no consensus on what to say. I think we should come up with a reasonably-worded short and neutral mention, and then submit it to RfC to cement the consensus. Here are a few proposals that have been floated (not looking at the longer ones): There is a common structure to all these proposals, and I believe we can assemble an appropriate wording if we choose among the following Lego blocks: What would be your preferred wording combination to accurately represent the facts? Also, which "Lego blocks" would you approve or reject? — JFG talk 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Russia was accused of interfering in the election in support of his candidacy.
 * Russia attempted to interfere in the election to support Trump.
 * The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.
 * Russia attempted to influence the election in favor of Trump.
 * A1. Russia / A2. The Russian government / A3. Russian hackers
 * B1. interfered in the election / B2. was accused of interfering / B3. attempted to interfere / B4. attempted to influence the election
 * C1. in support of his candidacy / C2. to support Trump / C3. in favor of Trump / C4. (nothing)

Survey

 * A1/B2/ C1 C4: "Russia was accused of interfering in the election in support of his candidacy ." I would also accept B3, B4 and C3. I would oppose A2 (no sufficient proof of this) and C4 (must make the connection with Trump or this becomes undue for his bio) . — JFG talk 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per and, I agree that C4 would be better than C1. If we start connecting the Russian intervention to Donald Trump in the lead, then we must go into lots of detail explaining that this collusion story started when he made sarcastic comments on Clinton's emails, that only some of his associates are currently under investigation and that he has contradicted himself several times by saying "I love Putin; we get along very well" and "I have never met Putin, and he better behave". On balance, silence is the wiser option. — JFG talk 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A1/B3/ C1 C4. "Russia attempted to interfere in the election in support of his candidacy ." Many other combinations are also acceptable. I would oppose B2 (the evidence has gone beyond accusation) and B1 (makes it sound like their interference was effective, which is not known and will never be known). I would oppose C4, per JFG . --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. And I would also be OK with the word "intervene" which is what the article says now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: based on Dervorguilla's comments below, I have decided I would be OK with C4 and in fact might prefer it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A1/B3/C4: "Russia attempted to interfere in the election." Verifiable, accurate, concise. I think most people can make the connection to Trump! More significantly: nowhere does the original source (Homeland Security) suggest that Russia had no interest in helping Sanders too. And the Time story indicates that Putin likely wanted to embarrass Clinton more than he wanted to support Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A2/B2/C3: "The Russian government was accused of interfering in favor of Trump." Anything other than B2 would make a complete mockery of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Many editors here believe strongly that the Russian government interfered in the elections, but writing that personal belief into the article as fact, when it is not an established fact, would be beyond the pale. Wikipedia can't become a place where editors' personal political convictions trump maintaining a neutral encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I fear we've already crossed that threshold in American politics-related articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A1/B1/C4: While there are plenty of sources tying the interference to Putin, A1 is safer as it includes more RS. I would go with B1 as it matches most RS. Interfered in does not mean effectively interfered. I think C1, C2 and C3 are all true. I’d just go with C4 for now as per the lyric “You say it best when you say nothing at all”. Objective3000 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A2/B1/ C2 The Russian government interfered in the election to support Trump. A2: WP:RS's state that Putin directed the efforts. Clearly the Russian government. B1: The interfered in the election. How much they influenced the election and if they changed the outcome is unknown. C4: They were supporting Trump and didn't want to see Clinton as President. This is backed up by literally hundreds of WP:RSes. WP:NOTCENSOR and this is why it is important for this article.Casprings (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Someone removed the sentence "Russia attempted to influence the election to favor Trump." from the lede, with the edit summary "Unsourced, blatant original research". As we know, there is plenty of sourcing, which is spelled out in a section of this article, as well as in a whole separate article. This is not original research and it has been in the article for a long time. I have restored it while we discuss the wording. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's how the Obama administration worded it. (Emphasis added.)
 * The U.S. Intelligence Community ... is confident that the Russian Government directed the ... compromises of e-mails from US persons and ... political organizations. The ... disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails ... are intended to interfere with the US election process.


