Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 95

Capitalization of "president"
The first sentence reads, Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. By convention, shouldn't the word "president" here be capitalized to "President", since the job title "President of the United States" is treated as a proper noun? Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See MOS:JOBTITLES, which addresses this specifically, with examples. In describing the office which Trump holds, president is in lower case. His title is President of the United States, but not the name of his office within the federal government.  General Ization  Talk  04:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ah excellent, thanks. I didn’t realize it was so explicitly spelled out in the MOS. Mz7 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * GI is correct and the closest example is Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. Inserting "and current" does not change the capitalization. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mz7 It’s somewhat in dispute. I believe you are correct and it should always be capitalized “President of the United States” as a proper noun phrase, and for a long time that was the rule.  But a recentish change in JOBTITLES made a distinction on President as a JOBTITLE — if it is a specific person of President or an uncapitalised generic use president determined by an “a” before the phrase, and then extended that to “the” before.  There is no regard given to noun phrases or to “of the United States” following.   So it would be “Trump is President” or “Trump is President of the United States”, but “Trump is the president” and “Trump is the president of the United States”.  This page is one of the fraction changed.  I have done some reverts for when it was applied for royalty so “Queen of the United Kingdom” got capitalised again, and that seems to have a general support.  I think the MOS theory and/or the phrasing of it needs further work, others are welcome to chime in.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any chiming in should be done at MOS, not here. That's where MOS issues are discussed and settled. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and please do participate from here at that location. The affected articles feedback to MOS is the only way to tell if a new version like this is a good version or not.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

BRRD: Image move
Re: BRR

See the rendering on my display before and after the image move by User:Slightlymad. They cite MOS:SANDWICH as the rationale, but the only sandwiching I see is after the image move. The move sandwiched the first three lines of text between the image on the left and the nav sidebar on the right (as I said in my edit summary). As for their last editsum, We shouldn't be "sandwiching" images against sidebars, I can't make much sense of it, and I can only guess that they mean we shouldn't have an image so close to the bottom of the nav sidebar. That isn't sandwiching, and I disagree that that is worse than the actual sandwiching they created.

Their re-revert appears to be a violation of the Enforced BRD ArbCom edit restriction; it is unclear what should happen to the article when that's violated; whether the vio should be reverted or allowed to stand. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, they waited 27:11 before reinstating the edit, so it wasn't a violation. Also, I support going back to the "before" --DannyS712 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to read that edit restriction again. "If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit." (my emphasis). There was no discussion until I started it, and that occurred after their reinstatement. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind then. I guess it was a failure to discuss. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to talk about who may or may not have violated the Discretionary Sanctions. This is the place to talk about the content of the article. I gather the two of you are disagreeing about the placement - left or right - of his high school picture? Go ahead and discuss that - recognizing that we all have different views of the article depending on our own settings. Does anyone else find that the positioning of that image creates a "sandwich" or otherwise detracts from the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I gather the two of you are disagreeing about the placement - No, DannyS712 and I agree. So far, only Slightlymad disagrees, and they appear to be ignoring this discussion despite being the editor who was supposed to start it per the ArbCom edit restrictions. This situation suggests that the best action on a vio of this sort is to revert it, and I will do so now (I wouldn't expect process reverts like this to count against 1RR, and I'll assume same unless told otherwise). If Slightlymad never defends their change here, it then becomes a default-closed issueas if the original bold edit had never occurred. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I approve the positioning of this picture on the right side. Sandwiching Layout effects may vary depending on each reader's display width, but they are certainly worse when the picture is on the left. — JFG talk 19:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What sandwiching could occur with the image on the right? I'm having trouble visualizing that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not precise enough in my statement. With a wide screen and small font size, no sandwiching occurs, but the Trump sidebar can extend further down, so that the youth portrait stand next to the "Wives, siblings, and descendants" section. At "normal" laptop width and default browser font size, it already stands next to the "Ancestry and parents" section, which perhaps the editor who placed the picture on the left side wanted to avoid. — JFG talk 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed article
This article is a significant moment in Trump's life. When his personal attorney was directed to lie to Congress about Trump Tower Moscow: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, please don’t just announce what was in ones morning feed without edit proposal or an editing question for TALK. Standard response from me : Nothing for now, begin the 48 hour waiting period to see what coverage it gets, what WEIGHT it has, what response is, and whether something else emerges.   This is hardly the first or tenth allegation from unnamed source, nor the tenth or hundredth stating it as fact and asserting it to be “significant”.  It’s only urgent if it’s going away in 48 hours... if it’s truly noteworthy it will still be there, bigger and better.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC). p.s. for clarity, the article is dated 10PM EST 17 January, so let’s revisit starting 19 January at 10 PM EST.  Markbassett (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN aired an hours worth of coverage based on this BuzzFeed news piece just this morning.--MONGO (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unverified by CNN. Sole source is Buzzfeed. I think we need a second source -- which will probably appear at some point. O3000 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be credibility to BuzzFeed's reporting. The Washington Post has picked it up, and The Atlantic is already skipping to the final chapter.- MrX 🖋 14:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * its all based on the same buzzfeed article its not a second source עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right and while not taking a stance on whether the story is going end up as a big deal or not, Buzzfeed is generally viewed as unreliable by all regardless of political affiliation.--MONGO (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's Buzzfeed, not Buzzfeed News.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Buzzfeed is unreliable, but Buzzfeed News is actually really good. See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I don't doubt this reporting, but I agree with about waiting to see how it plays out. We are an encyclopedia, not a WP:BREAKING news service. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, huge distinction! Time will tell.--MONGO (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion. BuzzFeed is an independent primary source. The Washington Post, CNN, and The Atlantic are independent secondary sources, because they provide analysis of the BuzzFeed article.- MrX 🖋 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Source Nazi here...for our purposes BuzzFeed is a secondary source, not primary. The people BuzzFeed interviewed are the primary sources. In this context BuzzFeed is only a primary source to the other (secondary) news organizations that are writing about BuzzFeed's article. ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes that's true in the context of the their source, but experienced Wikipedians routinely refer to sources who conduct an investigation and first print a story as primary sources. Context matters. In this case, it's both.- MrX 🖋 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they aren't providing anything they are quoting buzzfeed עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a huge story and a sign of entering a new phase of Trump's presidency. Can anyone explain where the 48 hour waiting period comes from. I can't find that in the Wikipedia policy pages. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have to wait. WP:BEBOLD.- MrX 🖋 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 48 hours seems an analogy to waiting time to get a handgun. In this case, 48 as a minimal metric to show whether one is breaking WP:NOTNEWS or WP:TOOSOON.  Functionally, one must wait for some WP:WEIGHT to appear and for  WP:NPOV reactions, plus time for secondary analysis and possible further events, and opportunity for editor discussion.   There’s nothing unique about 48 per se ... it could be 72  or 63 ... but 48 makes a nice round number.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This may very well prove to be highly important. Suborning perjury is indeed a crime. Which is all the more reason why we shouldn't put it into Wikipedia without at least some verification by a second source. At this point it is still coming only from Buzzfeed News and their two anonymous sources. You can bet the other media are trying hard to confirm it on their own. Until that happens, we should wait - per WP:BLP: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (my emphasis) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even the buzzfeed reporter admits he didn't see the evidence, so all we have is his claim that he has 2 anonymous sources tell him that there is such evidence, so this is all unconfirmed even by the original reporter
 * Don't be silly. The policy clearly states: "Whenever bad news is reported about Trump, it must wait 48 hours to be added to his BLP in the hope that everyone will forget about it and it never gets added." soibangla (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well if it’s forgotten in 48 then obviously it is trivia. Seriously, the many times I have seen what looks like a copy-paste of the latest morning feed or a link and just saying read this seems lazy or trolling, and usually do wind up nothing in the article but inciting a huge time waste here in Talk.  Wait 48 hours and come with an actual proposal or question... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm sure its the federal law enforcement officials who are lying here. SMirC-chuckle.svg- MrX 🖋 18:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess we could add "according to....." and remain within BLP.--MONGO (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be appropriate in a shorter article, but we shouldn't make this a list of just what people have said without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
 * I'm pretty sure this will find its way into this article soon. Our content is based on reliable sources, not "evidence" per se.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This covers the buzzfeed news report AND tries to line it up with known court documents.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's likely only the beginning. I wonder when we will hear from the "rule of law" politicians. - MrX 🖋 18:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been slow to accept Jason Leopold's reporting without corroboration ever since he reported in 2006 that Karl Rove's indictment was imminent. soibangla (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Buzzfeed News is considered RS; but it still makes me uncomfortable without another source. And this is widely considered an impeachable offense if true. Certainly, other RS are tripping over themselves trying to verify. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * BLP on public figures: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article... If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". Hence we only need a highly notable allegation published in multiple RS. That is exactly what we have here. This should be included, precisely per WP:BLP. Per this policy, we only need multiple publications in RS, not multiple independent investigations. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is correct, and I wish other editors understood that distinction. Our job is to make sure that material is verifiable in reliable sources, not that multiple sources conducted independent investigations. That would be an absurd bar that would strip our BLPs of most of their content.- MrX 🖋 21:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is so far beyond the pale. The White House are issuing non-denials to this story. It's as though Woodward and Bernstein were publishing the story of Watergate, and Wikipedia refused to include these relevant facts in a biographical article because a few partisan users are holding the article and this discussion hostage. I'm not sure if this particular story will turn out to be reported correctly or if there is more to it - it really doesn't matter, does it? Above on this page Mark Bassett suggested we use Fox as a source or risk being nutters. Does Mr. Bassett think Woodward and Bernstein are nutters? Is reporting "fake news" and conspiracy? Because isn't journalism, science, academic truth, aren't these what Wikipedia was founded on? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vocabulary help for Americans: nutter. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  23:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Fox mention seems to be referring to the prior thread of "NYTimes front page today", my response to proposal of adding an Opinion column (speculative, somewhat ranting) was that going overboard hurts the credibility, and that they should try finding some contrasting or dispassionate source like BBC and Fox. I didn't mention them anhave no knowledge of their input for this topic, but since it was asked (rhetorically?) with my name: Woodward generally seems reputable RS for POV suspicious of all presidents regardless of party - harshly critical of Obama for example.  Bernstein not really into serious journalism these years so not RS for current events.  What few times he has appeared seems being asked for opinions.  While not generally ranting it seems only his more hyperbolic phrases got mentioned which seems empty sensationalism.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. MVBW, that is exactly the issue. We have only one source DOCUMENTING the allegation - and a bunch of other sources talking about what the first source said. IMO we need to wait for an independent second source, per Wikipedia policy.
 * a few partisan users are holding the article and this discussion hostage. Sigh. PunxtawneyPickle, please don't jump to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so for partisan reasons. (But of course your own reasons are not partisan.) You apparently don't know anything about those of us who post here, or you would recognize how way-off-the-mark that comment is. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. In fact I see that you came to Wikipedia, just a month ago, on a mission to promote your own particular point of view with regard to this article - or as you saw it, to counteract what you regarded as other people's wrong point of view. Please get past that attitude and try to work here as a Wikipedian, which means trying to stay neutral and working collegially together toward consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. User:Mandruss (items 1 and 4). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

MVBW and MelanieN, please correct me if I'm wrong, but we need some parsing here. You seem to be interpreting " documenting the allegation" differently. We have never interpreted that to mean that we must use "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the [truth or falsity of an] allegation", only that we must use "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the [existence of the] allegation". I hope that clears this up. We have, per our customary practice in many instances, got what we need. There are many RS which covers this as a very important allegation. We should have no problem including this right now. This is one of those "verifiability, not truth" issues. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) :Well, we disagree. I regard it as meaning multiple sources "providing some documentation for" the allegation - IOW even if they don't show us what their documentation is, they have some reason for believing it is true. Heaven knows we could find plenty of sources documenting the existence of even the most horrible rumors. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , with regard to your first bullet point, that is simply not true. CNN, for example, took the further step of cross referencing the allegations with court documents. The Atlantic consulted with a law professor, exploring the possibility of impeachment and analyzed the report in the context of the Barr confirmation hearing. The Washington post also looked at the Barr implications. Wired looked at impeachment. All of these sources are documenting the allegations, analyzing them, and expanding on them. Our policies do not require independent corroboration, which seems to be what you're driving at.- MrX 🖋 00:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, independent corroboration is exactly what I am driving at. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the Special Counsels's office is now refuting the BuzzFeed report.- MrX 🖋 00:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Got a link? And see, that is EXACTLY why we wait a little while before putting this kind of hot news directly into the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I could give you a link to my idiot box, but it looks like someone else has obliged. Enjoy your feeling of superiority while it lasts SMirC-laugh.svg - MrX 🖋 00:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not my superiority - the superiority of Wikipedia’s BLP guidelines. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bah we all know you are the Queen of Wikipedia. PackMecEng (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone said above: "We have only one source DOCUMENTING the allegation". "Documenting" just means publishing. Consider a claim published in an unreliable source like Kavkaz Center. Now assume that the claim was republished and debated in 10 books by historians, each qualify as a secondary RS (and every publication makes a reference to Kavkaz Center). That would be a claim (not the truth) published in 10 RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Break: Mueller's office statement

 * BREAKING: Mueller's office issues statement about Buzzfeed article: https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1086421048206053376 soibangla (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed updated their story to include Carr's denial. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "not accurate". Wow! It's so rare for the special counsel to even comment on anything! Much less a direct denial of some report. Folks, is this enough reason to hold off on putting anything about this in the article, at least for now? I mean, seriously - two anonymous “federal law enforcement officials” against an official spokesperson for Mueller? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously this changes the entire direction of the discussion.- MrX 🖋 00:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Patience – We simply cannot move too quickly on stuff like this. And, I remain uncomfortable with Buzzfeed News when it comes to highly controversial articles. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As I advised earlier, in another discussion. We must be careful, not to implement the mainstream media's narrative. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Sources are all we have. And, Mueller is not disputing that Cohen says Trump told him to lie. He’s disputing the line about corroborating evidence taken from Trump Org emails, texts, etc. In fact, Cohen’s 11/30 memo says Trump directed him to lie. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as we should not jump to conclusions based on the original report; we should also not jump to conclusions about "mainstream media's narrative", whatever that is. O3000 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In light of Mueller's statement, and the authors statement that he hasn't actually seen any of the alleged evidence, I think this needs to wait until there is some additional corroboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I have two points to make: I foresee much activity at this article going forward! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Obviously BuzzFeed's story contains some inaccuracies, and it would be foolish to make use of any of it unless other news organizations can corroborate any of the material.
 * 2) The Office of the Special Counsel rarely has anything to say about what is reported. The fact that Mueller's team has specifically come out to refute part of BuzzFeed's reporting, but has not previously done so, surely means what has been previously reported by other news organizations is most likely true. That's probably not good news for Trump, his campaign, his organization, his family, or his presidency.
 * This isn't really the place for your personal analyses and predictions. ~Awilley (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it came across that way, but it was intended to make a point about content. I essentially stated I was not currently in support of using the BuzzFeed article, and then noted that the reaction by the Special Counsel's office should make us rethink about the content we have previously gone over in discussions past. The non-reaction from Mueller's team would seem to give the earlier reporting more weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What should we rethink exactly? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You could argue that (elsewhere). For us it would be a dramatic stretch of synth. In any case, as far as I can see, it looks like the comment from Mueller’s office occurred because the Buzzfeed article made claims specific to the Special Counsel’s Office, which they wished to correct; and doesn’t really tell us if the main claim in the Buzzfeed article is true or false – much less anything about the veracity of any other Trump-related story. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to the theory that the story is substantively correct, but it incorrectly made attributions to SCO, rather than to SDNY (which co-prosecuted Cohen), and SCO was not pleased that someone in SDNY was leaking and took a public shot at them to make that clear. soibangla (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to say thanks to those that urged caution on adding this unsubstantiated piece.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, here's an insightful look at the situation: Enjoy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The big BuzzFeed News story and how it impacts its ranking on the Media Bias Chart
 * Interesting. I never heard of adfontesmedia; they actually try to rank media sources according to reliability? Sounds challenging. Anyhow, I totally agree with this comment of theirs and intend to continue following it: Whenever a single major news org reports a big, exclusive, consequential story, which is not shortly verified by other major outlets, it is best to reserve judgment on its veracity for about a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

More sources:
 * Inside the Mueller team’s decision to dispute BuzzFeed’s explosive story on Trump and Cohen
 * The Fix: Mueller publicly disputed the BuzzFeed report. Here’s why it’s a such rare move.
 * "Carefully and opaquely crafted, it never denied BuzzFeed’s story in full, but it made the case that the report either overstated or mischaracterized the evidence collected."

