Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 105

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107→Archive 110

Impeachment inquiry in LEAD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The practice here being to discuss LEAD before making any change, I'm going to direct things to a discussion over the bold suggestions from User:MarvellingLiked.

What should be put into the Donald Trump lead about the inquiry ?

Sources

  1. ^ Haberman, Maggie; Shear, Michael D.; Benner, Katie (2019-09-25). "Trump Asks Ukraine's Leader to 'Do Us a Favor' and Also Urges Inquiry of Biden". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-09-25.
  2. ^ Fandos, Nicholas (2019-09-24). "Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-09-25.
  • Both ? Nothing ? Something else ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Not worth the trouble just yet. The right approach will be much clearer as time passes. Better to direct our attention to rewriting the Race section to be more comprehensive and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing till next week - The one-liner seems good, but I'm inclined to say it's still a bit early, and we don't have enough to justify WP:LEAD so ... discuss a bit this week and see if enough comes to satisfy folks and gets a bit more stable. We might well debate wording for a week anyway... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If we were to put a paragraph in the lead, I would support the first one, as it is more concise and explains virtually the same stuff as the second one but in less words. However, I don't believe that it is WP:DUE for inclusion yet, as it is still very new. Try waiting a week and see what happens. Mgasparin (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A short mention belongs in the lead now. This is likely the most significant event in Trump's life. When he is impeached, we can adda bit more. If he resigns or is convicted, a couple of more sentences would be merited.- MrX 🖋 11:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impeachment in lead

Closing this to reduce fragmentation of the discussion. At this point there is an entire paragraph about impeachment in the Lead and multiple active threads discussing what should be said. ~Awilley (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I correct that it has been decided the fact Trump is only the 4th president to face impeachment proceedings is not worthy of a single sentence in the lead?

Please tell me I'm wrong about this. soibangla (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Alas, someone decided it shouldn't go in until we discussed it. Now that we have discussed it, I think it can go back in.- MrX 🖋 23:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Here here! That means I agree. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment hasn't begun yet. All that's happened is the Democrats have described an enquiry as an impeachment enquiry. There have been impeachment efforts against many Presidents.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say impeachment, I said impeachment proceedings. Formal impeachment proceedings, not just people hollering for impeachment, like people always do with every president. That alone is momentous and leadworthy. This is a slamdunk, it's ludicrous that it's even debatable. soibangla (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
soibangla Sympathy, but yes discussion at here seem clearly No, at least for the now. p.s. lots more than 4 have had efforts for impeachment - see WP articles e.g. Efforts to impeach Barack Obama Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Did Boehner ever formally open impeachment proceedings against Obama? Nope. Did any Republican committee ever hold impeachment hearings against Obama? Nope. It was just a bunch of people hollering for impeachment. soibangla (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we're well past the hollerin' stage now. XOR'easter (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Congress is not yet at the impeachment proceedings stage yet. Nadler then Pelosi announced impeachment inquiry (i.e. investigation, fact finding, evidence gathering).Oldperson (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Soibangla mmm many have faced impeachment proceedings in the informal sense you used, but formally “impeachment proceedings” begin with a resolution of the House approving referral to committee. See Impeachment in the United States. Efforts to impeach George W. Bush for example had a vote 251:166 re articles of impeachment sent to Judiciary. Trump is still in the hollerin stage, where it seems many more than 4 presidents have had hollerin. And I am pretty sure there is a lot of hollerin still to come. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump is in the hollering stage, but the impeachment inquiry is going full speed ahead with the requisite subpoenas and ensuing resignations. Watch this space.- MrX 🖋 12:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Opinion

Closed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Ready for archiving. - MrX 🖋 11:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Much of the information put into this article is made solely by the opinion of the writer on President Donald Trump and much should be debated by the reader. It would be best for readers to find information themselves and (in order to know your own opinion of a certain person is correct) not only research negatives but positives about a certain person. Because only having one side to a heated argument is never a wise thing to do to yourself and the people you influence. In fact, we are unable to keep opinions of our own if we only ever hear one side and will never be able to choose for ourselves whether it is right.