 * We could add this information to the body: Putin believed that Clinton had tried to interfere with the 2011 Russian presidential election.


 * The leaks began three days before the Democratic convention; and Homeland Security has absolutely nothing to say about whether Russia was seeking (A) to promote both Sanders and Trump; (B) just to promote Trump; or (C) just to injure Clinton. I don't think the lead needs to say either. (Most RT propaganda stories published around that time supported Sanders and Stein, opposed Clinton, and opposed Trump.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think that Putin started this campaign because he hated Clinton. That hatred is well documented. He started it even before he knew Trump would be the nominee, and I think he (like everybody) thought Trump had no chance of actually winning. You make a good case for leaving out the "to help Trump" phrase. This biography is no place to go into all the details about Putin's motivation. I do think we should keep the wording "interfere with the election" or "intervene in the election", without going into details like hacking. We have established that it was more than just hacking. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Seeing no comments for 3 days and local agreement along the A1/B3/C4 variant, I have applied it temporarily to the article. However, this is a weak consensus among just 3 people from an informal survey, and I think we still need to submit the new Russia sentence to a well-advertised RfC in order to cement consensus. How do you think we should proceed? — JFG talk 05:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I still support removing this sentence entirely, considering it is referenced in the Comey sentence later on. I would recommend people read Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as a far more concrete example of "Russia interfering in elections". If it is kept, this wording seems fine. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding to JFG: It does appear that RfC will be the only way to get the level of participation needed for something like this. If you frame it as up-or-down for A1/B3/C4, I think it's likely to be down as more than half will have some objection to some part of it. I think you'd have take the same Lego approach with the RfC and expect at least two rounds of !voting. As we know, establishing clear consensus, always difficult, is a b**** with more than two options. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We're leaving out the part of relevance to THIS article! There were three known reasons for the election interference mentioned in the best RS, and it is the third one which must be mentioned here. Here they are in the chronological order they happened:
 * Putin initially personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances;
 * He also wanted to undermine public faith in the US democratic process;
 * Only after it became evident that Trump had a chance, because Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, he then acted to help Trump win.
 * The third is the one we leave out, but it's the only one really relevant for this article, and it's significant enough that it must be mentioned. There is a good reason Trump hates that fact and doesn't want to see it in this article or elsewhere. He thinks he won without any help. Whether that's true or not, Putin did try to help him. That's what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pure speculation on your part, or on the part of bloggers. Have any of these people talked to Putin directly about this matter? Power~enwiki (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki, I don't speculate about such matters. I get my information from RS. You should check the sources at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It's pretty solidly documented that these were Putin's three objectives, and in that order. We can use the sources which are used there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's useful to get your perspective here. You noted, "That's what RS say." Many do say that; others don't, though. In your opinion, which among all of these sources is the most authoritative? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dervorguilla, the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article uses many sources. Here are a few good ones of relevance.
 * "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (Cited widely in many RS)
 * Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 US election - documents, Reuters
 * Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault, The Washington Post
 * BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Power~enwiki that this three-point history is flawed. As Power points out, we don't know Putin's thinking. More to the point, "hurt Hillary" and "help Trump" are not separate objectives; they are two sides of the same coin. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But we don't care what Putin thinks. Our allegiance is to what RS say. They present it in that order because Trump was seen as an outsider at first, so the first objectives were more to hurt Clinton and sow discord and distrust. (That's why, at that stage, hurting Hillary and helping Trump were not "two sides of the same coin". There were many other GOP candidates, but only one Hillary, whom Putin hates and fears.) When Trump's chances became more obvious, the emphasis to help Trump became more clearly focused.
 * MelanieN, you edit at the "Russian interference" article, so you should know this. This isn't news or speculation at this point. Those three objectives are summarized in the very first paragraph there. Regardless of what's there, we must include what's relevant HERE, and it's only the third part which is of relevance, and yet it's that part we leave out. That makes no sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking here about the lede sentence - of a biography yet. That's not a place for laying out lots of context or explanation. The exposition of Putin's motives can go in the article text, and if it requires a lot of explanation, in a spinoff article. Putin interfered for many reasons. IMO "helping Trump" was a minor reason, in part because he (like everybody) undoubtedly assumed Hillary would win. Thoughtful sources have said that his actual goal was to make sure that Hillary's presidency would be difficult, controversial, ineffective - under domestic attack from the left (Sanders) and the right (Congress, still screaming about her email server and potential impeachment, and Trump, a loose cannon who could have made all kinds of trouble as a defeated candidate). I suspect Putin was as surprised as anyone when Trump won, but must have been happy, having cultivated Trump for years and seeded his inner circle with many pro-Russia people. Sorry, all that is off topic and potentially FORUM. The bottom line is, I initially agreed that we should say "to help Trump" in the lede, but I have become persuaded by this discussion that it is more complicated than that and we should leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely familiar with the purpose of a lead, and of course we don't "lay out lots of context or explanation. The exposition" IS already in the article text, and the part that's relevant is also there. The only part that's relevant for the lead is that Putin did it partially to help Trump, yet we mention the interference without mentioning the part that's relevant. That makes no sense
 * User:JFG should revert their change (and maybe use my suggested bolded wording below), because that part is the only part that should stay. We shouldn't just leave the vague "Russia attempted to interfere in the election." We should mention the part of "why" which is relevant for this article:
 * "Russia attempted to interfere in the election, partially because Putin favored Trump over Clinton."
 * The details and sources are in this section: #Russian interference in election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, well, you have made your point, repeatedly and strongly. And you have cited three sources, above. Discussing the sources: I can't find where the Intelligence Community analysis supports your thesis and I'm not going to read through 25 pages to find it; could you pull out a quote? In the Reuters article I find this: "A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said." That's pretty much my point, not yours. The Obama's Secret article says Putin's goals were "to defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump" and "Putin was working to elect Trump." That's some support for the three-point history.