It's interesting to note that Mueller has not denied that Cohen lied (that's already proven and admitted) when following Trump's instructions to say that the Moscow hotel negotiations stopped in January (or February?) and not in June 2016, or denied that Trump told him to do that, which is the same as instructing him to lie. Instead, Mueller questions that the parts in the BuzzFeed News article relating to how and what Mueller knows, and how he found out about it, are completely accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * BuzzFeed’s stumble is highest-profile misstep at a time when press is under greatest scrutiny
 * Special counsel office: Parts of Buzzfeed article tying Trump to Cohen’s lies to Congress are not accurate
 * However you want to interpret Mueller's rebuke of Buzzfeed's article, it is best practice to wait until multiple sources have independently confirmed the same thing before putting it in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Amen! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He did not rebuke Buzzfeed's article, he said it was not accurate without any clarification what it means (it could mean the Buzzfeed story was simply incomplete - of course it was). Worse, Mueller did it because he was asked . An offer he could not refuse? This story undermines objectivity of the investigation... My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or the story was so much BS they could not keep quiet. No one will know until the investigation is concluded so best to keep speculation to a minimum. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller did it because he was asked. I very much doubt this. That's according to Giuliani; I wouldn't believe Giuliani if he said today is Monday. As for why Mueller found it necessary to issue this partial denial, I have seen several theories, any or all of which I think are possible. One is that he saw it was turning into a media and political firestorm, with his own investigation cited as a source, and he wanted to calm the hysteria. Another is that Buzzfeed was inaccurate in saying it was Mueller's office that had supporting evidence, while it is actually the SDNY office that has the supporting evidence. A third possibility is that the thrust of the story is true, but he wants to control the timing of when and how it will be released. We won't know until Mueller decides to let us know. In other words: what PackMecEng said. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, but that only underscores the need to have multiple independent sources for the same fact before it gets cited. The fact that there's so much speculation about Mueller's rebuttal (does he object to all of it? is he focusing in on minutiae? who knows?) reminds us that we need to have verification before something gets published in Wikipedia. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosmic Sans, you write: "we need to have verification before something gets published in Wikipedia." Actually, that's EXACTLY how we are NOT supposed to do things here. We verify the existence of a RS statement, not the veracity/truth of the statement. We focus on the existence of the source, not the truth of the statement. Maybe you haven't been around here long enough to know this, but we follow a very old and fundamental principle here: "verifiability, not truth". (Forgive me if I misunderstood you.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, I think you did misunderstand me a bit. I'm not saying verification in the sense that it's objectively true or objectively false. I'm talking about multiple reliable sources (or at least, more than one) independently reporting the same material. I mean, your quote says it all: "verifiability, not truth." That's exactly what I mean and what I was referencing. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosmic Sans is exactly right. Per our POLICY (not just guideline) regarding negative or controversial material about notable people: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Emphasis in the original. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger Stone
Needs a new section now, I would suggest. Key wording is "During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1."Casprings (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it should have its own section, but the article should be updated. - MrX 🖋 13:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 's update is short, straightforward and neutral; thanks for that. — JFG talk 19:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Whatever Stone is alleged to have done should be documented at his article and at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and/or at Mueller probe and its daughter articles; it has nothing to do with Trump's biography (so far). — JFG talk 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose — what he▲ said soibangla (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that were voting about this, but obviously a brief mention in the article is required. Stone is a longterm adviser to Trump and the indictment says that "A senior campaign official “was directed” by an unnamed person to contact Mr. Stone about additional WikiLeaks releases that might damage the Clinton campaign". It is not simply a coincidence that multitudes of Trump's closest campaign advisors/business advisors/friends are falling like dominos.- MrX 🖋 19:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: I do think one sentence is sufficient for now.- MrX 🖋 19:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be a 48 hour waiting period. Give it another day for events, reactions, and WEIGHT to develop.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A waiting period will serve no useful purpose. Stone was arrested and has been indicted on multiple counts, and has been released after posting a hefty bond. Nothing new will happen in 48 hours. It'll be much longer before the Stone angle develops further. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with what MrX said. An update was needed, but (at least in the short term) there's very little meat on this bone yet. No need to make it a big thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I could see it going in the Mueller probe article or maybe Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as mentioned above but I do not think it is ready for this one yet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why revert revision
Hi, @, you reverted revision 880055070. What's wrong with adding a link to a location? Xinbenlv (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I realize you undid your revert, thank you. Xinbenlv (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I never meant to rollback you in the first place. Accidental touch screen clicking on my watch list which happens to me every now and then. I wish the cancel rollback button would work but it hardly ever does. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Check my common.css, it has 3 lines (second statement; lines 2-4 inclusive) in there to hide rollback on watchlists . I too have done that too many times. Don't worry about the block one though (third statement), that's just there because I've accidentally clicked it (thankfully, it takes you to another screen with options!) when trying to go to contribs and found it not useful in that location.-- The SandDoctor Talk 16:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem sections
Some of these sections run dangerously close to violating the WP:CRITS rules. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC) If there are reliable sources that disagree with any of the criticisms in this article, you can add balancing content subject to WP:WEIGHT (the amount of content should be roughly proportional to the amount and quality of the total RS coverage). Or you can simply drop some links here for discussion, with no guarantee that it will get much editor attention. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Essays are not rules. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well its posted like a set of rules. Do people mind these essays at all as guidelines? Does the fact that its an essay mean we have to regard it as junk? -Inowen (nlfte) 09:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the page I linked for you above, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints." Since I had never seen that one linked before in my 5 years, it's a minority viewpoint as far as I'm concerned. Essays that represent minority viewpoints have no weight in discussions; they're just somebody's opinion. You can feel free to cite CRITS as an articulation of your opinion, but you can't frame it as anything more than your opinion, e.g. "violating the WP:CRITS rules".
 * Many news sources aren't reliable news sources and there has been research which has backed that up; they are more opinion sources and not news sources. There isn't an idea of where one source says x and some other says y, therefore x is refuted; x still stands, and whether there is counterpoint or not is not a prerequisite; they both are documented. The idea of equivalence between different things is false. So the CRITS policy guideline essay is saying that documenting criticism is bad, but its just an essay. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Inowen The essay is discussing WP:NPOV, which is a core policy, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, which is a guideline. If you think you see sections that have a problem with neutrality or a content fork, please specify where and what.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are not that unusual. As Markbassett says, you can point to what you think is a specific problem. But, there is consensus for the section in this article. O3000 (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @O3000, criticism sections are widely disliked, particularly in biographical articles, and particularly by the subjects of those articles. -Inowen (nlfte) 05:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While it is true criticism sections are widely disliked (Jimbo Wales made a point of saying he didn't like them many years ago), there are no such sections in this article. If some sections sound like criticism sections, it's because of problems with the subject, not the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said, ! — JFG talk 16:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So nocrit is both defacto policy because of wide dislike for crit sections, and yet an overwhelmingly rejected policy stuck for two decades in the essay stage. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

sexual abuse accusations
Why isn`t the 13 year old girl who accused him of rape in the article?2600:1702:2340:9470:B09A:7F54:C4F4:14A5 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was the only source of corroborating information about the claim concerning Donald Trump, never appeared in court and dropped the lawsuit in November 2016. See .  General Ization  Talk  00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the plaintiff's suit included sworn affidavits from an eyewitness to the alleged assaults, who allegedly procured underage girls for Epstein, and another person who said the plaintiff told him/her about the alleged assaults at the time they occurred. And her attorney said the plaintiff was receiving threats after announcing she'd hold a press conference days before the election, so she bailed on it. This story is covered elsewhere on WP, but it will never be allowed on this BLP, it would seem. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is it covered elsewhere? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dismissed as election-time madness, generally seen as not a reputable accusation and not widely covered. Not included here because it had no significant biographic impact to his life, and had no significant WEIGHT.   Discussions in the Donald Trump talk and in the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations talk.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This particular case has been consistently suppressed on Wikipedia since the election for some reason.2600:1702:2340:9470:E0DD:A13E:E600:BEDA (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Trump has a history of women accusing him of inappropriate sexual behavior..I watched a video of him bragging about his sexual exploits with his friend Jeff Epstein who was into young girls..Trump`s own words..Epstein did a year in minimum security jail for soliciting an underaged prostitute..the police said they knew it was just the tip of the iceberg but it was all they could get him with.

There has been information out there regarding this case..not the Epstein conviction but the 13 year old since it happened which was easily suppressed by Trump and Epstein..who was involved..since it happened as they have money and she does not if she is still alive. Soibangla I think you may referring to a different case I`m not sure..the one I`m thinking of occurred in the 1990's as I remember..certainly the scenario was the same including the death threats. If I try to put this in the article it will obviously be deleted..I was hoping someone with better writing skills and more legal expertise can do it.2600:1702:2340:9470:7177:95C2:7885:85D2 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got source other than gossip? Nothing that was discussed previously warrants inclusion. — JFG talk 03:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

In Oct-Dec 2016, there was an RfC about whether any mention should be included in the sexual misconduct allegations article. The RfC was open for about two months, twice as long as most RfCs. It received fairly wide participation and rigorous examination of sources. It closed as "no consensus to include" at a time when the story was two years fresher. It will not be added at that article without another RfC, which would be very unlikely to reach a consensus to include. It obviously will not be included at this article if no consensus can be reached to include it there. The issue's history is not irrelevant because you and the OP weren't around to witness it. While discussion is generally a Good Thing, some discussions are pointless, and I suggest we move on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said I`m not a lawyer...there is plenty of information about it out there if you want to know.2600:1702:2340:9470:E0DD:A13E:E600:BEDA (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the accusations may be false, or unprovable, but they are not "gossip." It might warrant inclusion in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, except this matter involves a 13 year-old runaway girl who was allegedly procured at the Port Authority Bus Terminal for sex parties at the mansion of a convicted pedophile who Trump once praised as a "terrific guy," and the detailed and graphic charges she made in her suits are absolutely horrific. It's such a repellent and explosive accusation that its inclusion would be vehemently opposed. But that article contains other unsubstantiated accusations that didn't reach federal courts, which this one did, so the rationale for exclusion of this story would seem to be less logical than it is emotional. If "Jane Doe" went public with her accusations at the scheduled press conference days before the election, Trump might not be president right now. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the rationale for exclusion of this story is as follows:


 * This particular case has been consistently suppressed on Wikipedia since the election for some reason.2600:1702:2340:9470:E0DD:A13E:E600:BEDA (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read the abhorrent details in the suit, my initial instinct was to look away and try to not even think about it. Presumably most people reacted similarly, and some object to inclusion on that basis alone. It’s just too horrific. But note that the Bill Clinton BLP includes the Juanita Broaddrick rape accusation. Is that inclusion warranted because she was an adult, but this accusation isn’t warranted because it involves a child and sex parties, and that’s just too much to bear for some?


 * Indeed, the RFC notes the low media coverage, which could indicate the press simply didn’t have the stomach to run it. But the woman filed suits with an affidavit from an alleged eyewitness to the alleged assaults, and that eyewitness claimed Epstein paid her to procure underage girls, promising they’d be paid to attend lavish parties and meet rich/powerful men who could open career doors for them. Naturally, even the press outlets that did cover the story didn’t run any of those lurid details, you have to read the court docs, so I’m not sure an examination of the breadth of media coverage carries much weight here. That’s all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very little of your reasoning has any connection at all to Wikipedia policy. Just as we can't ignore what sources widely say because we think they are biased, we can't ignore what sources widely ignore because of reasons that we think they ignore it. That's all I got. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It`s the nature of the crime once referred to as the unspeakable crime..people just don`t want to think about it..even liberals have swept this under the rug..however while trump`s supporters have chosen either to deny or ignore it this is one more issue that has turned liberals who can stomach this against him..whether or not this is included in Wikipedia depends technicalities no different than legal arguments rather than substance.2600:1702:2340:9470:EC00:A3FD:106A:5A16 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether this is included depends upon Wikipedia guidelines, not what kind of stomachs exist in liberals. The RfC on this did not close with include. Any argument for inclusion will fail if it is not based on guidelines, but claims of suppression or characterizations. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case, as I said previously, you are at the wrong article. Even if you unwisely insisted on pursuing this, you would need to pursue it via an RfC at the other article, not via low-participation unstructured discussion at this one. The content would have to be there first, for reasons that shouldn't need explaining. If you or anybody else starts such an RfC, I will push strongly for an immediate close (abort) for the reasons I've stated here, and I expect I will have plenty of company. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again I`m not a lawyer..it is obvious you will get the last word..what gets included in Wikipedia depends on the intricacies not substance let alone the truth just like the law..you can prove anything with the fine print..all I`ve been saying if there is someone or some persons who understand the guidelines and are willing to argue that this case needs to be in the article they need to come forward and do it..I don`t understand why whatever "consensus" that exist in the past is ever 100% binding as long as there is a new perspective or new evidence..I certainly never agreed to it..I never said there is new evidence..what I`m saying is that nothing in Wikipedia is carved in stone..that`s the point of it..everything else aside..I guarantee this issue is never going to go away.2600:1702:2340:9470:EC00:A3FD:106A:5A16 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * as long as there is a new perspective or new evidence Ok, so you recognize that there is no new evidence; good for you. What about your perspective is new? Absent that, you're effectively just wanting another bite at the apple because you (and others) weren't present for the first one (assuming that you in fact weren't). All discussions have vastly more non-participants than participants, by necessity, and it's a very poor use of editor time to re-open a thoroughly examined issue just because somebody new comes along who disagrees with the outcome. To say this is NOT to attempt to carve anything in stone, so that's just hyperbolic strawmanning.