President Donald Trump's personal life may be different than the public displays it as, and he could very well be falsely accused by the people who stated these theories. They are theories unless someone of the right athoratiy to prove these accusations correct does so, which has not yet happened. So I urge you to find more than what is put on this page and site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriesForever (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What Trump is like personally is of not interest to WP. WP is interested only in facts and those from Reliable sources.
One does not have to research either negatives of positives of DJT. All we need to know is already in the public sphere, and his twitter account.
Those who are Trump loyalists are immune to any "negatives" after all he "could shoot a man on 5th avenue". Those who believe he is the devil incarnate discount any positives (which if any exists are unknown and unreported).Oldperson (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
He kills fewer soldiers and civilians, day-to-day, than his post-9/11 predecessors did. This goes largely unreported, but not completely unknown. Is it more deplorable for an orange man to describe harmful brown people illegaly entering a nation and temporarily losing the children they sent ahead as captive pawns as an invasion, or for black-and-white presidents to send "their own people" off to a fate worse than catch-and-release pre-hearing separation anxiety? Trump may not be letting any Guantanamo Bay Muslims go home to see surviving mothers and daughters, but he's not caging any additional untried sons and fathers indefinitely (unless he's just managed to smokescreen it better than the babyfaces did). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removed text from impeachment section, here's why

text: "deposing Volker and four other State Department employees," -- meaning is unclear. If this is meant to be "to depose" as in a deposition, this has not, as far as I know, happened yet. If this is sought by the subpoena, needs to say so and be referenced, as I have not seen this in news coverage and I have been paying attention, although it does strike me as plausible. If this is supposed to be a reference to Volker's resignation, it is the wrong word. Also who are these other four employees? Not really disputing this, and material can be restored if better worded and referenced, but clarification is really necessary. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The source says:

"The envoy's resignation came as three House committees slapped Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with a subpoena, demanding information on the controversy and scheduling depositions for five State Department officials, including Volker."

I should have wrote: "scheduled depositions for Volker and four other State Department employees". I will make the necessary edit. - MrX 🖋 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Problems with editing

I hope this helps, too bad we can't decrease the size right now. Mgasparin (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is anybody else having problems editing the article? There are issues with typing and highlighting, and nothing happening when pressing the publish button. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How are you editing the article? The traditional way or the direct text editing? starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Visual editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That is likely the problem, along with the fact that the article is very large and takes a lot to load. Perhaps switch to source editor. Mgasparin (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the size is an issue, sometimes on mobile, and on the source editor, editing the entire article rather than just a section causes lag. So edit section by section if you can. starship.paint (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Uncited impeachment text

I removed uncited text about impeachment, and it was reworded and reinserted:

During Trump's presidency, Democrats were resistant to starting impeachment proceedings. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believed that the American people first must be convinced of the need for impeachment.

The first sentence could be taken as saying the Democrats should have started impeachment earlier, which is not neutral. It is also misleading. Who was pressuring them to start? The second sentence misrepresents Pelosi in that she has said many things on the issue. In any case, I think with a high profile article we shouldn't have uncited text.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The text is easily citable by copy-pasting cites from the main article. My concern is that it is awkwardly worded, and should stand off as a separate paragraph. I'm also OK with leaving it out entirely. - MrX 🖋 10:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Jack Upland - should Delete that “Democrats we’re resistant” or rewrite, as it rings false. Democrats as a universal is too broad, and certainly it’s that many were eager which sets the context of the next line re Pelosi. The Pelosi line needs rephrase as a she-said item, rather than objective fact. Perhaps overall drop the ‘resistant’ line and start with ‘Pelosi was resistant to impeachment, saying that the American people...’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have modified the text to say Democrats were divided. I have changed "During Trump's presidency" to "During much of Trump's presidency", but I still don't think that's right because we don't know how long the presidency is going to be. The citation provided does not support the quotation of Pelosi. As I said, Pelosi has said many things on the issue. Anyway, Pelosi only has one vote.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower complaint

I suggest this needs a more prominent place now, perhaps its own article, rather than its current location under Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign policy. This is shaping up as a very big deal.