 * JFG added what he did because three people had supported it and at that point nobody had opposed. You haven't convinced me to add your proposed language. Let's ask the other people who felt that "supporting Trump" should not be in the sentence. We do have to respect consensus here. Pinging  --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I fear that my three point summary will lead us astray from what's important here, which is only the third point. Let's stick to that in further discussion. Okay?

We need to mention the interference in relation to Putin's favoring Trump over Clinton. That's the part that's relevant for this article. That's my main point. Leaving out mention of that in the lead makes no sense. There are many very RS which mention that Putin worked toward getting Trump elected, usually in the context of his dislike of Clinton. (Other sources mention it in the context of his wanting a candidate whom he could control by blackmail and shared POV. I don't think we should go there.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point here is that it "makes no sense" to say in the lead that ([1] and [2]) "Russia attempted to interfere in the election" without also saying that ([3]) it "favored Trump over Clinton". But [3] is a half-truth -- an equivocation. The whole truth is that Russia favored both Trump and Sanders over Clinton. Russia attempted to interfere in the election because it favored Sanders over Clinton. It continued attempting to interfere because it also -- to a lesser degree -- favored Trump over Clinton. Had Sanders won, Russia would have continued attempting to interfere because it favored Sanders over Trump. (It was in Russia's interests to do so: Sanders was advocating for less military spending, not more.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that all your mention of Sanders is unsourced speculation. We do know that the Russians targeted Bernie Bros to draw their votes away from Clinton, and it worked very well. There is no evidence, RS, or intelligence assessments which indicate that the Russians favored Sanders over Trump. They have been cultivating Trump for years, seem to have evidence they can use to blackmail him, and they have a common interest which Trump fully supports, even without blackmail, and that is he wants to deescalate any tensions because they want to make money together.
 * So no, the Sanders bit doesn't work because all RS point back to the fact that Putin hates and fears Clinton and tried to harm her chances, and as soon as it looked like Trump could win, all Russian efforts were focused on getting him in the White House. All the hacking, fake news, collusion with the GOP leadership, stealing of voter data and turning it over to the GOP (where it was used successfully in at least two state elections), etc. focused on hurting her, helping all the GOP's campaigns, and getting Trump to be their friend in the WH. That's the narrative supported by RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I examine anywhere from 30-80 reports in RS on these subjects every day, and I haven't encountered this Sanders theory of yours. If you have any RS which describe it, I'd love to read about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There are several facts which weaken the idea that Putin would favor Sanders over Trump:
 * Putin and Trump are friends with many shared interests and shared habits, including sexual, love of power, love of money, use of deception to get what they want, deep involvement in corruption, disdain for democracy, narcissism, etc.
 * Trump openly advocates deescalating military in areas where Putin wants to extend his domain, including Trump's non-condemnation of Putin's annexation of Crimea, support for Putin's attempts to reoccupy Ukraine, actions and statements which weaken and destabilize NATO, his help of Erdogan and Assad which make Turkey and Syria even stronger partners of Putin and help extend Russia's sphere of influence in those countries.
 * Trump and Putin share an interest in removing the sanctions put in place by Obama because they both hate Obama and because those sanctions hamper their business prospects. There's a lot of money to be made by lifting those sanctions, enough that Carter Page, representing Trump, worked out a deal for Trump to get 19% of Rosneft ($11 BILLION) as a reward for lifting the sanctions, something which Trump has declared he would do. That's what the dossier documents, and which several events back up (Steele's source for that information was murdered, the money was transferred to a Cayman Islands account in Dec. 2016, Trump has stated his intent to lift the sanctions, Trump has been very upset by the blocking of his efforts to lift those sanctions, etc. The intelligence community is using that dossier as their road map and is working on getting definitive proof that the murdered official's account of the meeting is true.