Continued use of Template:Donald Trump infobox and series
Hi, there is currently a TfD discussing the continued use of Template:Donald Trump infobox and series. The template was made a few months ago to prevent the influx of vandals attacking the pictures in highly visible infoboxes. You may wish leave your opinions here.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

this edit should be restored 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=880989652&oldid=880988827

it is not "just speculation," and it is written by one of journalism's foremost experts on such matters, and it was the lead article on the front page of yesterday's Times

from the assessment:


 * "North Korea retains its WMD capabilities, and the IC continues to assess that it is unlikely to give up all of its WMD stockpiles, delivery systems, and production capabilities"


 * "We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device"

Mere reliance on the case-by-case judgment calls of editors has demonstrably failed in this area, and a broader and higher-level strategic approach is needed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "At the same time, some US allies and partners are seeking greater independence from Washington in response to their perceptions of changing US policies on security and trade and are becoming more open to new bilateral and multilateral partnerships." soibangla (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion of this content would be better suited to Foreign policy of the Trump administration, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear program of Iran, etc. Not everything happening in the United States should end up on the president's biography. — JFG talk 20:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What JFG said. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest we should come to a meeting of minds on where this article ends and where the other related articles begin, namely the presidency article. I am following the established pattern that existed before I came to this article: that it contained a wide variety of items pertaining to his presidency. Should we draw a line somewhere as a matter of firm policy? Should this article end on inauguration day and refer readers to the presidency article for events after then, except for content related to his persona/character? As things stand, it seems that these judgments are being made on an arbitrary, and occasionally capricious, basis, depending on what peoples' moods are at any given moment. That said, the stated "reason" for reversion doesn't withstand scrutiny.
 * It's a matter of WP:due weight. The main biography should contain stuff that plays a significant role in Trump's life overall. More detailed events belong in related articles. Sure, it's a judgment call of editors. — JFG talk 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your second sentence is a good description of how things should be in my view. As for how things are, the article widely misses that mark. Very few issues of day-to-day politics and governance during his presidency play a significant role in Trump's life over all. Most should be covered only in the Presidency article and, if necessary for size reasons, splits of that article. I reject the very recentist mind-set that this kind of content is needed in this article today because it's highly relevant today, and it can be gutted after Trump leaves office.
 * I should add that much has been written about the "two-track" nature of the Trump administration foreign policy — Track One: what Trump says, Track Two: what career professional experts say. This edit once again illustrates this glaring phenomenon, and if this article is going to have a Foreign Policy section at all, this content belongs there, and maybe other stuff doesn't. soibangla (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Leaves out tracks of what President Trump actually does and non-sensationalised things he says. Media coverage tends to sensationalize, to report only about words, and only the most odd bits or bits that can be portrayed as sensational in that POV.  That makes them DUE, but winds up a gap to reality and a disconnect to scholarly works.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems not biographical or very DUE, and the article text phrasing looks a bit off from the Sanger piece. For example, Sanger said contradicting two Trump initiatives, this edit said “core tenets”; and Sanger said traditional alliances had been “strained”, this edit said “damaged”.  Change the wording to what Sanger said, and try it at the Foreign policy articles.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI: the original language of the story, "directly contradicting two top tenets of President Trump’s foreign policy," was subsequently changed. And I used the word "damaged" to avoid any perceptions of plagiarism. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I thought this belonged in the foreign policy article and was undue for this. Problem is, the subjects of Iranian and N. Korean nuclear efforts are already in this article. I would think either this overall evaluation should be added, or those areas should be trimmed, or possibly both. O3000 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Section "White Supremacist Support"
The current section says "White supremacist support", which could be interpreted two ways: Him supporting white supremacists or him getting support from them. I am unsure of which one it is supposed to refer to, if either. &#91;Username Needed&#93; 10:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Description of criminal charges against Trump associates
Should the bolded language below be removed from the last paragraph of the lead section?


 * After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding election interference, and any matters arising from that. The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts. Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt".

R2 (bleep) 19:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * No It clarifies what is important. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:V and WP:NPV. I believe this is a false statement and it does not appear to be verified either by an inline citation or by content in the article body that is verified by an inline citation. When you plead guilty to lying to the FBI about your contacts with Russian who were interfering with an election, then charges cannot be neutrally described as "unrelated" to Russian interference. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The connection you are making is a wrong inference. Flynn's guilty plea only relates to his conversations with ambassador Kislyak (after the election, to boot). I have not seen any assertion by Mueller or any U.S. agencies that Kislyak was involved in election interference, therefore the trail stops here. — JFG talk 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The current language doesn't say that none of the charges were for involvement in Russian interference. It says none of the charges were related to election interference. That's a big difference. Maybe that's the solution, so say none of the charges were for involvement in Russian inference? R2 (bleep) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We could certainly discuss further improvements to the text after the RfC concludes. Modifying the phrase while in progress would be confusing to participants. I still believe the wording "criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts" is clear enough in context, because we just mentioned that Mueller is investigating responsibilities and potential complicities in the Russian interference. — JFG talk 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this whole paragraph should be rewritten. I believe it is only understandable if you already know the story. Russia's efforts to do what? Collusion with whom to do what? I agree that the bolded text is misleading, as some of the charges are related and some are not.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No – The bolded statement is perfectly accurate and well-sourced. The Washington Post wrote: "Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election." Omitting this part of the sentence, in context, would mislead readers into thinking that Trump associates did plead guilty to helping Russia, which none of them were even accused of. — JFG talk 20:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we change our language to reflect that Washington Post source? I'd be fine with that. R2 (bleep) 22:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added accurate language citing WaPo in the body. I don't think it's appropriate to modify the lede section text while an RfC is in progress, but we could discuss it afterwards. — JFG talk 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No. This sentence is factual and it reflects the WP:WEIGHT of coverage about him by reliable sources. It would be massively misleading to just say "guilty pleas" without any hint as to what they were for. And this material has already been discussed, above, and seems to have a rough consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes We don't know that the bolded statement is true. In Flynn's case, we know that he lied to the FBI about his contact with Kislyak. Do we know for sure that Russian election interference didn't come up in their conversations? No. Because Flynn's sentencing statement was heavily redacted. It's best to leave that clause out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. We cannot definitively say this. And even if we could, that does not need to be in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 05:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - The sources presented by MastCell, and the subsequent discussion, have convinced me to that my initial instinct was correct. The wording in question could be considered narrowly factual, but it is far more likely to be interpreted as exoneration of Trump and his inner circle, which would be misleading. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, although some better alternative is needed. As it currently stands, it gives the impression that the individuals did not collude with Russia, which we do not yet know. In fact, it seems likely that one or more of these individuals may have pleaded to a lesser charge as part of their cooperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By the same token without it, it makes it look like all of them did collude with Russia to interfere in the election. Misleading in the other direction. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes appears to me to be a clear case of WP:OR - that is, it's being added as an indirect surmisal by editors who don't actually have a source for it, and thus it's clearly against Wikipedia policy. I also agree with Muboshgu (talk)'s points above. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Source was added to the relevant section of the body. No OR involved. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even that sentence in the body is a clear example of WP:SYNTH - it "implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", so yes, it's original research, according to that policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the source Washintong Post and here is what the source says Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Opened a dedicated thread below: — JFG talk 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I addressed this below in that thread. I stand by my vote for removal, as I still feel the current wording would lead a reader to believe that everyone working on the Trump campaign has been exonerated from accusations of collusion, which clearly is not true (yet). Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No YASSSS and I removed it: we cannot have that sort of apologist commentary in the lead. And without it the statement is of course verifiably correct. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is if they should be removed. If you think they should be removed it would be a yes vote. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, thanks and merry Christmas! Drmies (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No - misstated RFP. Delete that whole line as injected without prior consensus per ONUS, leading into this whole Run Around.  And basically it just is not appropriate to LEAD or the BLP.  Chasing what wording incorrectly poses the rest of the line as if that is not in question.  Markbassett (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "unrelated to Russia" wording needs to be removed, because it is unequivocally false. Flynn's and Cohen's crimes were directly related to Russia. (See, above). Separately, if an RfC concludes that false material should be written into an article, then there is something seriously wrong with the RfC process or with the group of editors participating. Alternate wording could be proposed, and I'm sensitive to the need to avoid incorrect implications. But at a minimum, wording needs to be, you know, true. I can't believe I have to say this. This talkpage is like bizarro Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 16:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I have added two sources that directly support the claim, see and, which render complains about verifiability and original research moot. The caveat must be included or we are falsely implying that the guilty pleas were directly related to alleged collusion with Russia. Another possibility is rewording the claim; I have suggested something like "Trump associated who were not charged with colluding with Russia", which was consistent with the WaPo source already in the article. If there is no agreement on possible wording, guilty pleas should not be mentioned at all and not least because mentioning them unduely draw focus on matters that are not directly relevant to Trump. Politrukki (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No - Many sources have been provided to support it, several good ones (including BBC) just in the comment above. D.Creish (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - The current text is demonstrably false. Removing the false text moves toward NPOV, as per my detailed comments at: . I also believe that removal should take place before this discussion is closed as removal of the text is neutral. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * CNBC: "In fact, [Mueller] has obtained guilty pleas to various crimes unrelated to collusion from Trump's former national security advisor Michael Flynn, Trump campaign official Rick Gates and campaign advisor George Papadopoulos." BBC: "Have others [than Flynn] pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe? ¶Yes, although not on charges related to collusion with Russia. Do you have a specific reason to reject reliable sources and present "alternative facts"? If reliable sources use the word "collusion" as a shorthand, whether collusion is a crime or not is immaterial. Politrukki (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no crime named collusion. So, of course no one has been charged with this non-existent crime. But, they have been charged and pled guilty to crimes related to Trump and Russians. The current text is misleading. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * O3000, the source says “unrelated to” which describes the context of a crime not the crime itself.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  07:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Colluding with Russia to affect the U.S. election is indeed a crime, despite the fact that the relevant statutes don't use the word "collusion". -- Jibal (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See my links below. There's a huge gap between "not specifically charged with collusion" and the current much-more-broad "charges unrelated to Russia's efforts."  Numerous sources relate these charges directly back to that topic.  eg. Vox, CNN, NPR.  Saying that it is "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is wishful editorializing by an editor, completely disconnected from the facts and without even the slightest bit of support in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't go by sources connecting crimes somehow to the Russian govt, we go by Mueller. Unless Mueller himself said that the charges are a consequence of collusion/Russian govt actions/efforts, we don't need to draw WP:CRYSTAL conclusions on a topic with limited facts and unlimited speculation and conspiracy theories. w umbolo   ^^^  17:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, per User:Politrukki, whose sources discredit most of the ‘Yes’ commenters’ arguments.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, unnecessary detail unrelated to this very specific article. Keep the minutiae to those articles. Keiiri (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes: "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is vague and potentially misleading, as some of the charges/guilty pleas/convictions are "related". --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No per Politrukki. This is very relevant because Russia's election interference is the whole premise of the paragraph, and we'd want to clarify this to be BLP-compliant. Whether or not collusion is a crime is irrelevant here – we're talking about crimes related to collusion. This is about an ongoing investigation which can make this RfC useless in ictu oculi so WP:SYNTH should be "allowed" here to some degree. I am certainly open to any counter-arguments to citing the BBC (after all, if we can scrutinize The Guardian, we should scrutinize the BBC as well). w umbolo   ^^^  21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No I was sent to this RfC by bot. Voting "no" per JFG, MelanieN, Politrukki and Wumbolo. DynaGirl (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as currently written, "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is vague and potentially misleading. What sources say is "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election". Which is much more specific. That some sort of 'qualifying text', is needed, I would probably agree with, but this isn't it. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current wording goes beyond what the source says to the point where it's essentially uncited. "...though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" does not even remotely parse to saying, in encyclopedia voice in the lead, that their convictions are "for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts."  We could perhaps find a more careful wording, but the important thing is to get the bolded text out first, since it's flatly unsupported by the sources.  There is a vast gap between "not specifically charged with colluding with Russia" and "unrelated to that investigation."  Plenty of sources relate them to Russia.  Vox:  But in November, [Michael Flynn] made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. CNN:  "Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress in his testimony about the Russia investigation."  Calling this "unrelated" is a flat-out lie.  NPR:  W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty in August 2018 to failing to register as a foreign agent for lobbying work he performed for a political party in Ukraine called Opposition Bloc. Prosecutors said Patten partnered with a Russian national to lobby on behalf of the pro-Russia party..., and During the 2016 campaign, Michael Flynn led chants of "lock her up" at the Republican National Convention, and after Trump's victory, was appointed to serve as his first national security adviser. But he lasted less than a month on the job before resigning, and in December 2017, he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes – it's far fetched to conclude that all these indictments are unrelated to what Mueller is investigating, even if most are. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - It is both more succinct and less controversial for the lead to simply state they were convicted. It is more appropriate to detail any relationship for each conviction to Russia, or lack of any relationship to Russia, in the body of the text related to each conviction.--Saranoon (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - the only way to wedge this language into the statement is to heavily rely on a combination of original research and synthesis, which is clearly not permissible. The statement without this language is easily verifiable and a reasonable summary of the available reliable sources on the the topic; with the language it is not. Snow <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 05:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No per MelanieN and Politrukki. (The wording already appears to have changed?) Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes remove it; it's WP:SYNTHESIS and it's designed to crowbar in a political point. Either of those reasons alone would be enough to remove it. The only 'no' votes are coming from fairly clear partisans in this matter. The "Yes" votes appear to rely on Wikipedia policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No -It is written well and conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning this. HAL  333  22:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Misleading statement. There are many connections to Russia in the various charging documents and filing papers.Casprings (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
The current wording is technically factual. I was concerned with an earlier version because it could imply that the case is closed and there was no collusion between the Trump people and Russia to influence the election, which of course is still an open question. With the copyediting that has occurred since then, I'm reasonably comfortable with the current version. - MrX 🖋 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC) ETA: I've reconsidered in light of new arguments.- MrX 🖋 12:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "technically factual," but if you're saying the wording is accurate, then you need to be able to back that up with a citation. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No Trump associates have plead guilty to working with Russia to influence the election. I'm not aware that anyone has contested that fact.- MrX 🖋 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Working with Russia to influence the election" isn't a crime. But lying about your contacts with Russians while they are trying to interfere with the election is certainly related to the interference. The bottom line, however, is that everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, this statement is included. If you can't back it up with a source, then it must go. Wikipedia 101. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI I have now added the WaPo quote to the article body, but I can't remove your cn because of 1RR. — JFG talk 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The disputed language doesn't conform to that source, so the cn tag still applies. However if we conform the lead language to the source then I'm satisfied and will gladly remove the tag. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ''"Working with Russia to influence the election"' isn't a crime" -- It is, actually. Among other things it falls under conspiracy to defraud the United States: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention." ... and there are other statutes regarding working with foreign nationals for personal gain that specifically attach to Trump or anyone who would benefit from his election. -- Jibal (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jibal Hmm not quite “working with Russia” being a crime.  That is the USC chosen for indicting the 13 Russians, along with a few charges of bank or wire fraud and identity fraud that were part of posing as not Russians.   Skipping over that no link to those is made to Trump associates, theories why it wasn’t 52 USC 30121, and the question of if this application of what is commonly used for Medicare fraud would even work in the event one of them chooses to go to trial, it is still (a) an indictment not yet shown a crime and (b) none of the ordinary U.S. citizens who “worked with” them have been so indicted.  A “worked with” association of even participating (well beyond anything mentioned for any US citizen) is not usually criminal in the Medicare fraud application of this it seems — it seems it takes a knowing “conspiracy”, of a “planned the effort” or “managed events” type.  That or actually *doing* the work in an illegal method.  A generic “working with” Russia is going too far, that is not a crime.     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you said there ... it's quite incoherent. Not that I care in the slightest about your irrelevant ramblings. -- Jibal (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ? No, it is not “certainly ‘related’”, this is about it being quite the other way around. The line is about no associate was tied to Russian Interference in any of the convictions — that the crimes are definitely *not* ‘related’ to Russian Interference.  Talking with one Russian while some other Russian trolls on Facebook is too many degrees of separation to properly call “related”.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
I will withdraw the RfC if we can get consensus for the following proposal. Change:
 * The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts.

to
 * The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, though none were charged with colluding with Russian interference efforts.