On August 12, 2019, an unnamed intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint with Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA). Having found the complaint both urgent and credible, on August 26 Atkinson transmitted the complaint to Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Under ICWPA, the DNI "shall" within seven days of receipt forward the complaint to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Maguire declined to do so, and House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) chairman Adam Schiff was made aware of the complaint's existence and asked Maguire why he had not provided it. Schiff asserted Maguire stated he had been told to withhold it on direction from a "higher authority" because it involved an "issue of privileged communications." The DNI is a cabinet-level position. Schiff stated he was also told "the complaint concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community." On that basis, the White House and Justice Department informed Maguire that the complaint was not within the purview of the ICWPA and thus it should be withheld. On September 13, Schiff subpoenaed Maguire to appear before the HPSCI. On September 18, The Washington Post reported that the complaint concerned a "promise" Trump had made during communication with an unnamed foreign leader. White House records showed Trump had had communications or interactions with five foreign leaders during the five weeks before the whistleblower complaint was filed. During a previously scheduled closed-door hearing before the HPSCI on September 19, Atkinson told lawmakers that the complaint referred to a series of events, and that he disagreed with the position that the complaint lay outside the scope of the ICWPA, but declined to provide details. The Post reported that day that the complaint related to Ukraine, and the following day reported that Trump had in a July 25 conversation pressed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate matters surrounding Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, a potential Trump challenger in the 2020 presidential race. The New York Times reported that Trump asked Zelensky to speak with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who for months had been urging Ukraine to pursue an investigation of the Biden family.

soibangla (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is only about a week old. I think we need to let the story mature first so that any lasting impact can be ascertained. WP:RECENTISM May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
This is by no means ready for its own article. In fact it is not ready to mentioned here at Trump's biography. At this point there is nothing confirmed, no actions have been taken. Congress has requested information, the administration is refusing it to provide it, in other words: just another Wednesday. It could turn out to be important; it could turn out to be minor; it might never get beyond the stonewalling. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Fascinating. Far too early. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Every time one of these incidents comes up -- from the Lavrov-Kislyak meeting when Trump betrayed Israeli intelligence, to the Helsinki "can't imagine it would be Russia" bit, to the MBS/Saudi apologist stance in the Khashoggi execution, the lovely letters from "Kim in Korea" -- every one of these times, important Trump article content gets quashed as UNDUE or NOTNEWS or "it must be Wednesday".
But nearly 3 years into the Trump presidency we now have RS that give summary treatments of what they describe as a highly significant pattern of behavior by Trump. I agree we editors should not be picking examples or judging on the spot which incidents will ultimately be most prominent. But this unprecedented pattern of behavior in office must be presented and characterized in a summary as RS describe it. And we now have a pattern of a dozen top national security and foreign affairs professionals quitting or being fired by Trump. I don't see that we've given due weight to that big picture in the current article text. Forest/trees. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Seven days ago:

President Donald Trump’s administration has released $250 million in military aid for Ukraine...This week, three national security committees in the Democratic-led House of Representatives announced that they were launching an investigation into whether Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and possibly others had been trying to put pressure on Ukraine’s government to assist in Trump’s re-election campaign. The committees had said they would investigate whether withholding the military aid was part of Trump’s effort “to coerce” the Kiev government into launching an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his family...Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