 * Trump, unlike Obama and Clinton, has done nothing to condemn Putin for his interference in the election.
 * Trump has done nothing to protect the USA from the existing cyberwarfare and future cyber attacks on the USA.
 * Trump has strong financial incentives to break down any opposition between Russia and the USA, even if that compromises the security of the USA.
 * Unlike Trump, Sanders is no friend of Russia or Putin. He has no ties or monetary interests to cultivate, and he would have no interest in making the USA weak and Russia stronger.
 * Those are some known facts which speak against any motivation for Putin to favor Sanders at all, and why Putin strongly favors Trump. He could not choose a better ally to have in the White House. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is getting to WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR territory at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is somewhat flawed because you are speaking way too heavily in the realm of speculation and using too many absolutes. I heavily favor the viewpoint of Dervorguilla and advise you to carefully weigh his even-keeled rebuttal, which I agree with. We must stick to what the RS say. 67.233.35.234 (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I use what RS say. Sanders does not figure in the equation, except as a means to draw voters away from Clinton, a ploy which worked very well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This comment of yours - Many editors here believe strongly that the Russian government interfered in the elections, but writing that personal belief into the article as fact, when it is not an established fact, would be beyond the pale. Wikipedia can't become a place where editors' personal political convictions trump maintaining a neutral encyclopedia. - was out of line. You know nothing about the individual political beliefs of people posting here. Someone could equally well claim that your insistence that the Russian interference has not been established is a matter of personal belief, but that would also be out of line. Let's just look at the sources. Editors here have pointed, over and over, to evidence that the Russians interfered. That evidence includes multiple reports from well-informed government sources, and testimony under oath by someone in a position to know the facts of the matter. You assert that the question is so unsettled that to state it here would be POV. Do you have reliable sources, aside from your assertion, that there is still serious doubt about this? --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's clear that NPOV has gone straight out of the window here. Assumptions of good faith become really difficult to maintain when there's such a clear bent, on issue after issue, coming from the same group of editors. Over at the Russian interference article, almost every single sentence that in any way might imply doubt about the idea that Russia interfered in the election has been removed, with the flimsiest of reasons. The entire article has been edited down to portray views coming from US spy agencies.
 * We've discussed sources ad infinitum over at the Russian Interference article. Nothing comes of those discussions, because it's clear who's going to support what from the outset. You're now (again) asserting that US spy agencies are reliable sources for the claim that Russia interfered. I think that if that argument stands, Wikipedia is nothing but a mouthpiece for the CIA and FBI. We might as well let them write the articles for us. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Thucydides411, I asked for Reliable Sources saying that the claim of interference is in doubt. Instead, I got 1) you don't trust the CIA (or presumably leaks from anywhere in the government) and 2) you believe that editors here are biased - whether pro-government, or pro-Trump, or anti-Trump, or what, isn't clear. I don't really see any basis for discussion here. Although this does lead me to ask: since you reject the evidence offered so far, what WOULD you regard as evidence or proof that the Russians did attempt to interfere? Is there any type of evidence you would accept, short of a tweet from Putin saying "Of course I did it!"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're very well aware of the sources, because we've discussed them several times, at length, over at Allegations of Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Presidential Election. More importantly, you're asking me to prove a negative. You're citing unreliable political actors, the CIA and FBI, who make a particular claim about a country they consider an adversary, and then asking me to quote sources that say those unreliable sources are incorrect. That's not the way we work here on Wikipedia. You need to show that reliable sources generally consider Russian interference to be an established fact. Quoting the views of your spy agency of choice (US spy agencies, of course, but not Russian spy agencies) doesn't cut it.