This is based on this source helpfully provided by JFG. R2 (bleep) 23:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter part of the second sentence is almost the exact same as the source: though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. Would need to be reworded further. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Charged with colluding" is an impossibility because "collusion" (whatever that is) is not a crime. Treason or "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" would be a crime. The key point to note is that none of those people were accused of helping or supporting Russian interference efforts in any way, much less conspiring to organize such efforts (and by now Mueller has charged a litany of people who performed and directed this interference operation – all Russians, plus a hapless American who created fake identities at their behest). Maybe keep it short: "though none were charged with helping Russia"? It's clear from context that we are talking about election interference. — JFG talk 06:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about "though none were charged with coordinating with Russia"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Treason in the USA is a war-related crime. The USA is not at war with Russia. Russia is not the "enemy", so there is no possibility that anyone could be charged with treason or "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" (which is a partial quotation of the definition of treason). The Rosenbergs were not charged with treason. Anyway, the paragraph is too vague, as I said above. Terms like "collusion" and "efforts" don't convey anything in particular. The paragraph would be much better if it was shorter and sharper.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, treason is not the crime they would be charged with if they were colluding with Russia. Regarding your last point, try your hand at a shorter version in Talk:Donald Trump/sandbox? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Unfortunately the "treason" word has been recently mentioned by several commentators in the Flynn case, including his judge! "Collusion" is legally undefined; "conspiracy" would be something of substance, but again, nobody has been accused of conspiring with Russia. — JFG talk 08:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support this wording:
 * The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, although none of them were charged with helping Russia.

What do you think? — JFG talk 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds strange to me, considering "helping Russia" is not a crime. FritsNL (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not ideal for the reason identified by FritsNL but think it's an improvement over the current version, so I'd support it. I think we can mitigate the problem by changing the wording from "charged with" to "charged for." "Charged with X" typically implies that X is a crime, where as "charged for X" is bit less legally rigorous and therefore arguably gives us some wiggle room. It's also quite concise which is always a plus in my view. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're looking for "accused of". Any use of "charged" will mean crime to most Americans, if not our former masters to the east. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to write that the problem with using "accused of" is that lots of people have accused Trump and his associates of colluding with the Russians, just not the DOJ. But even that's not true. For all we know the DOJ may have accused Trump associates of collusion under seal or redaction. Maybe this: The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, although the Department of Justice has not publicly accused any of them of helping Russia. R2 (bleep) 17:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "not publicly accused them" sounds like skirting the issue and engaging in speculation that there may be hidden indictments ready to be revealed any minute now, to finally spell the end of Trump's presidency… as has been speculated for the last two years. Readers have speculation fatigue. Meanwhile Mueller has clearly identified who did what on the Russia front (Internet Research Agency trolls, Concord Catering and one clueless swindler in California), and those were so far not any of the Trump aides that were investigated. We just need to wait if there's more, nobody knows. — JFG talk 23:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with trying to describe an law enforcement investigation partway through. R2 (bleep) 23:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG - the first, shorter wording is cleaner ... but neither belongs in the LEAD of this article. Markbassett (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No to this. It's misleading wording.  What does "charged with colluding with Russian interference efforts" even mean?  It's not a specific crime, so all convictions will be for at least partially tangential things (eg. campaign finance violations, lying to investigators about matters relevant to the case, etc.)  This construction essentially sets up something impossible and then words it in a way that makes it sound like its failure to happen is a form of exoneration.  If we must reword it, I would prefer something like The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, including for lying to investigators, campaign finance violations, and tax fraud.  That isn't much longer than the current version and is far more specific, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether that is "related" to Russia's efforts (or signaling to them that they need to skim down for more details) rather than either directly stating or indirectly implying something unsupported by the sources.  Basically, if it's this controversial, we need to stop tiptoeing around what they were charged with and just summarize the most relevant or highest-profile cases in a few words. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, I think your suggested text solves this dispute. I think there should be a RFC on your suggested text as I think it would obtain a high(er) level of consensus-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good suggestion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this fresh proposal, which helps address the concerns of many editors. We could still tighten it a bit more: The ongoing investigation has found several Trump associates guilty of lying to investigators, campaign finance violations, and tax fraud. Or The ongoing investigation has determined that several Trump associates had lied to investigators, made excessive campaign contributions, or committed tax fraud. I still believe we should state that none of the involved people was even accused of any wrongdoing regarding Russia, but I'm not sure how to formulate it. — JFG talk 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is correct to say the investigation has found them guilty. An investigation cannot find or determine guilt. Charges were laid, and the accused pleaded guilty.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How to solve this problem
Folks, this problem is not going to be solved by repeatedly reverting 4 words in and out of the article, or by voting "Yes" or "No" in an RfC. The problem will be solved when an editor or editors take the time and effort to actually read and understand the legitimate concerns of both sides and then come up with a creative wording that resolves those concerns. Don't focus on the four words, take a step back and look at the entire paragraph. Skimming the above, some concerns that jump out at me are: Who's going to be the one to come up with the solution? Donald Trump/sandbox is open for editing if a group of you want to work on something there without worrying about 1RR in the article itself. ~Awilley (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not (incorrectly) imply that the charges were for colluding with Russians to interfere with the election
 * We should not (incorrectly) imply that the charges were completely unrelated to Russia.
 * We should not go into too much detail about the investigation. (This article isn't about that, and we're in the lede section here.)
 * (I moved the sandbox to Talk:Donald Trump/sandbox because you don't want an article titled "Donald Trump/sandbox") Yeah, considering one of the objectors, R2, does agree with just using the precise WaPo wording; and while that phrase would need to be reworded to avoid close paraphrasing, there's definitely a qualifier or sentence that would be more accurate or a better paraphrase than "unrelated to Russia's efforts" which is why I'm not going to be voting up or down in that RfC but rather going to think over that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of the sources and argument presented by MastCell, I've commented in favor of the RfC above (and so have others). At this point, there is no consensus for the four words, although that could change. The rest of the material is fine as far as I'm concerned.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ☝️ This is the attitude I want you to change. It's easy for you to understand your concerns, but are you able to understand the concerns of others? ~Awilley (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry, that was a bit too personal. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My attitude is fine, thank you. I have explained my reasoning in several sections and I have listened intently to other's comments which is why my view changed from opposing the four words, to accepting the four words, back to opposing the four words. If you want to suggest alternate wording for the paragraph (and recuse your involvement as an admin on this article), I am happy to listen to your suggestions as well. However, I don't entirely accept the premise in your bullet points above.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maria Butina pled guilty to infiltrating the NRA for the Russians. Papadopoulos made six attempts to set up meetings between Russians and the Trump campaign, lied about his contact during the Trump campaign with the Russia-connected professor Joseph, and was sentenced for lying to the FBI. Cohen pled guilty to making false statements to Congress regarding the dates of when President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization pursued a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the election. He also was found guilty of lying to the FBI. When one of these folks pleads guilty to lying to the FBI, do we know the full extent of the lies? I assume there is a reason for all the redactions in court documents. Can we say in Wikivoice that these charges are unrelated to Russian efforts? In my mind, we cannot say unrelated as that appears to be quite incorrect. We cannot say no charges of collusion were made, since, AFAIK, there is no crime named collusion. Since we’re in the lede, I suggest simply: The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for various criminal charges. We simply do not know all the details at this point and shouldn’t pretend we do. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or just remove the guilty pleas of other people from this BLP lede, and wait until Trump himself gets indicted. Much simpler. Again, mentioning criminal charges in the same breath as Russian interference gravely misleads readers, unless we mention that said charges exclude any accusation of helping Russia. As you correctly note, anything else is just guessing. — JFG talk 14:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @JFG, But wouldn't that be ignoring the (equally legitimate) concern of MastCell that it is also misleading to readers to uncritically repeat Trump's line about the investigation being a "witch hunt" without mentioning the charges/guilty pleas? ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a legitimate concern, which can be addressed separately. The insertion of politically motivated "witch hunt" was debated a long time ago and found consensus. It was added as a documentation of Trump's rebuttal of the accusations leveled at him, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Basically, either we mention the allegations and the defense, or nothing. Given the prominence of the Special Counsel investigation in Trump's presidency so far, editors agreed that it had to be mentioned in the lede per WP:DUE WEIGHT. Naturally, editors also agreed that Trump's counter-stance to this investigation had to be mentioned as well. In today's debate, some editors, starting with, considered that guilty pleas of Trump associates should be mentioned in the lede, and others, starting with , stated that mentioning such guilty pleas without specifying that nobody was accused of "colluding with Russia" would be highly misleading for readers. — JFG talk 17:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good summary of the logical progression that led to where we are. Here's a different sort of proposal. Replace the "politically motivated witch hunt" sentence with something much more generic simply saying that Trump has denied any wrongdoing. Then we can get rid of the stuff about the charges against his associates. R2 (bleep) 17:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting offer. I'm afraid it's not that simple, because this proposal would trade an agreement about one subject (how to describe Trump's reaction to the Mueller probe) against an agreement about another subject (whether Trump associates charged by Mueller should be mentioned in Trump's BLP lede). Any such "deal" would have to go through RfC. Personally I much prefer debating each question separately. — JFG talk 18:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think of that proposal, procedural issues aside? I'm not suggesting it as a sort of quid pro quo, more as something that might address everyone's valid concerns. R2 (bleep) 18:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "trade" idea, but I am happy to give you my opinion on each of the subjects. The Mueller probe has largely enough weight to deserve a paragraph in the lede section. Trump's "witch hunt" defense has become so iconic that it is also eminently DUE. Regarding the guilty pleas, I'd be happy either to keep the current text (mention the charges and specify they do not imply any wrongdoing regarding the election), or to remove them altogether until and unless Trump himself gets indicted. After all, it's his biography, not Manafort's, Flynn's or Cohen's. — JFG talk 18:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for advancing the conversation, Awilley, and I agree all three of those points are valid. My inclination, when in doubt, is to follow the sources. In this case we're relying on a Washington Post source that says none of the guilty pleas were for collusion. While that isn't ideal, since it might be read imply that collusion is a crime, it's better than the current "related to" language, which isn't verified by any identified source. I'm open to further improvements. R2 (bleep) 17:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, it's crappy one way and crappy the other. This can easily be solved like this (bold to be changed, struck to be removed):

The finer points about who has pleaded guilty to what can be found in the main article for the investigation. This article is about Trump, rather than the investigation. Obviously this may change in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the guilty pleas need to be mentioned. If they aren't, this argument will erupt again.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support 's proposal. The impulse to add other people's (mis)deeds into this BLP intro comes back every time one of them is in the news, and can be rejected until Trump is finally charged with something. — JFG talk 23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when Trump accuses Mueller of going on a witch hunt, he's not just professing his innocence, he's also accusing Mueller of wrongdoing. And that requires balanced coverage. R2 (bleep) 23:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, does Comey have to be mentioned here? It's unexplained what the connection is.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot support removing the convictions of Trump's closest associates. It's a significant point about his life leading up to and including his presidency.- MrX 🖋 13:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus far, these close associates have only plead guilty to crimes not related to Trump specifically (Cohen's plea does, but that's with the SDNY); therefore, to include them in this biography would seem to be a case of guilt by association, which doesn't sit well with me. We had the same kind of issue at Barack Obama, where hordes of deplorables wanted to shoehorn people like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko into the article to make Obama look bad. If it turns out that any of them plead guilty to charges that are related directly to Trump, then obviously my position would change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The text in question doesn't say that Trump committed a crime, but he surrounded himself with close associates who did, which is why it's relevant to his bio. Sources establish the associations very prominently, and so should we.- MrX 🖋 19:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus far, these close associates have only plead guilty to crimes not related to Trump specifically This is absolutely not true. These crimes were no less related to Trump than any other actions taken by his administration. On top of that, they are part of a well documented culture of lies that starts at the top. It's true that these associates' crimes might not have directly involved Trump himself (in fact, we can't even say that for sure), but that doesn't mean they're not related to him. R2 (bleep) 20:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP. We don't know any of the crimes of these people are related to Trump, so how can we even think of mentioning them here? Again, this is guilt by association, and that just isn't the way things should be done on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (sidenote: Scjessey mentioned did not have Obama article have associates Ayers or Rezko, similarly not associates of Hillary, or Bush, or Reagan.... it’s just OFFTOPIC and seems a POV distortion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
 * User:Awilley - edit war bad, which is why by WP:ONUS it is wrong procedure to have ANY version before TALK consensus. Norm is to revert such out, particularly when it is in LEAD and lacks body content and is in (this) contentious article, so can we please stop the Goose chase and delete until whether and what discussions are done ?  (I am also puzzled by the too-eager insert and why re-edits instead of just delete). Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection
I've temporarily protected the article due to the continued reverting. The version I protected was arbitrary, determined by the time that I saw the edit war was continuing, and is not an endorsement of that particular revision. (There is, in fact, no status quo for that sentence, and so far no clear consensus either way on the talk page.) This is exactly the type of impasse that the BRD Cycle is supposed to help help break, and "Enforced BRD" is the name of the rule at the top of the page. Yet the last actual change to the sentence was 2 days ago; since then it's just been straight up reverts. I am happy to unprotect the article as soon as I see someone willing to make a Bold edit that reasonably addresses some concern of both sides, or when some sort of consensus starts to emerge on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you please add an appropriate tag to flag this dispute and show that your choice of version is not an endorsement of it? R2 (bleep) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. The PP template is already on the article. ~Awilley (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean an inline tag such as disputed-inline or pov-inline. R2 (bleep) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the article now, but I don't recommend you adding the tag yourself, as it actually does little toward further resolving the dispute. It mostly just annoys people. ~Awilley (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Awilley - I am going to return that para to the (months) long-standing consensus of two lines, reverting out the last several days of non-consensus versions on an additional line. That may not hold, but I will try as proper process and see how it goes. WP:ONUS and norm is to get consensus before inserting material into lead, particularly for contentious articles, and past practice seems to revert out edits to lead especially per WP:LEAD if done before body text has been added to suit such an edit. (Really seems like a ‘just follow the process’ here — any other practice for LEAD seems asking for edit wars and keeping edit wars going contrary to even WP:BRD. A 48 hour waiting period on inserting news items would also be good, but that’s just my personal thinking.)  That associates are convicted on things other than the Russian election interference is a simple observation, and when consensus occurs on what words (if any) to use to convey that in BLP lead ... please let us do it then and not before. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ... that lasted about 55 minutes before undone by Calton with note “That was sudden”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's important that we keep the lead updated, after all we are an online encyclopedia. You seem to be one of the very few editors who simply don't like this particular information in the lead.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ha... ‘very few’ kind of obviously disproven by the length of arguing above; in any case still failing WP:ONUS of supposed to get consensus on whether to include and what wording BEFORE just jamming stuff into lead of a prominent and contentious article and so kicking it into edit wars.  If WP does not follow the guidance to simply revert out... well, here we are and I await someone posting a WP policy or guide to do it this way other than abusing WP:IAR.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit should be restored
It is none of the things asserts it is — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=880738709&oldid=880721607