soibangla (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks horrible. Still too early for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The Rudy/Ukraine story could be tied to the whistleblower. Or, it could have nothing to do with it at all. It's all just speculation at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you see him on CNN tonight? Within 20 seconds he went from saying he didn't ask Ukraine to investigate Biden to saying "of course I did!" Literally. soibangla (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Didn't see it, but I read about it. Personally, I say "lock him up". But the follower of the WP:5P knows we need more. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's see where we stand on this fast-breaking story. Almost all of the details in the proposed paragraphs above are unconfirmed and are based on press reporting based on a few anonymous sources. But is there anything here we can report as fact? There is one thing that is actually confirmed and public. That is that the administration - specifically the White House and the Justice Department - have intervened in the whistleblower process, by refusing to allow the report to be forwarded to Congress by the people who are by law supposed to do so, specifically the inspector general and/or the acting DNI. In their public comments, Trump himself has in effect confirmed that it concerns a phone conversation with a foreign leader, and Giuliani has virtually confirmed that it involves Trump withholding money from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigates Joe Biden's son. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what is so remarkable about the situation the United States is currently in. Even these very first details of the story, which perhaps only scratch the surface of the scandal, are astonishing and disturbing. Using the office of the presidency to potentially alter the outcome of an election by exerting influence on a foreign country with strong ties to a foreign adversary, and then obstructing any potential investigation into the matter, and then lying about the whole thing on national TV. And despite all that, we are talking about taking a step back to allow the story to mature in case nothing ever comes of it. In fact, I'm one of the people who is calling for restraint, and I hate myself for it. Incredible times, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey, +1. Historians are going to have a helluva time parsing this administration. Unfortunately, we're contemporaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I know that you did not intend this, but "Anonymous Sources" reads like "Illegal Aliens" and other POV linguistic legerdemain. The sources are known to the journalists and the journalists' published works are RS for these articles. "Anonymous Sources" makes it sound like internet conspiracy gossip and encourages or enables less thoughtful editors to dismiss these sources. Note that as I said above, I am not suggesting we editors pick and choose among recent events for immediate article inclusion, but let's not go too far in the other direction. Meanwhile, it's pretty extensively reported that Trump either does not understand, or does not care to fulfill, a president's role in foreign relations. And this would be the basis for current article text without precipitous or undue or WP:OR selection of every example. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the NYT and WaPo are reliable sources, but when we use something from them based on anonymous sources I like to say "reportedly" rather than stating it as fact in our voice. When I say anonymous sources, I mean that I don't know who they are. I have said this before: my way of reading any news report is "who says so and how do they know?" In other words, what are the reporters' sources? In this case, I don't know who says so or how they know, I just have to take the reporters' word for it that they are credible. In contrast, we have material from Trump, Giuliani, and Adam Schiff - named sources who can be cited as the source of whatever we say. Interestingly, Trump and Guiliani have basically confessed to extortion - namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released. To the extent that this is used to address the encyclopedic value of this incident, I should note - that's exactly the purpose of foreign aid. Foreign aid is given primarily to influence the behavior of other countries, to either pull the strings on a decision or deny another country those strings. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
So an unnamed source makes an undisclosed accusation against Trump. Probably does not belong in this article because so far it has received little coverage compared with overall coverage of the subject. Today's headline news is not necessarily significant to someone who makes headlines every day. But you don't need permission to create an article. I think that it is notable because of its extensive coverage. It doesn't have to be significant to this article to meet notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This is actually a very significant story, because the White House appears to be preventing the legally mandated handling of a whistleblower complaint. Guy (help!) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Stories have significance because of the weight of its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. All you can say is that because there are allegations of ilegality, it will become one of the major issues of the Trump presidency. But we don't know yet. TFD (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Money-for-investigation angle