 * If "Russian interference" were an uncontroversial fact that were generally viewed as true by reliable sources, then there wouldn't be any question of including a factual statement in this article. You're trying to push a very controversial view, which is based almost entirely on the say-so of a particular government's spy agencies, into a whole number of articles across Wikipedia. That's entirely inappropriate.-Thucydides411 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "US spy agencies" (no matter how biased) are mainstream secondary RS, and we can continue citing them. Full Disclosure of Interests: Neither I nor any member of my immediate family is working for "the CIA [or] FBI" or any other entity cited in this article, nor for any competing spy agency or entity... --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Biased secondary (or primary) sources, like US spy agencies, are not reliable sources, except for statements of their own opinion. They are not reliable sources for statements of what the Russian government did. We can cite their opinions on alleged Russian interference, but to treat something as a fact, because the CIA says it's a fact, is something that Wikipedia cannot do. If someone had told me, a year ago, that longtime Wikipedians would start arguing that the CIA is a reliable source, I wouldn't have believed it. How far we've come. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You've added 1,040 words in the last 33 hours, but you haven't bothered to respond to MelanieN's comment: "I can't find where the Intelligence Community analysis supports your thesis ...; could you pull out a quote? In the Reuters article I find this: "[text]". That's pretty much my point, not yours". She trusted what you told us, but she wasn't able to verify it. Had we published your false citations as supporting your proposed statement, it's possible the subject would have responded by rebranding us as "The FAKE Encyclopedia". --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did respond to Melanie with this comment: "I fear that my three point summary will lead us astray from what's important here, which is only the third point. Let's stick to that in further discussion. Okay?" That's where we are. We are not going back to discussing the three points. Yes, I could provide the RS to back them up, but that distracts from the relevant point here, which is what's relevant to this article...the interference as related to Trump.
 * I never did propose publishing those three points (and would not do so for the lead or this article), nor were my comments or references "false citations". (That's a nasty personal attack, so please strike it to show that you AGF. We have all been quite civil and I'd like to keep it that way.
 * The Russian interference article does contain the sources for all three points, as I have mentioned, and also multiple RS for the third point. Unfortunately I'm going to be traveling so might not be editing for a while. If I get a chance, I might find those sources if no one tries to do so. Just look for RS which mention how Putin favored Trump. There are many.
 * As for Trump labeling Wikipedia "The FAKE Encyclopedia", he's probably already done so, and if he discovers any content here which makes him look bad, not matter how true and properly sourced, he will do so, since his definition of "fake" is if a truth makes him look bad, not whether it is truly fake or false. He'd describe his own mirror as a "fake mirror".... -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you may have significantly misrepresented our exchange. No one -- no one -- is asking you to "provide the RS to back them up". You have already provided two respected RS that back them up. You've told us they do. MelanieN and I are just asking you to show us a supporting quote from each source. That's all we're asking. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! I must have misunderstood you (not "misrepresented"). To me they are pretty much the same thing. (If I provide a source for something, that "something" would contain the wording.) It looks like User:Casprings has already beaten me to it. Do you want more sources/quotes? Here are some more:


 * "Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies' hacking of the U.S. presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday."
 * "C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed." (This article reveals when the differences of opinion between the CIA and FBI were resolved and they began to agree that the Russian interference was ALSO designed to help Trump.)
 * This Guardian article addresses a doubt often raised by User:Thucydides411 and User:JFG, who both parrot Putin's and Trump's view, a view found only in unreliable sources like Breitbart, Infowars, RT, and Sputnick (they don't present RS with this view, so we must reject it), which is that only American intelligence agencies (which they consider unreliable sources) confirm that Russia did anything wrong. The article states that before American agencies knew anything or got involved, Brennan received evidence from British and other foreign agencies that Russia might be trying to "help" Trump win the U.S. election. After that, American agencies got involved and confirmed that info. Scan the article for "help" and you'll find MANY quotes you can use.
 * It was later revealed that the CIA had obtained intelligence from "sources inside the Russian government" which stated that Putin gave direct orders to disparage Clinton and help Trump.


 * Those sources should help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This conversation is hard to follow, but is he or she supposed to be backing up that Russia favored Trump? If so, that is too easy.
 * From the US Government report:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Statement_on_Declassified_Intelligence_Community_Assessment_of_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_U.S._Elections.pdf


 * From The NYTIMES: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Frussian-election-hacking&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=41&pgtype=collection


 * Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/russia-hacking-timeline/?utm_term=.3265e3d9910f

Casprings (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have significantly misunderstood the conversation. No one was "supposed to be backing up" (the half-truth) "that Russia favored Trump".

Also, the government report you're citing says that Russia had not favored Trump at first. Rather, it developed a clear preference for him (around June 2016). In March 2016 it would likely have had a preference for Clinton's other adversary. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The first source you gave us says:
 * [CIA, FBI, and NSA] assess with high confidence that
 * [1] Putin ordered an influence campaign ... the [three] consistent goals of which were to ... [1.3] harm Clinton's electability and potential presidency;
 * [2] Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump;
 * [3] when it appeared to Moscow that Clinton was likely to win the election, its influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.

So it's misleading to say that "only after it became evident that Trump had a chance, ... [Putin] acted to help [him] win".