soibangla (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly belongs in the presidency article, and is there. Normally, I’d say it doesn’t belong here. But, there’s already a bunch of economic stuff. Seems to me a general statement like this is better than the details already in this particular article. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Maybe other stuff should come out, but this edit encapsulates a lot of information very succinctly. soibangla (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's proper home is Presidency of Donald Trump or Economic policy of Donald Trump. We do not need a running tab on what is the current state of things. I am also not a fan of it being an opinion article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Without a "running tab" on things, this article would not have had any content added to it in months or years. soibangla (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see that as a problem. Wikipedia does not need to be 100% up to date daily and should only document things with lasting significance. A single indicator around the middle of his first term does not have the impact of a true lasting study on the subject as a whole. PackMecEng (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit is far more useful than others in that subsection. Do you object to them? Should we remove the subsection? We are not yet writing a retrospective history book here, we are documenting a man who asserts the economy is the best ever, and many readers read this article to discover where we stand right now.soibangla (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, other stuff in the section should be removed as well. I think we can have a section on it since we have a whole sub article on the subject. The question is what should be in it. If we are not yet ready to give a proper retrospective then what are we doing? This is an encyclopedia not a news paper. It crosses the line into WP:RECENTISM if that is the case. PackMecEng (talk)
 * How does an analysis of two years of Trump's presidency qualify as recentism, but breaking news about a cognitive test doesn't?- MrX 🖋 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that was a singular event answering a relevant question at the time. This is a subjective snapshot in the middle of his first term. Apple meet oranges. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall economic ranking halfway through his term from an attributed business news source with 2,300 editors and reporters in 72 countries. Hardly an arbitrary time, and seems better than a half-dozen areas covering a fraction of economic influences. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An opinion article that was subjective on what they measure. Other sources measure different things. Anyhow as I mentioned before it could be something for his presidency article or economic policy perhaps. I also agree with you that the other stuff could use a trim as well. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be a 48 hour waiting period. This does seem a bit of recentism in the sense it was a story du jour, only hours old when put in. We really don't need a diary here by a running collection of what is in morning feed just stuffed in without any discussion or consideration of DUE and NPOV.  And it is a bit of OTHER STUFF but note 'cognitive test' was an actual event, shown WP:DUE from ~8 Million Google hits, covered for weeks, and discussed in talk see archives 61, 64, 71, 73, 79 ... -In contrast, this is "story du jour, UNDUE mention and really kind of trivia" because it is posted the same day, had only 29,000 Google hits when I looked (because same day is simply too new to have gotten further developments or coverage), and it is a trivia in being this  oddball statistical wonk calculation when the main coverage always goes to current value of individual metrics as reflecting both cumulative effect of actions and a measure of the persons political strength.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included. It's a brief, rich summary of the economic effects under Trump.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be included. It's a well-known historical fact about this time period, in the future. We include similar information in presidents' articles such as Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren G. Harding. The opining of partisan Trump supporters and POV pushers shouldn't be elevated to holding the article hostage when negative information is added. Now, I will admit I have egg on my face about the BuzzFeed article discussion, but this is an entirely different matter. And I still believe the BuzzFeed report will rear its head again, though I will be more cautious in the future about such reports. But when it comes to this sort of Presidency-Ranking and Historical-Statistical-Data information, surely if it is verifiable, neutral, and thoughtful, it merits inclusion. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:PunxtawneyPickle That appears to be false. Those articles do not seem to have something closely similar.  Please show the language you feel is similar to such a calculation taken at the two-year point.   p.s. And it looks like your lead is a bit confused "It's a well-known historical fact about this time period, in the future." ???  Did you mean "It will be ..." ?  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Great Depression was the central issue of his presidency, starting with the Wall Street Crash of October 1929. There were occasional upswings but more frequent downswings until the economy verged on disaster in 1931–33, along with that of most of the industrial world. Hoover pursued a variety of policies in an attempt to lift the economy, but opposed direct federal relief efforts until late in his tenure" "Harding's revenue bill cut taxes, starting in 1922. The top marginal rate was reduced annually in four stages from 73% in 1921 to 25% in 1925. Taxes were cut for lower incomes starting in 1923. The lower rates substantially increased the money flowing to the treasury. They also pushed massive deregulation and federal spending as a share of GDP fell from 6.5% to 3.5%. By late 1922, the economy began to turn around. Unemployment was pared from its 1921 high of 12% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade. " PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:PunxtawneyPickle I note those are not a calculation done at the two-year point.   There is not similar in the named articles.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your goal-post is arbitrary. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Restore - This is an absolute no-brainer. Analysis like this is exactly the kind of content this article needs. The only thing I would change is that it doesn't need its own paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just seems like a weird thing to compare. Most of the people on the list (minus Carter) had 8 years in office. It also does not account for what was going on at the time or what is going on now. If you start with a good economy it ends up not growing by the large numbers you get after a bad economy. That does not really show anything about the person in charge. Finally the state of the economy after 2 years is not completely a reflection of the sitting president. Hell there is still a lot of talk that anything good with it at the moment is thanks to Obama. I think it is interesting trivia and as I mentioned could be suitable for other articles. Just not his main BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Omit – While a brief summary of economic performance under Trump is warranted in this article, the cited source is not a correct summary, especially because it compares 4-year or 8-year terms to an ongoing 2-year presidency. Apples to oranges indeed. — JFG talk 16:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I emailed the author and confirmed that he compared each president's first two years in office. That's a given for any analyst who knows what he's doing, but he should've explicitly stated that in the article. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds strange. The Bloomberg piece includes a legend saying "Rankings based on annual percentage change", and the article itself states that economic data was averaged over the 8 or 4 years of each president's tenure. Longer quote:
 * According to his own words, it does not look like the author limited his data compilation to the first two years of each president's tenure. In any case, this article is labeled "Opinion" by Bloomberg, so we can't rely on it as the main source for characterizing U.S. economic performance under the Trump presidency. — JFG talk 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to his own words, it does not look like the author limited his data compilation to the first two years of each president's tenure. In any case, this article is labeled "Opinion" by Bloomberg, so we can't rely on it as the main source for characterizing U.S. economic performance under the Trump presidency. — JFG talk 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m pulling it back out. It’s at least no longer a story du jour, but remains not DUE and trivia. ONUS is on submitter to show at least DUE, and TALK does not seem a consensus. While there are two-year retrospectives, they largely do not mention this metric or similar approaches. They talk about jobs being similar to Obama era (bbc.com), or that he has bragging rights over the stock market rise (Reuters), etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you achieved consensus to re-revert? soibangla (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Soibangla See WP:UNDUE, this item was a story du jour that never developed third party following WEIGHT so is not particularly noted and multiple other 2-year perspectives of larger sources have higher WEIGHT so would be DUE more coverage in any 2-year retrospective.  And quote WP:ONUS “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”  This does not have that, it should not be in.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Pulled out as WP:ONUS not met - points against that it was just story of the day statistical trivia with no significant WEIGHT of coverage, no lasting coverage or enduring effect, belongs to other articles as not biographical (not life choice or an event markedly affecting his life), and that it was not a correct summary.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it belongs in this article or another or both, I can’t imagine referring it to statistical trivia considering Trump’s own comments on the subject on a continuing basis, including the State of the Union. Indeed, his comments in that address add greatly to the DUEness. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2019
Net Worth - Per NYTimes <$86,000,000 US. As ann individual he is not a billionare - Forbes estimate was based on self reporting from the Trump Organization. 2600:1002:B01A:6394:5CB3:F107:8D8:8086 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See the "current consensus" section above (#5) DannyS712 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Clintons
What do the Clintons have to do with this ? Neither one of them are president. 2600:1702:2340:9470:A14F:8D4A:C486:A035 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What AREN'T you referring to???? :D :D :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.199.230 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Does there need to be a 48-hour waiting period
Can we have a local consensus or guidance that new content should not be started the same day it appears ? Please respond if you favor or oppose this, and provide any other points below.

I'm looking for impressions re the practice of what seems just posting new topic from same-day feed. This would not apply for updates to already-present content.

As a practical matter the 48 hour waiting period is to allow time to see what coverage it gets, what WEIGHT it has, what responses are, and whether something else emerges. It also allows for avoidance of WP:Recentism, and perhaps discussion that does not depend so much on OR assertions.

There seems to be material against such at the article-level, for example the guideline of WP:BREAKING and essay WP:Too Soon, but I'm not aware of anything like this at a lower level. But then other articles typically are not as contentious and do not have as frequent a news coverage.

So - please respond if you favor or oppose this, and provide any other points below. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Oppose: “Wait 48 hours” = “I don’t like it, so stall it in the hope it gets marooned in Talk, then people forget about it and move on to the next news cycle, and it never enters the article”

The fact that a story has just broken in a RS is not relevant to its importance, nor is it relevant if a story goes viral, as sensational stories that don’t belong here tend to go more viral than wonky stuff that does belong here. The relevant matters are the significance of the content and the quality of its sources. Facts are not a popularity contest. soibangla (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Buzzfeed. PackMecEng (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with the idea of a delay but the argument that it will languish in here and get forgotten is incredibly weak for if it is something that would withstand the test of time it would end up in the article anyway. If it's only worth one news cycle then it's not noteworthy enough probably for inclusion.--MONGO (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose an actual, prescribed waiting period, but I understand and agree with the reason for this request: that we need to be cautious before adding the "hot breaking news of the day", particularly allegations or single-source reports. We should not rush something into the article the instant it is reported by somebody, but wait until there is 1) confirmation by other sources and 2) enough time passed to have a sense of the item's WP:WEIGHT. This is not necessary for simple, neutral, factual information ("Trump signed XYZ bill", "Trump nominated Joe Blow"); things like this can be added immediately. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until "bombshells" actually explode – My position is similar to 's: avoid rushing to include sensationalist "bombshells" until they survive a few days of scrutiny. Two to three days are a good cooling-off period, and would avoid much drama, name-calling or edit-warring. Let's keep this encyclopedia distinct from a clickbait news ticker. Factual, non-controversial information can be included immediately. — JFG talk 20:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a good guideline that all regular editors should be aware of and try to follow, but it shouldn't be a binding policy. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I subscribe to the old saying, "The proof is in the pudding." I give the more relaxed approach a fair chance to work; if it doesn't work, I support something less relaxed. After a fair chance measured in years, the more relaxed approach has not worked in this case. I don't think any of the Opposers here are stating newly-formed opinions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose specific time delay, but support the "no rush" approach. My view has always been that non-controversial additions can go right in, but if there's even a chance an addition might be seen as controversial (by which I mean likely to receive some sort of challenge from other editors), I think additions should be proposed on this talk page to see if a consensus forms for inclusion. There are obviously some exceptions to this rule. For example, if Trump were to have a medical trauma or something like that, but otherwise I think we should remember the fact that BLPs are meant to be written from a historical perspective and not be a daily journal. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The first thing that comes to mind was the "bombshell" Buzzfeed report that was quickly refuted by Mueller's team. This is why, especially in this politically-charged topic area, some level of delay is needed. If something is going to burn out on a Talk page in the span of 48 hours, it probably wasn't worth putting in the article anyway. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any pre-determined restrictions. It seems like some sort of Arb sanctions. -- M h hossein   talk 17:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose nonsensical, pathetic, reactionary, fascistic policy that only Sarah Sanders or kellyanne Conway could love. If Trump dropped a nuclear bomb on California, would you wait 2-4 days to create a page on it? Sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B412:6AC4:4D5:5AA1:F6CA:F9B1 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)   !vote by IP sock of blocked User:Kingshowman struck. Favonian (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inclusion of content should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination dates of federal judges
A discussion is underway at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump/Archive 2. Interested editors may want to comment. — JFG talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tax returns
Should we have an article dedicated to Donald Trump's income tax returns? R2 (bleep) 23:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * With no irony intended — there’s not enough tax returns available or info about them. Nothing much to talk about.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When you factor in the experience of the commenter, that's seriously the dumbest thing I've ever read here. R2 (bleep) 07:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine he would have tax that is not income tax as well. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but the WP:WEIGHT of coverage is all about the income tax in various speculations about what might be there or that partisan leaks would occur. (Real estate taxes, Sales taxes, Payroll taxes, VAT and so on get much lesser mentions.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this will become a Thing in the future, if Congress or a prosecutor uses his tax returns as a basis for charges, or if they get publicly released and analyzed. At this point, there is not enough information out there to justify an article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a Thing since 2016:
 * Trump's refusal to release his tax returns against decades of convention.
 * His flimsy excuses as to why not.
 * The supposedly leaked release of a partial tax return from a previous year that presented him in a favourable light.
 * The threat by the now Dem-controlled House to force the disclosure of Trump's returns.


 * All of these aspects have been a more or less constant topic of public discussion, reliably sourced, since his candidacy was announced. Media outlets of all stripes have presented their views. We might not have the actual returns, but we don't need the source documents to present the established facts surrounding this public controversy. We have quite a long article on the famous Golden plates of Mormon, which nobody has ever seen. In fact, Trump's tax returns would be a primary source, and as such, of limited value to us. Informed comment on their nature is appropriate here for our readers who might be seeking a reliably-sourced well-balanced history of the topic. --Pete (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We currently have a four-paragraph-long "Financial disclosures" section in the Campaign material, covering most of what you talk about here.. I don't think we have enough content at this time to put a comparable section into the Presidency section, although we probably have enough material to open a "congressional investigations" section under "Investigations" - devoting a sentence each to the various committees investigating him. We are a long way from having enough for a separate article about his tax returns. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Skyring - I encourage you to do a sandbox, start drafting up something under User skyring/sandbox/taxes then.  I think the print of his 1995 forms in NYT late in the election and the Maddox partial of 2005 just isn’t much to work with, but if you feel it’s enough then give it a try. More actual requests may occur shortly so you could be preparing for the expected request/legalities/leaks.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how we can possibly add any more to the subject by breaking it off into its own page. It's already covered quite thoroughly in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency?
Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency? - MrX 🖋 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Current Text


 * Proposed Text

Struck last portion of the proposed text based on near-unanimous feedback.- MrX 🖋 18:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions:
 * September 12, 2016
 * February 3, 2017
 * April 7, 2017
 * July 23, 2018