Sheesh, I can’t believe this. Giuliani in a tweet has confirmed the "you must do this investigation if you want your money" aspect of the situation. He said, "The reality is that the President of the United States, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. If you're so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations -- our money is going to get squandered.” [1] How are we going to cover this? It’s got to go in here somewhere. IMO the whistleblower issue is not ready for prime time - and we don't even know if it is about this or something else. But the Ukraine-money issue has been reported for months and is firmly established now. I think we should find a way to put it in the article. We should discuss it here first, of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears (from that CNN article and from other articles) that the request was that Ukraine investigate alleged interference in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. That included an allegation that Joe Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company on which Hunter Biden was a board member. This all sounds a little more nuanced than "you have to investigate Joe Biden to get this money", although I suppose it could be reduced to that level of simplicity if enough essential facts are carved off. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Those would also be investigations intended to help Trump in his presidential campaign - right? This is still a political demand - "open investigations so I can use them in my campaign, or I won't give you the military aid money that Congress allocated for you." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to put it in this article, as I suggested: where would it go? Our "foreign policy" section is pretty bare-bones, by consensus, with readers being directed to the "Foreign policy of Donald Trump" article for details. And there is currently no subsection about Ukraine. I'm not sure if this even really is a story about Ukraine; it may be more a story about how he is running his presidency. It may be that as far as this biography is concerned, this story will have to wait - until we write a new subsection or article about his use of presidential power to benefit himself, financially and politically. In the meantime we can cover it in the Foreign policy article. Any others? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone else just created an article: 2019 Trump-Ukraine Scandal. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting! I doubt if there is enough well-sourced information for such an article, and that title will never fly. I think the paragraph I wrote for the Foreign Policy article is about as far as we can go right now. Here it is, if anyone wants to copy anything from it. (That's legal here, y'know.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of reliable source material going back months, it's just that most of it flew under the radar of people who weren't following it closely, but now it's all coming together in light of recent developments. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
And now it's all over the place. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:MelanieN - NOT FOR HERE. Seems an allegation of Presidency power misuse would best fit at that article, and I think it should move to under #ethics instead of #foreignpolicy. But I’d suggest wait a bit on this aspect as it seems a bit premature with much speculation at the moment and it seems deja vu of collusion delusion wishful thinking. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a more nuanced reread of the CNN and related articles are in order. How many times has it got to be argued that patience is a virtue here and if this is something that has staying power it still is better suited in the Presidency or Foreign Policy article, not this BLP. Furthermore, since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from countries that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues? This is not an aberration from the norm at all.--MONGO (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from countries that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues? - when the "previous or ongoing issues" are "plz dig up dirt on my political opponentz ok?" then the answer is... since the beginning of the Republic? Volunteer Marek 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, since this appears to be inappropriate by threatening to withhold U.S. taxpayer dollars ,i.e., public funds (, i.e., not his money). And he is trying to coerce a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming elections by digging up dirt on opponents [2], [3]. I was going to say inviting a foreign power to interfere... but that seems to be an understatement at this point :-D ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Right. An understatement. There is no dirt to dig up. Biden already admitted that he strong armed the Ukranians.--MONGO (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Biden already admitted that he strong armed the Ukranians to do...what? soibangla (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see your source for that claim. In any case, Trump's current demand for an investigation has nothing to do with Biden himself or anything he did as vice president. Trump and Giuliani are demanding that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden's connection to a Ukranian oil company. Trump brought up that specific subject at least eight times in his phone conversation with the president of Ukraine, according to the WSJ. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN:...near the end. Biden admits in the interview billions were threatened to be withheld if the Ukranians did not fire the prosecutor...[4].--MONGO (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
MONGO: 2019 Trump-Ukraine controversy#Background In particular, see note #9 soibangla (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I read it...and read the interview as well.--MONGO (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I am often amused by those who try to send others on a wild goose chase to "read it" instead of simply citing the specific language they find damning. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I hatted the conspiracy theory insinuation that Joe Biden's having pressured Ukraine in 2016 to replace the sham investigator Shokin -- not to end the anti-corruption investigation but to strengthen it, according to US and European nations' policies -- indicates possible wrongdoing by the Bidens. @Soibangla: has provided documentation as to the facts. There was no finding of misbehavior by either Biden. See further debunking of the Trump Giuliani Pompeo narrative here. I am troubled that the CFR interview could be used to justify these conspiracy theories, and I believe that the hat should be restored, lest we promote those false insinuations. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


Seems nothing new here in facts or any sure crisis. Think Ukraine is denying the speculations of any threatening to withhold funds as false, and simple withholding funds due to corruption seems common as in recently said for Afghanistan and Zambia. I would hope to see more information - such as *what* allegations are being investigated and what led to them - and less on any wild speculations and emoting for cameras. But I’d want anything about this to be kept at the Presidency article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Time for an impeachment section