Based on the first two sources you gave us, Putin undertook his influence campaign in March 2016. At that time, he "aspired to" (wanted to) harm Clinton's electability and help Sanders -- for whom he had a clear preference over Clinton or Trump. When it appeared that Sanders was unlikely to win, he developed a clear preference for Trump over Clinton and aspired to help Trump. By October 2016, he had come to believe that Trump had no significant chance of winning. He no longer aspired to (fruitlessly) help Trump. He just aspired to undermine Clinton's expected presidency. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I still haven't seen any sources which propose that Putin wanted to help Sanders, other than for the purpose of drawing votes away from Clinton. There are sources which say that. Regardless, Sanders is not the subject here.
 * It's true that Putin did start to help Trump and then changed tactics when it appeared that Clinton really was going to win, BUT he returned to helping Trump when Trump won the GOP nomination. He had been grooming Trump for at least five years, they shared many POV and financial entanglements, Trump was indebted to him, many members of the Trump campaign were in constant contact with Putin and his people, and Putin definitely wanted Trump to beat Clinton. Therefore this is not completely true: "He no longer aspired to (fruitlessly) help Trump. He just aspired to undermine Clinton's expected presidency." All the intelligence and RS indicate that the hacking, fake news, etc. was carried on to harm Clinton and help Trump, right down to hacking voter databases. We just don't have evidence of changing any votes in voting machines, so that's a moot point. The entire campaign, continuing on until this very day (the Russian military has publicly said that their cyberwarfare is unending and takes no pauses), was influenced by a fake news campaign which denigrated Clinton with false stories and praised and boosted Trump. That continues, even though Trump was elected.
 * While what happened before Putin started helping Trump is interesting, it's actually irrelevant to this discussion. The point is made in multiple RS that Putin DID try to help Trump (regardless of whenever time period he might have temporarily lessened such efforts). It makes no difference. When it "appeared that Clinton was likely to win" (your #2), Putin didn't forget or give up on his preference for Trump, but was even more motivated to help Trump because he was the only one who could beat Clinton. The fake news campaign did not stop.
 * All we need to add is "Russia attempted to interfere in the election, partially because Putin favored Trump over Clinton." It is an undeniable fact that "Putin favored Trump over Clinton." That's all we need to add and then we can get on to other things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor me nor the intelligence agencies nor the journalists can read Putin's mind, so we cannot say that It is an undeniable fact that "Putin favored Trump over Clinton.". Interestingly, when asked this question by Russian press in October 2016, he said in essence "We have no reason to prefer one candidate or the other. Sure, Trump says he wants to improve relations with Russia while Clinton is taking an aggressive stance, but we do not know what the elected president will really do. Trump may not follow up on his words, and Clinton may soften her position when in office." See . In another, more recent interview, he said "U.S. Presidents come and go but policies remain the same." — JFG talk 08:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * RS say that Putin tried to help Trump win because he preferred Trump over Clinton. That's what we report. As far as reading Putin's mind, no, we can't do that, but intelligence agencies have recorded what he has said, including on these issues, so what's in his mind is known, to some degree.
 * You do make me realize that my proposal isn't complete because the motive for the interference (his preference) isn't the most essential thing to mention. It's just the motive. That Putin sought to help Trump win is the important thing to mention, so here's a better proposal:
 * "Russia attempted to interfere in the election, partially to help Trump win because Putin favored Trump over Clinton." The ending about motivation is not essential for the lead.
 * There were several reasons for the interference, but one of them was to help Trump win, and Putin has been very satisfied with his success. The whole Russian nation has celebrated the successful operation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You write: intelligence agencies have recorded what he has said. This is an incorrect inference that is not reported by RS, as far as I know. What the CIA says (and what mainstream journalists have reported) is that some unspecified intelligence sources within the Kremlin have been recorded talking about Putin's motives and alleged direct orders. I have never seen a source claiming that Putin himself was recorded; I'd be delighted to see that, if it exists. Conversely, there are several unambiguous recordings of Putin detailing his reasoning about the US election, e.g. in the interview I paraphrased above. Sure, we can't trust him but we can report what he publicly said and refrain from second-guessing his motives. — JFG talk 15:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, even when an editor acts in good faith, his contributions are nonetheless disruptive and time-wasting. Some editors hold personal opinions so strongly that they can't edit neutrally and collaboratively with other editors. If they post opinions without practical implications for the article, we should just leave them alone (as long as they limit those contributions to Talk). --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly wise admonitions, but I can't really parse whether you are talking to me, to someone else, or to me about someone else. Yes, we should all leave personal opinions at the door and focus on improving article contents. I'm waiting for 's answer on covert Putin recordings. — JFG talk 03:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe BullRangifer is right about Putin. Maybe the agencies have "recorded what he has said" about Trump. Or maybe they haven't. The answer has no practical effect on the article, so we can just leave that issue alone.

Some of the editor's other good-faith contributions do have significant implications for the article, though. Like this one:
 * "BUT ... he had been grooming Trump for at least five years, they shared many ... financial entanglements, Trump was indebted to him" (and so forth).

Maybe Trump really was in financial debt to Putin (or vice versa). That would affect the article. So we may have to budget our editing time to discuss another 350+ word argument. And that argument may again misrepresent what one of us has said, like this one did: "It's true that Putin did start to help Trump and then changed tactics..." Here the contributor is falsely citing his own claim to me. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)