Survey: False/misleading

 * Support. The shocking number of brazen falsehoods, many of which have been repeated dozens of times, are a defining feature of his persona, campaign and presidency. The current text fails to fully reflect this. The proposed text is an improvement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like "exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office." because that is one organization's number and hardly the "one true number" that we can definitely state without attribution. Another fact checking organization may say he made more than 3900 falsehoods etc. But I support
 * Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We can probably drop the "free media coverage" bit too; has importance but is honestly more relevant to articles on the media than Trump. Or we can make it His campaign received extensive free media coverage, in part due to his controversial statements but considering a large portion of his controversial statements relate to race, which we have a sentence on, seems unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch that somewhat, just dropping the last bit, for During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements. is pretty good. (there is a slight grammar issue that I'll quibble over later) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of the 7,500 part either, without the ", exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office" part I support it as an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support some addition – All politicians lie during campaigns; so the current text doesn’t say anything specific to Trump. OTOH, the sheer volume of false or misleading statements during his presidency is a constant topic of RS and clearly DUE. My only concern is the number 7,500 which comes from one source. Attributing the number would solve that problem, but might suggest only one source exists for the high volume. It is attributed in the body which might be enough. Perhaps “exceeding, by one count, 7,500 by the end of his second year in office”. O3000 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Partial support - I am not a fan of the proposed text. I would prefer to see something like this: Trump has made a record number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The specifics of his mendacity (nature and number of lies) should be left to the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Qualified support I now Support the current version with the "7,500" phrase struck out. I support Galobter's version, "During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements." Leave out the 7,500 which is unnecessary detail and is best left to the text, where it can be updated as needed. I also think, as I said in the above section (where I was hoping to postpone a formal RfC until we had reached some kind of local consensus about exactly what to propose; now we will have to keep changing it which is unfortunate in an RfC), that it should be moved from its current position in the paragraph to become the next-to-the-last sentence. Also, we may want to include a reference to support "record number". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not necessarily committed to using RfC at this point. If this is sufficiently "unfortunate", we have the option of simply removing the template before it goes too much further. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The problem is, there's no way to actually know if this statement is true. The amount of fact-checking done on presidents today is obviously a little more stringent than it was in, say, the 1820's. Much of how "factual" or honest/dishonest a statement is, varies with cultures and time. You can't really make a fair and direct comparison between the "truthfulness" of Trump's statements and John Quincy Adam's; thus, a "record number" seems like a very recentist viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One source says "unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate" = Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate. Would you be OK with something like that? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Yes. I think I would be. But I'd like to see the exact proposed wording. NickCT (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN I think 7500 is less problematic ... that is at least factually pointing to someone’s count. There is no comparable count numbers done before though or the current level of scrutiny/ambush, so “unprecedented” comes off as just bloviating a tautology (since we never counted before, any result is unprecedented) and “modern candidates” seems unsuitable for the thread intent of going beyond the election and a bit unclear what “modern” is.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be similar to what is done with popularity and approval reports: any comparison has to include the phrase "in the era of modern polling" (basically since the 1930s) because we have no way to judge the popularity of politicians before that time. Modern, formal fact checking of politicians began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003, although it had earlier roots with the "Ad Police" in the 1990s. (Of course Snopes predates them both, but Snopes evaluates a different type of material.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't really true because none of these fact checkers have fact checked every statement uttered by Bush and Obama to compare it to Trump where they do fact check his every statement. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, Bush and Obama WERE fact-checked. The era of formal fact-checking began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003. Other politicians during the past 16 years have also been subject to formal fact-checking. I agree that's a small sample compared to the nation's 200-year history, but it's not nothing. As for the number of statements that got evaluated for each president - there had to be some suspicion that a statement might not be true, for it to be fact-checked. They don't fact-check Trump when he says "today is Tuesday" or "I spoke with Putin" or "I signed this bill". They do fact-check him when he says things that are dubious like "we have already started building The Wall." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you MelanieN that Bush and Obama were probably as stringently fact-checked as Trump, I also agree with עם ישראל חי in the sense that we don't really know what proportion of their comments were actually fact checked.
 * As I alluded to above, the problem with making any quantitative assertions about "truthfulness" (e.g. "most lies", "biggest liar", etc) is that truthfulness is ultimately a subjective measure for which there is no agreed upon scale or yardstick.
 * I think it's best to just stick to what we know is true, which is that a lot of sources has been critical of the "truthfulness" issue. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Relative superlatives "most", "worst" "unprecedented" are just words. I'd prefer a steady stream of harmless fibs than giant lies about private servers, IRS targeting and DOJ subterfuge.--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what we would prefer is irrelevant. The body of reliable sources agrees about as much as they could agree on anything: the phenomenon is unprecedented. They say that's significant, so it's significant. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your statement does not nullify my position. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW.--MONGO (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your statement does not nullify my position. Sadly, I think you're right. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW. In that case perhaps you can explain this edit, in which you added far more content on the strength of far less RS coverage. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you can clarify your contribution to this discussion. It's difficult to interpret it as anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Whataboutism.- MrX 🖋 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose adding further rhetoric to the matter. Since we sadly must rely on the NEWS as I did in the edit Mandruss points out, in my effort in June I tried to add a neutral treatise based on a source I thought most editors here would find suitable (in other words, not FoxNews). I don't like having to rely on NEWS but I do recognize we must since this article is mostly recentism issues, especially the issues of greatest concern. Be that as it might, I see no reason to expand wording but of course since this is the encyclopedia anyone (even those disinterested/incapable/too busy using the website for partisan purposes other than for substantive higher level work) can edit, we can be sure the body of the article will go into exhaustive details about this matter, and least that is more acceptable than turning the intro into a full court press attempt to malign this person.--MONGO (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you consider widely-reported facts to be rhetoric; you consider things that have continued from 2015 to 2019 to be recent; you think this article is controlled by partisans who don't otherwise contribute to building the encyclopedia; and you object to content critical of Trump, in the lead.- MrX 🖋 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see: no, yes (since I am old), not totally but the talkpage might be, and no. But if selective reading is your forte and that still works for you then mush on lad.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, and I suggest adopting the language I added some months ago, for which an editor hauled me before a tribunal and requested I be sentenced to death. heh soibangla (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You going to share that language with us? Or should we just adopt it sight unseen? (Glad to hear you survived your inquisition.) 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This language that was removed shows 1) it's a lifelong phenomenon; 2) it was well-known early in his candidacy; 3) it has continued well into his presidency, with figures showing the magnitude (5000) and frequency (125 in two hours, which we could update with more recent data, such as WaPo's 15 per day during 2018)
 * soibangla (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually like that. For the article text, of course, not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN — feel free to enjoy soiblangas creative writing, but I suggest you revisit the archive where it failed when it was current. Let’s not add resurrecting past issues to add to this mess. It’s big enough on its own. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support with "unprecedented". It's an improvement, but it doesn't sit well with me because the emphasis is wrong. The sheer number of falsehoods isn't that important; what's important is that dishonesty has been a hallmark of Trump's campaign and presidency and he seems to have little or no care for the truth. Surely we have sources that hit closer to the mark? R2 (bleep) 23:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the data about Trump should be in the article. This is laughable. Let's remove everything bad about him and add only vague, general things so it seems like he in any way fulfilled his responsibilities and duties as a president, which every reliable source confirms he didn't. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is in response to my comment, please know that I support including stuff in this article about the number of falsehoods. We're talking about the lead here, which by the relevant guideline very much should include vague, general things since it's supposed to be a summary, not a collection of datapoints. R2 (bleep) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Don’t make an OR mixture. Keep it clean and simple, don’t mix two items.  The campaign coverage is RS, anything else should be a separate line if significant enough to suit LEAD.  Admixture with later and separate stories to make combined theories is OR, and there seems a soapboxing TALK to underline that.    It seems he is basically the same as during the campaign, but that comparison just seems not a big news item among other choices.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with "unprecedented". Support the change in principle but "a record number of" is wp:weasel -- when compared to other presidents? any person? etc. "Unprecedented" highlights how unusual Trump is in this regard, without saying "mostest". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unprecedented is just as weasel, if not more so actually. PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? The word is sourced, so what's the problem? How would you attempt to describe Trump's astonishing level of mendacity in a way that is palatable? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not use any weasel qualifiers as I mentioned in my vote above. The purpose of my comment here is if "a record number" is weasel then so is unprecedented. It is poor logic is all. Both are very well sourced to dozens of places heck we could probably source "omg mostest" but they are all still kind of weasel. Best to just leave it to the body to describe the extent of it all. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Per above, support addition (with "record" or a similar word), but change "false or misleading" to "inaccurate". We have to cover his false/inaccurate statements, mildly inaccurate ones, distorted ones, unsubstantiated ones, but not "misleading" ones as that is POV. When he says a true thing that his opponents dislike, they call it "misleading" (source: every true thing he's ever said). w umbolo  ^^^  12:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * May I ask what sources you are reading that dispute that Trump has made numerous misleading claims? "Inaccurate" would not be an appropriate word to use as it would wrongly imply that Trump only occasionally makes minor mistakes.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * May I ask what sources you have used that more than a couple of his false claims are major? w umbolo   ^^^  13:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because I never claimed "more than a couple of his false claims are major". My assertion is that Trump made a record (or unprecedented) number of false or misleading statements.
 * "When 2018 began, the president had made 1,989 false and misleading claims,... By the end of the year, Trump had accumulated more than 7,600 untruths during his presidency — averaging more than 15 erroneous claims a day during 2018, almost triple the rate from the year before."
 * "Should Donald Trump’s advisers share the blame for his unprecedented record of untruths—or is the President alone accountable?"
 * "...Trump hit a(nother) milestone: He topped 3,000 untrue or misleading statements in 466 days in office."
 * "He has misleadingly said over 90 times that his promised wall along the southern border is being built (construction has not begun on any new section)."- MrX 🖋 13:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support amended wording with "a record number of false or misleading statements". However I would move to keep the sentence about free media coverage, because it was acknowledged (both by supporters and opponents) as a very important element of Trump's campaign. The sentence about false statements should stand on its own and be placed at the end of the campaign paragraph, where we transition into the presidency. — JFG talk 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JFG Seems not supported by cites, predominantly they give big numbers and not say “record” or “unprecedented “. I don’t really view the counts as clear or solid measures, but at least its a specific thing a specific source prominently said.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support in some form, although we could hammer out the exact wording a bit more if people want. The basic idea here seems extremely heavily-covered in the sources.  The current reading is definitely insufficient (it doesn't catch the fact that Trump has made an unusually high number of false statements, which the sources are nearly unanimous on.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The scale and scope is this is historic. I frankly like the number in the statement.Casprings (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Record" - record implies there is some count which compares Trump directly to others. What's the count? Who won 2nd place? Is it all time worldwide record? Contemporary US politics record? Something else? I would support something along the lines of "large number" or "very frequent" etc.--Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the objection becomes: What's a "large number" or "very frequent"? Trust me, many editors will have some objection to any language whatsoever until there is a precise number of falsehoods agreed upon by six out of a panel of nine apolitical political analysts, and they do the same for every president since FDR for comparison (insufficient records for earlier presidents). Of course Trump will be dead by the time they finish their work. No, we should just go with sources per Wikipedia policy, and there is ample support for either "record" or "unprecedented". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets talk about sources (per Wikipedia policy), "record number" is a very strict statement, so what sources back that claim? My quick googling didn't really give any very solid clear cut hits. On other hand, if one were to use a more flexible general statement "large number"/"numerous"/"very frequent"/etc., then it could be reasonably backed simply by providing several reliable sources which discuss Trump's false statements with similar terminology, which seems quite a bit easier.--Staberinde (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – It doesn’t matter whether there hasn’t been a record for past presidents; since there has been a record (probably the latter part of the 19th century), his is the most. When we say "hottest day on record", we’re not suggesting it’s the hottest day ever, we’re just suggesting it is the highest since we started keeping track.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * but here there is no comparable past instance of keeping track, or even clear counting basis / agreement. We have clear cite to support “widely criticized”, or that a named person counted 7500.   Beyond that we could say ‘named person said unprecedented, with no supporting evidence’, which comes off as either false or emotional hyperbole.  Or we could say that Obama was the president with most falsehoods before Trump... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't say "hottest day on record" if the record only includes one day. Psalms79&#59;6-7 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Of course it should, as per Snooganssnoogans. François Robere (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, certainly it should be included. Best to leave off the numbers, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, using either "record" or (as some proposed above) "unprecedented", although I would prefer to retain the sentence about free media coverage, for reasons some other editors above outlined, and because it seems orthogonal to the issue at hand (replacing one phrasing/sentence about false statements with another phrasing/sentence about false statements). -sche (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose How can one even know such a thing? Did someone go back and fact-check every statement made by every president since Washington? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion: False/misleading
MrX, you suggested above that if anyone prefers a different wording, they create a subsection to this RfC. I would suggest instead that you follow the overwhelming opinion here, and strike the phrase about the number of falsehoods from your proposed sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but echoing Objective3000's comment, I do think we need to express the magnitude of the falsehoods. I had previously written: "He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.". Maybe there's a way to say "record breaking" and "thousands" in a couple of words.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Modified Scjessey: Trump has made a record thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty good to me.- MrX 🖋 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. "a record thousands" is unclear and awkward. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, as it's structurally identical to Lotteries paid out a record $340 million in 2018. which seems quite natural. We're simply replacing a precise number with "thousands of". Proposed improvement? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave out "thousands" or any other number; among other problems, the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated. Keep as currently proposed - simply "a record number" (thank you for the strikeout, MrX). -- MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Have you ever seen a lottery say "we paid out a record millions of dollars"? Or an athlete described as "he threw a record dozens of interceptions"? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I review the source cited in the main article from which I borrowed "record", I'm not sure it's actually verifiable. I'm looking into this further...- MrX 🖋 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MrX, thanks for pinging me. I wish I could remember what sources in the body justified that wording, but I can't. It certainly summarizes the conclusions of multiple fact checkers, who declare they have never seen a politician so dishonest. They never seen anyone like him. "Unprecedented" is certainly a word which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The reporter who exposed Trump’s record-breaking lying ahead of midterms -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated, as they should. Repeating a falsehood is worse than stating it once. Repeating it twice is worse than repeating it once. And so on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If "record" demands a number, how about "unprecedented" instead? There's plenty of sourcing for that. Examples:

-- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. ? Fine with me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unprecedented sounds like WP:PUFFERY, while certainly supported by RS it does not fit. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * where is the research to back up unprecedented or record except as the opinion of these writers do they have a total for all other presidents. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Scroll up. It was added by MelanieN 40 minute before you posted you question.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't answer my question have they looked at every utterance by previous presidents to see who lied more. So unless someone actually fact checks every statement by previous presidents words like record or unprecedented are just opinions and don't belong here. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not our concern, as long as we use reliable sources that have a solid reputation for fact checking, which we do. - MrX 🖋 20:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unprecedented is OK, but a bit vague. I favor "thousands" or "nearly ten thousand", which gives readers a sense of how unprecedented this president's fibbing really is.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:AmYisroelChai well yes it is puffery. Since it’s the first time anyone counted, obviously it’s a record or unprecedented.  But it’s puffery by RS writers not by WP editors so it’s able to be included if they actually used that word, it suits WEIGHT, and is not OFFTOPIC of BLP.  Many would obviously say bigger liars / lies were done in the past, see Bill Clinton, Reagan, LBJ, Nixon ... but that wasn’t reported back when via oddball opinion counting.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not QUITE the first time anyone counted. George W. Bush and Barack Obama were also fact-checked, as were other politicians since around 2003. I agree that's a pretty small sample for formal fact-checking; previous presidents were only called out for occasional whoppers, not analyzed for everything they said. What makes Trump unique is that he says, and repeats over and over, so many quasi-factual claims that are simply not true in the real world. If there were presidents before him who did that, they precede living memory. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN do you have a cite for an actual count on Bush and Obama? I don’t recall any literal count on fact-checks, or actual insight into the 7500 count for that matter.  And I’m going to point out that quasi-factual claims are common with politicians as the fact-check websites opine on for Bush and Obama... and “quasi-factual” isn’t up for using is it?  Criticised is verifiable, that a specific person said 7500 is verifiable, but a mashup of two statements said widely apart about different things seems OR and confusing.  Try two lines, not a mangle.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * if every utterance by previous presidents aren't fact checked then that statement is just an opinion. עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve always thought the word unprecedented is used an unprecedented number of times. I’m OK with it here, but also prefer thousands, not only because the number is so high, but because it has been measured. Part of the reason the number of misstatements is so high is that no previous president has tweeted a dozen times a day. But, both volume and percentage matter, and both have been mentioned in RS, qualitatively in the case of percentage. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I support Mandruss' proposal as a workable compromise: (Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.). - MrX 🖋 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yuck. "An unprecedented thousands of" sounds like absolutely horrible English. I can just about stomach "an unprecedented number of" (assuming this is supported by sources). Perhaps this would be better:

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that “unprecedented thousands” is awkward. “Thousands” alone is an understatement. But, I have no problem with an understatement in the lede fleshed out in the body (even though casual readers never get that far). O3000 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the omission of the essential point per RS, which is that it's unprecedented, not that it's thousands. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Unprecendented" means without precedent; which is basically the same as "record".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some agreement to use "unprecedented" without any numerical reference. I can go along with that. I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. How about this?
 * -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Same complaint: I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies.- MrX 🖋 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I'd be delighted to remove that (During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.), I thought it would make it easier to attract support if we included it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this version the best. No awkwardness like "unprecedented thousands" and no need to hedge it with "fact checkers said". We might consider adding a reference, a good strong one, since otherwise we will have people here at talk saying "who says?", five times a week for the duration of his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok as to content. Oppose a citation:
 * 1. This article has so far managed to remain citation-free in the lead. I like that. If the statement isn't unambiguously supported by sourced content in the body, that can be and should be corrected.
 * 2. A citation wouldn't prevent people from insisting we need attribution, five times a week for the duration of his presidency. Alternatively,
 * 3. I haven't seen a continuous stream of people saying "who says?" many of his public statements were controversial or falsecontent that has stood unchanged for a long time. Actually I haven't seen enough to recall any. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, those are good points. I am striking the suggestion of a citation. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, those are good points. I am striking the suggestion of a citation. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed alternate wording
After extensive discussion above the following wording was proposed by Scjessey and immediately agreed-to by three other people, so I am posting it here as a proposed wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT1: During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.
 * Support per discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Switch to #3. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of unprecedented. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Many RS use this wording, and, although it doesn't really say just how unprecented (nearly every sentence contains some sort of falsehoood or misleading element), it's still useful content. His biographers and others who really know him say he lies with every breath, lies reflexively, and has no regard for truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We do not need weasel words or qualifiers in the lead for this. That info can be found in the body where it belongs. PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliably-sourced wording is not weasel wording. That refers to editors adding such words. Since you object, please suggest better wording. "Unprecendented" isn't even opinion, but is how fact checkers summarize the actual statistics, IOW this is an evidence-based description of research findings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you would support During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made a number of false or misleading statements.? Considering that sources report that his lying is increasing in frequency, is unprecedented, and is deliberate, don't you think that wording might appear to our readers to be whitewashing the facts?- MrX 🖋 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support that phrasing of it. I am just not a fan of unprecedented. Between unprecedented and record I like record better from the main RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is a BLP, not limited to his campaign and presidency. As shown in veracity, his looseness with truth dates back decades. It is a core defining characteristic of the man and the lede must reflect that with a full paragraph of at least two sentences containing some specificity. Anything less is a capitulation to a small number of partisans who have fought tooth and nail to prevent this truth from being acknowledged, evidently in an effort to drag WP into an alternate-reality post-truth age (Bannon: "the way to deal with [the press is to flood the zone with shit.”]). We don't need to wait for history books to be written to know this reality is staring us in the face right now. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to reconsider that. This moves things in the right direction. The ideal may have to wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This nonsense has gone on too long. The article will remain essentially a worthless whitewash until this key aspect of the man's persona is prominently presented in the lede, and no reasonable person should be willing to wait to read it in a history book.soibangla (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but you need to be pragmatic here, because your firm idealism (which I share) may block progress. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Despite popular opinion, compromise is not a dirty word. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, you are opposing because you think this isn't enough? You think there should be a full paragraph, in the LEAD, about his mendacity??? That's simply impossible; there is way too much else to say about him and his 70 years in the spotlight. A well-sourced sentence in the lead is all we can do; there isn't room for anything more. We do have a whole section in the text on the subject; that is enough for "history". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed language is woefully inadequate to describe the core defining essence of the man, and if this language is adopted there will be some who will insist the matter is settled for all time and can never be revisited. If lede length is of concern, other parts of the lede can be trimmed/eliminated to make room for the most important aspect of his essence. This article must not be hijacked by a small cabal of partisan hacks who are in denial of reality. To allow them to succeed in this is to cowardly succumb to gaslighting. There, I said it. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Somebody please collapse this off-topic starting at an appropriate point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The small cabal of partisan hacks includes more than several experienced editors known to be staunch Trump opponents. Not only is your comment completely out of line, helping lay foundation for a future topic ban, but it's demonstrably false. You don't get to lodge accusations like that without strong evidence, even without naming specific users. I suggest you alter your approach if you hope to continue editing in the AP area. There, I said it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I did not say/mean that everyone who supports the proposed language belongs to a small cabal of partisan hacks. Rather, some are acceding to a small cabal of partisan hacks for the sake of "compromise" on a matter that is unworthy of compromise. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As the editor who introduced the word "compromise" in this thread, I can tell you that I "accede" to no one. Again, since I apparently wasn't clear enough the first time, you don't get to claim "a small cabal of partisan hacks" without evidence, period. If consistently taking a pro-Trump stance defines an editor as a partisan hack, that would have to work both ways, and about 90% of the editors in the AP area are partisan hacks on one side or the otherincluding, I'm fairly certain, you. So save the combative rhetoric, please.
 * only someone who is pro Trump is a partisan hack anyone anti Trump is just an honest unbiased editor. עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True or false: Trump is the most fundamentally dishonest public figure in anyone's living memory. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per my previous comments. "Unprecedented" is not a WP:WEASEL word. It is word that describes something that has never happened before. Absent evidence to the contrary, we must rely on our multiple reliable sources that tell us that Trump's lying is unprecedented. There is no serious dispute of that fact.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. This is the nicest possible way Wikipedia can describe Trump's penchant for porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost support – I prefer the "record number" wording currently suggested in the RfC, rather than the "unprecedented" word, which has been much abused. (Remember "unpresidented" tweets?) — JFG talk 21:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I state my rationale further up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as both confusing the topic of free coverage, and as an unjustified OR conflation. Make it a second sentence that he has been criticised during his presidency for “thousands” and you’re drawing language of RS... But this just seems a creative writing drill, debating personal ideals and posturing rather than going after close PARAPHRASE of what most convey.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What does "confusing the topic of free coverage" mean and in what part of the proposed text do you think is OR? Also, you mention that you prefer a "close PARAPHRASE". What would your version of that look like?- MrX 🖋 13:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MrX The line is WP:OR as a WP:SYNTH mangling of disconnected items. This confuses or rather loses the long-standing message of ‘extensive free coverage due to controversial statements led to his nomination’ ... Though the wording on that after committee/consensus had wound up not so clear back when.   The directive for close PARAPHRASE is a procedural one, the exact language of a notional second line depends on the topic of most WEIGHT and sources used.  In that remark I was saying this thread seems crafting what should be said on individuals arguing, rather than on trying to honestly portray what the body of RS chose to say.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I slightly prefer record number. But, that won't make it. Unprecedented is clearly DUE and supported by a preponderance of RS. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per a lot of comments above; using words like or terms like "most lies/inaccuracies" or "unprecedented number" is a bad idea, b/c a person or statement's level of "truthfulness" is a fundamentally subjective thing and hence can't be quantified. It's like saying "The Mona Lisa had an unprecedented amount of beauty". We can all agree the Mona Lisa is beautiful. But since there's no yard stick to measure beauty with, you can't really say it's the "most beautiful" or that its beauty is "unprecedented". NickCT (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NickCT, you say "no yard stick". Seriously? We aren't talking about beauty. Are you completely clueless about what fact checkers do? Are you clueless about the nature of facts, and the debunking of counterfactual statements? Members of the international union of fact checkers aren't expressing their opinions. They are documenting hard statistics. These are often countable things. When someone lies, it's relatively easy to document that fact, and Trump's untruthfulness is off-the-charts bad. He makes shit up, twists and misuses facts, and tells outright falsehoods constantly, quite literally. There is hardly a paragraph of anything he says which doesn't show a disregard for truth, so much so that we now "assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". Any editor who doesn't start with that assumption lacks competence to edit American politics here. Period. They aren't following RS, and they should. That's a pretty basic requirement for editing controversial subjects. Does anyone here dispute that?
 * So I ask again, are you completely clueless, just obtuse, and/or blindly defending Trump? It's OK to Say the President Is More Dishonest Than Other Politicians. It's the Truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Might want to take it down a notch there with the personal comments. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources routinely use words like "unprecedented" and "record number" to objectively describe Trump's thousands of falsehoods. Pretending for a moment that we should not faithfully reflect those source in this article, what would your alternative proposal be for describing Trump's well-documented habit of frequently making false and misleading statements?- MrX 🖋 19:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer: What PackMecEng said. Please strike. Also, we do not "assume Trump is lying and work backwards" and nobody should. Each statement should be approached objectively.
 * NickCT: There may not be a yardstick to measure beauty, but there is one to measure truth or falsehood. That is not subjective, it is objective. It's called facts, the real world. We have not yet entered the "post-fact era," although some people seem to be trying to take us there. If Trump says "I never said X" and there is video of him saying X, that is a falsehood. If Trump says "several previous presidents told me they should have put up a wall", and all the living previous previous presidents say they did no such thing, that is a falsehood. If Trump says "Democrats said they prefer steel over concrete" or "There has been rioting against sanctuary cities in California" or "there are a record number of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border", those are falsehoods. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Kid, I've been reading fact-checking articles since you were diapers. Sit down and suck on your thumb a little more while the grown-ups talk.
 * - re "routinely use words like "unprecedented" and "record number"" - Citation needed. re "what would your alternative proposal be" - I would do very little to change the current wording. Maybe change "many of his public statements were controversial or false." to "many of his public statements were controversial and received widespread criticism for being misleading or false.". That wording would basically mean that we (i.e. WP) aren't taking a position on his statement's "truthfulness", but merely noting that others have. Or maybe "His campaign generated a high level of controversy and many of his public statements received widespread criticism for being misleading or false."? Semi-colons are clunky grammar. And saying "received extensive free media coverage" seems silly and self-evident. Which campaign hasn't received extensive free media coverage?
 * - re "there is one to measure truth or falsehood" - Most regular fact checkers use "scales" (e.g. the Pinocchio scale) to rate lies. That in and of itself is an admission that most statements aren't completely false or completely true, but instead exist somewhere in the ether of "truthiness". And I agree with you that certain things are objectively false. But you've got to consider that there are "big" lies and "little" lies. For example, me saying that I'm 6'8" versus, say, Mitt Romney/Trump saying they've paid taxes at a rate comparable to most Americans. Both of those are essentially objectively false, but lying about your height on the internet probably makes you less of liar than lying to the American people about whether you've paid taxes. Most folks grade fibs not just on the basis of whether they're true/false, but also on the basis of the impact of the lie. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nick, when BullRangifer made some inappropriate personal comments to you, he later struck them out. I suggest you do the same. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Nick didn't deserve that, and I'm very sorry I let loose on him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed sentences 3&4 with your striking. Seconding MelanieN's request for you to strike as well. ~Awilley (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. NickCT (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about the frequency and repetition of falsehoods? Trump averaged 15 falsehoods a day in 2018, he made 125 false or misleading statements in about 120 minutes, The Fact Checker has not identified statements from any other current elected official who meets the [Bottomless Pinocchio standard other than Trump, 14 statements made by the president immediately qualify for the list]. soibangla (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look.... I'm not disagreeing that the scope and scale of the fibbing has increased. I'm just arguing that we shouldn't use adjectives which are quantifiable. We shouldn't say that "person A is a bigger liar than person B". It raises too many sticky questions about how to measure fibbing, which as I've said, is a somewhat subjective thing. NickCT (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly proposed a tight lede paragraph with some "meat" on it, and it's been repeatedly rejected, and we still can't even reach consensus on a single sentence with no meat. soibangla (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trumps alleged distortions are mostly small taters compared to the whoppers of past Presidents, so number of lies is really just a silly game of distraction for those suffering from TDS. I mean, who can beat "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "if you like your health care plan you can keep it" or "fast and furious began under the bush administration" and I do not see thousand (s) or even 500 mentioned here.--MONGO (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this small taters? "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea...I have solved that problem...sleep well tonight!" North Korea is moving ahead with its ballistic missile program at 16 hidden bases that have been identified in new commercial satellite images, a network long known to American intelligence agencies but left undiscussed as President Trump claims to have neutralized the North’s nuclear threat. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who can beat "if you like your health care plan you can keep it"? Trump can beat that one,, easily. During the campaign he promised a "big, beautiful health care plan that would take care of everybody." In May 2017 he tweeted "...healthcare plan is on its way. Will have much lower premiums & deductibles while at the same time taking care of pre-existing conditions!" He’s been president for two years now. Where is that health care plan? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about "I did not pay hush money to that woman" (paraphrasing here)? Just because Trump repeats falsehoods so much that each individual one cannot be replayed over and over doesn't mean they aren't whoppers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno...when a President lies so BIGLy he is impeached by the House that is as big as it gets...or lies so BIGly they are forced to resign. Let me know when Trump tops that. Some folks have nothing better to do than use their positions as "news writers" and "scholars" LOL to count every time someone doesn't confess to cutting down the cherry tree as the end of the world lie to beat all lies!--MONGO (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Presidents get impeached for criminal activity. Lying isn't a crime. Unless you do it under oath of course (e.g. Clinton). NickCT (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. While other presidents and politicians also have made some false statements, the level of dishonesty here is unprecedented, and there is no shortage of reliable sources confirming that. Bradv 🍁  16:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Amply and exhaustively supported by large number of high-quality sources; biographically and historically significant (indeed crucial). Claims that "all politicians lie" and thus we should omit this content just don't hold any water from the encyclopedic point of view; we gotta follow the sources on this. Neutralitytalk 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support well supported by numerous sources including academic ones. (e.g ). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t see why that would go in the lead. I don’t think it’s of neutral tone there. I mean, we all know he lies when his lips are moving but that’s not what we’re here for. It’s obviously fit for a section. Trillfendi (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Regarding some of the objections above, neutrality means reflecting what the sources say; trying to ignore the sources to produce a neutral tone is WP:FALSEBALANCE and isn't how we're supposed to write articles.  If it's widely-reported with a degree of WP:RS coverage that clearly makes it a defining part of his reputation and identity - and I think the sources support this - then it belongs in the lead, even if it makes him look bad.  Neutrality and tone are about reporting the facts in an even and impartial voice, not about weighting them to avoid covering bad things about people. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose How can one even know such a thing? Did someone go back and fact-check every statement made by every president since Washington? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Another alternative wording
Lots of editors (although not a majority at this point) appear to be hung up on words like "record" and "unprecedented" because they are hard to prove, even though reliable sources frequently use both. Ordinarily, we go with what the sources say, and "unprecedented" appears to be the current choice for most editors; however, it occurs to me that there may be a way to satisfy both "sides" of the issue:

Doing it this way explicitly assigns the "unprecedented" label to sources that will be found in the body of the article, and also explains why it is necessary, without using Wikipedia's voice to do it. This may be unnecessary, but I had the idea and thought I'd just put it out there anyway. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a US president that was completely honest? GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, but Trump is the first US president to have "dishonesty" as his most notable characteristic. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been OK with saying it in Wikipedia's voice and I still prefer ALT1, UPDATE: I now prefer Mandruss's ALT3, as it is straightforward and supported by regular news sources as well as just fact checkers. But I could accept this - except for "a numerous number". Ugh! Maybe "a large number"? Or maybe "a yuuuge number?" 0;-D How about "Trump has made so many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency that fact checkers have described it as "unprecedented". or "According to fact checkers, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems like a decent idea and I would support it. I am not sure how others will feel though, might invoke scare quotes. It is hard to say it is not something RS have stated as a major part of him but I am not sure it is his most notable characteristic. PackMecEng (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is better than the other proposals, but why the obsession with the word "unprecedented"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative wording #3
We try to be concise, especially in the lead, but that can be taken too far and I feel the need to relax it a bit in this case. And "unprecedented" is not a word but rather a concept, so let's not put it in quotation marks nor get all wrapped up about how often the actual word occurs in sources. We're allowed to paraphrase sources. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that. This is now my preferred wording. And I like the addition of "in American politics"; we are not comparing him to the rest of the world which has seen some notorious liars. One possible tweak: it's not "the statements" themselves that have been documented by fact-checkers, it's "their falsity". -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or misleadingness, hence the problem. Even if you could bring yourself to make it as wonky as "The falsity or misleadingness of the statements", it's not even a word in some dictionaries, and flagged by my spell-checker. I'd rather trust the reader to figure it out. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about "The veracity of these statements has been documented...," or something like that? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't split the hair any finer to say that it's the lack of veracity that has been documented. Or inaccuracy. Still trusting the readermost who read this kind of article have a general idea of what fact-checkers do, and the rest can follow the link. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're absolutely right. "Falsity" is the right word, but it's not common. "Mendacity" would by my preferred word. I suppose "infidelity" works too, but that might be confused with Trump's other problem! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your love lasted only three minutes, but that's more love than I received in all of 2018. Counting my blessings. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd still accept it as originally proposed. I'm just chipping in to the refinement MelanieN was looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's blame Melanie. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Always happy to take blame for things; I think of it as a public service. Actually I suppose words like "falsity" and "mendacity" do violate the old rule: Eschew obfuscation! For that matter, phenomenon is another. Now I'll be singing "Phenomena" all day. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - best proposal so far.--Staberinde (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I love this version. Congratulations on squaring the circle, ! I agree with Staberinde - definitely the best proposal so far. Answers every conceivable need and complaint we've had. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support about time someone decided to make it NPOV עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is as good as or better than any of the previous proposals. It addresses 90% of my concerns, and seems to be workable compromise.- MrX 🖋 23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable for the lead. Surely not in the wording provided. Phenomenon? Unprecedented? Once again, the sources have looked at every single thing the man has said and has taken even the smallest exaggeration and turned it into some massive falsehood.--MONGO (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An excellent example of the kind of reasoning forbidden by Wikipedia content policy. We. Do. Not. Second-guess. Reliable. Sources. Period. But I could be wrong; feel free to drop a link to the policy that says we can disregard what reliable sources say because we think they are biased against the subject. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The falsehoods have three characteristics: frequency, magnitude and repetition. In all three characteristics, individually and collectively, the phenomenon is unprecedented. No one turns a small exaggeration into a massive falsehood, but the frequency and repetition of falsehoods collectively demonstrate a persistent pattern.soibangla (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support DUE, amply covered by RS, and as succinct as we’re likely to get. O3000 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Accurate, even if a rather vague word. He's in a category of his own, so far beyond all other known liars that fact checkers and social scientists who specialize in studying liars have never seen anyone like him:
 * Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".


 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - pretty prose, but same issues or worse - still not LEAD, still an OR mashup that loses the prior campaign narrative which was supported. It is two stories, not one.  This just added more words of OR.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per comments above; oppose any use of the word "unprecedented" as unverifiable. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I note that you're prepared to oppose the proposed language on language grounds, without saying what would satisfy you. Can you convey the same meaning more clearly while limiting yourself to one or two sentences of reasonable length, without sounding awkward, cumbersome, or stilted? Emphasis on the same meaning. I'm fairly certain you can't, and I think you should withdraw your Oppose unless you can. Replacing it with a Support would be even better. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Er... we already have sources that support the use of "unprecedented" (that's what verifiable means), so your rationale seems pretty nonsensical. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Er.... Citation needed. Look at User:MelanieN's 19:06, 7 January 2019 comment, where there are sources using the word, it's generally qualified. Pure logic would dictate that a statement like this cannot be verified. It's like saying, "Trump made a sneeze unprecedented in presidential history". It begs the question, who the heck has been measuring, and what yardstick have they been using? Let's remember that Jefferson erroneously accused Adams of importing whores from France to stock the White House. Next to that, a lot of Trump's fibs don't seem so unprecedented. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "A year of unprecedented deception", "the President’s unprecedented record of untruths", "There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths" et al. Besides, it's not the type of lies Trump tells that is unprecedented (although some of his whoppers are astonishing), but the sheer number. We have plenty of sources that use this word, and plenty more than use similar words. And it doesn't matter about whether or not we can verify whether or not it actually is unprecedented (although it really obviously is), because that would be original research. We go with what the sources say, and the sources say Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So of the three sources you sent, one is an Op-ed, one is a photograph caption and the third a fact-checking analysis piece. The third is the only one that strikes me as quasi-reliable, and even then, I'm not sure if those count (have there been discussions about how reliable these kinds of pieces are?). re "sheer number" - Who was counting the number of Jefferson's fibs while he was around? Can you confidently say, that compared to all other presidents, you know that Trump has told more fibs? NickCT (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your questions are for reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. Any reasonably objective observer can see that the gist of the preponderance of RS is that this is something new in American politics, although they express that in various different ways. How they arrived at that conclusion, or how accurate or precise it is, is not for us to debate - per Wikipedia policy. I certainly don't recall a constant drumbeat of coverage related to Obama's truthfulness, or that of any other president in my lifetime. I don't know why it needs to be stressed that this wording does not use wiki voice as to "unprecedented"; we are not making any statement of fact regarding that, so we have nothing to prove or defend. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - What? No statement of fact? If I said I ran the NY marathon in an unprecedented time, it would mean I'd broken a record. That's a fact. By saying "Trump has told an unprecedented amount of lies", you're saying he's told the most lies compared to other presidents. That's obviously statement of fact. I see little room for interpretation. NickCT (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're reading, but the language proposed in this subsection clearly does NOT say that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, I didn't read it too closely the first time around. Rereading it, I think I'd oppose purely on the basis of it being bad English. What does "the phenomenon" refer to in the proposed wording? Very confusing, ambiguous wording. NickCT (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You opposed and then defended your oppose without closely reading what you were opposing? Do you do this often? Do see a serious problem with that?
 * - You're not answering the question. You seem to think that my not proposing clear language is rationale to put in unclear language. Don't get that.... NickCT (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The language is clear enough to everybody but you, so far. That's good enough for me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the wording as well.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with using an opinion piece when trying to reflect the opinion of the media (that the lies are unprecedented), and although the "unprecedented" is used in a caption in the second source, it is actually a quote from the body of the article. So I would argue all three sources, which are the first three I found in a couple of minutes of googling, are valid. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - re "reflect the opinion of the media" Again, there seems to be some confusion between "opinion" and "fact". Can we agree that if I say, "The speed with which I ran the NY marathon was unprecedented", it means that I ran it faster than anyone else, which is a statement of fact rather than opinion? So why is "Trump told an unprecedented number of lies" a statement of opinion?
 * Also, BTW - You dodged my question earlier re "can you confidently say, that compared to all other presidents, you know that Trump has told more fibs?"NickCT (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Since to become or stay a RS is by consensus most RS are anti Trump. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTOPINION. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am totally confident, with 100% accuracy, that no president in the history of the USA has told more lies than Trump - even with Trump only being in office for 2 years, but that isn't relevant in any shape or form. What is relevant is that multiple reliable sources use the term "unprecedented" (or some derivation thereof) to describe Trump's extraordinary mendacity, so it is perfectly reasonable that our article should also use the word. Honestly, this isn't really a thing you can reasonably debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - So you're a scholar of American presidential history? You've gone back and critically examined all the public statements made by all US presidents, and carefully tallied them up to arrive at that assessment.....? Unlikely.
 * More likely, you've seen a character you don't like, who has a penchant for telling porky pies, and since he fibs a little more colorful than those of the politicians you're familiar with from your limited perspective of history, you've made it an article of faith that he is the worst ever.
 * You don't have reliable sources. You have a couple questionable sources.
 * Regardless, even if the word "unprecedented" is sourced, the proposed wording is still confusing as heck. Note that you've disagreed w/ User:Mandruss (i.e. the person who actually wrote it), over whether the sentence implies that Trump has lied more than other presidents in history. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All but the most feeble minded person is fully aware of Trump's astonishing, ground breaking mendacity. And as I have already said, I don't have to critically examine public statements of previous presidents through history, because we already have sources that use the word and it obviously doesn't mean "literally" (even though it almost certainly can be taken literally). And this is the version I agreed with and supported above as a perfect compromise. I can't dumb this down any further for your comprehension, so this will be my last word on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "only stupid people don't know I'm right" defense, huh? Want me to get you a lollipop?
 * But seriously, you've got to admit the three sources you presented are really stellar..... right? NickCT (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't see where the inaccurate or unverifiable part is. The President of the United States being a habitual blatant liar is notable, belongs in the lead, and the wording is supported by a plethora of reliable sources. Teammm  $talk email$ 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - a good compromise with attribution on a certainly DUE feature on this presidency. starship.paint ~  KO   03:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as a second choice, although it's wordy (a future thread can and probably will decide how to condense it, if it is implemented). -sche (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is better than the other proposals, but why the obsession with the word, "unprecedented". Just because the popular press of the day engages in hyperbole doesn't mean that Wikipedia should, too.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy says nothing about compensating for media bias, sensationalism, hyperbole, or various other things. The word "unprecedented" fairly describes what is widely said in reliable sources, some of which use other words to say essentially the same thing. That's where our thinking should end, per policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First, you're wrong. That's why scholarly articles published in respected, peer-reviewed journals are considered superior to the popular press.  Second, we're here to write a responsible encyclopedia article.  You're certainly free to turn off your brain and mindlessly regurgitate everything published in the press, but I am not.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Third, just because something is published in a news outlet doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. As editors, we have editorial discretion on what we choose to include and not include.  Fourth, I would argue that unless a source explains its methodology (dating back to Washington) on how it arrived at that conclusion, it is not reliable for that claim.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, who needs to conform with unreliable "reliable sources" when we have editorial discretion? Let's all just advocate for incorporation of our respective personal analyses and viewpoints. Majority wins. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Version 3B
Mandruss offered a neutral version indeed, but still a tad verbose. I can't resist applying my concision hatchet™:

This proposal also avoids the sensationalist "phenomenon", and I don't think we need to attribute the "unprecedented" qualifier to "the media". — JFG talk 02:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC) *Reluctant Support Would fully support if the word "unprecedented" is dropped. This as a viable compromise and far better than previous versions offered. Succinct, to the point and lacking of sensationalist wording more appropriate for CNN or other Trump-loathing shitty media.--MONGO (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a tad verbose - 30% more words. Yawn. I can't resist - So work on self-control. sensationalist "phenomenon" - Merriam and Webster differ with that interpretation of the word. I don't think we need to attribute - Me either, but it significantly improves the chances of a consensus. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  03:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope - Prefer the Mandruss version above. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's not bad, but I still favor the Mandruss version. Informing readers about Trump's historically unprecedented lying is worth a few extra words.- MrX 🖋 13:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These continuing editorial slurs are becoming disruptive. O3000 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose not npov but would Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not seem neutral, and wording seems to be saying no politician ever made misleading statements before.   But mostly this still has issues of mashing two different things together and making OR.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, why the obsession with the word, "unprecedented"?  Just because the popular press of the day engages in hyperbole doesn't mean that Wikipedia should, too.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

False statements section: general comment(s)
The attribution/sourcing in our article is interesting, as it is to sources well-known for their hostility to Pres. Trump. It would be interesting to find RS(s) comparing Trump's (media-alleged) veracity to that of his predecessors. For instance, Pres. Obama was not a model of veracity, as in his famous "If you like your plan, you can keep it" (approx quote from memory) in his promotion for Obamacare. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting take on this topic: a new op-ed at the WSJ, by Lance Morrow
 * Mr. Trump works with huckster falsehoods—the flashy superlatives of a car salesman. The progressive left works with conceptual falsities. Voters in 2020 will decide which style of lies they prefer. Cite:America Is Torn Between Trump’s Fibs and Progressives’ Fantasies. Subhead: The president is a master of little lies, but the left rejects the big truths that sustain politics and culture. WSJ, 2/16/19, likely paywalled.


 * Morrow goes on to compare Trump to FDR:
 * ... the two men are opposites in all other respects, with different politics and purposes and ways of doing their hair, and different places in history. They would not have liked each other. Roosevelt would have called Mr. Trump “that dreadful man.”


 * Only in the techniques of truth and lies, and in treating the presidency as performance art, would FDR and DJT have admitted a fleeting affinity. They have entertained the world with a few of the same tricks. Roosevelt was an impresario of fake news. Mr. Trump’s tweets might be seen as FDR’s fireside chats in a different idiom.


 * It's an interesting read. Whether it has encyclopedic value, or belongs here, I 'll leave for others to decide. I'm happy to mail a copy to non-subscribers, assuming it is paywalled. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC of note
I have started an RFC at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries regarding how "major candidates" are determined at that page. Editors interested in United States presidential politics may be interested in participating in that discussion. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

New problem content
I'm not going to try to fix this content, even assuming it's WP:DUE, but it has significant problems and seems to have slipped through. Someone please have a look. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with the content per se, but has a point that it looks undue. Contrary to the "fire and fury" and "rocket man" comments, I have not seen a lot of coverage of this particular Twitter spat. Yet. — JFG talk 11:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it's been removed, so I won't bother pointing out the serious composition flaws that have no place in our content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was rather "inartfully" added, but I removed it because it simply didn't satisfy WP:WEIGHT. There's already plenty of Iran material to chew on. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like another person who took that days coverage (12 Feb) and just stuck it in. Might fit better at the article Donald Trump on social media but even there it seems too low a WEIGHT.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Covington incident
Should we include a section on how he supports the lawsuit filed against the Washington Post by Covington Catholic teen Nick Sandmann? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4600:77B2:116A:1CA6:B761:81C7 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) .
 * Seems too trivial and bland unless something dramatic happens. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights controversies
I wonder why there's absolutely no mention of LGBT related issues in this article despite the materials focusing on it. -- M h hossein   talk 17:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the Domestic policy section under social issues. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but is that enough? I mean there are more things in this regard? Is the amount of the materials dedicated to this subject the result of the users' consensus? -- M h hossein   talk 10:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The closest I can find for consensus on it is here. That was almost 2 years ago, it is a fair ask if we should re-examine it. The question I have is if it has played a large enough part of his life to be expanded in his main BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With such an expensive topic as Donald Trump and his presidency, I think Wikipedia works best when the main topic page (in this case, Donald Trump) presents the most salient information while secondary pages (like Social Policy of Donald Trump) drill-down into more specifics. There's just no way to cover every possible facet in the main article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty OK with keeping only main topics, but I think some noteworthy things might be missed. I'll be more specific in my next comment. -- M h hossein   talk 04:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but LGBT rights or anything are not even close to the main topic, thus a brief mention in this article should be enough. If we wanted to talk about every single detail, the article would have to be 100 times longer Tashi   Talk to me  12:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Trump's polices and statements are related. --  M h hossein   talk 06:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)