The House is about to announce an impeachment inquiry.[5][6] Given the significance and lead up to this moment, the article needs to cover this with at least a couple of well-rounded paragraphs. It should also be mentioned in the lead.- MrX 🖋 20:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe just one paragraph would be better. His presidency article is more suited for a lengthy discussion on this. If this probe has a long-lasting impact on his presidency (I don't doubt that it will) we can go more in-depth here. Also, the lead is getting quite long, are you sure you want to include it there? Mgasparin (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing much has happened so far.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
An impeachment inquiry is not an impeachment. Also, this has been going on for some time but now it is "official", a moniker which I do not think changes anything at all on a practical level. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 21:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing has really been going on other than the Speaker not doing her job. This is actually a pretty significant development precipitated by Trump's own actions, as discussed in the previous sections. If there were any possibility that this would die on the vine, I would say let's wait, but there is a lot of momentum now. Whether it's one largish paragraph, or two or three, something should be written in this bio. If the lead is too long, I would be open to trimming something like "...allowed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge." or "He owned the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015".- MrX 🖋 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We can afford to wait until there is more substantial detail. We're not supposed to provide up to the minute blow-by-blow news coverage, after all. Guy (help!) 21:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
    Just the big blows. I would conjecture that we have a few tens of thousands of readers looking for encyclopedic treatment of this information: [7] - MrX 🖋 21:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
All the people in Antarctica who can't access any website except Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Twitter is a thing. A different thing from Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not enough content yet, fit into existing sections until there is. There’s not content proposed here except a wanted length on no visible basis or detail, and the usual desire to be in the headline lead despite having not enough content to justify LEAD, so size and position are just wishful thinking for now. The bare statement of impeachment inquiry movement seems the only actual event so far, which could fit in just one line, and after that seems just the usual speculation and posturing as what’s available. So try putting things into existing sections until it grows big enough that More is appropriate. The inquiry being an actual event is a big distinction and means it’s not going away, so there’s no hurry. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
    Here's some interesting content: Transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian president shows him offering U.S. assistance for Biden investigation - MrX 🖋 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ehh, keep in separate articles for now. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is important because it's only the fourth time this happened. The last ones led to two impeachments and one resignation. But it depends on the ongoing coverage it receives and so far requires only brief mention. TFD (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are going to talk about a possible future impeachment, should we also discuss Trump's options for countering that: e.g. to prorogue Congress to stop them doing anything about it? He does not have to worry about the current US Supreme Court blocking him. NRPanikker (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    We should not include much speculation, but rather events as they occur. Trump can prorogue Congress after he gets permission from our Queen.- MrX 🖋 11:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I assume you mean Mitch McConnell, but thus far he has abdicated responsibility. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Other ventures

I added the following to the lead, and it was challenged. I would like to get other's thoughts about whether this, in some form, might benefit the lead. Both ventures have extensive articles.

Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were besieged with legal issues resulting in their closure.

- MrX 🖋 10:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A reader who reads the lead and walks away will not be benighted for not knowing that about Trump. And the lead's chronic length problems call for a very high bar. My DUEmeter is in the red. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I dispute that the lead is too long, but let me pose this: which is more lead worthy, Trump University and Trump Foundation or Beauty Pageants?- MrX 🖋 11:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It may not be too long now, but it would be if we lowered the very high bar. There is almost constant pressure to add, and less interest in removing. Proposals for size limits that would force us to make choices have been defeated.
The question you pose is not easy to answer. I think a majority of the reader population is more interested in things like beauty pageants than in things like universities and (especially) foundations, but perhaps that shouldn't be our criterion. I guess I would answer the question by rejecting it – I would support removal of beauty pageants from the lead per the same very high bar. My question is: If the beauty pageants passage were proposed for inclusion today, what would be its chances? I think it's there just because it's been there for a long time, which goes to my comment about lower interest in removals. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Mandruss fwiw, Think pagents in Lead started 04:55 on 31 Aug 2016. But any discussion of comparative criterion seems likely to give credit to this is *supposed* to be his BLP and 71/73rds of his life is outside the White House. It's a balancing - and for BLP, the 20 years and fame or personal detail in previous life has sometimes come up as topical relevance overriding the WEIGHT of insane amounts in coverage of things since 2016. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undue prominence, as not supported by enough article content to satisfy WP:LEAD. There’s not enough to even mention existed in Lead, and Lead would just have a neutral ‘ran Foundation from 1988 to 2016’. A ‘besieged’ phrasing conveys ‘attacked by enemies’ detail that’s logically after and lower level of detail than existence... and seems wrong tone to start with. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. Meanwhile, I had reinstated the article text. The content is not UNDUE, manifestly, because it's received ongoing coverage and mentions in both the press and more analytic and longer-perspective RS publications. The broadening of the Trump brand from one-off real estate construction in NY to the a diversified global enterprise is a key thread of the past 50 years of his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - Please self-revert that to respect the WP:BRD, and in line with the local practice of edits to LEAD require first having consensus via TALK. User:JFG has not even had a day to respond, and other editors should get to weigh in with views on this or other concerns. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. Meanwhile, I had reinstated the article text. - No worries, I have reversed your error.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Mandruss. Note that I didn't call it an error. Just didn't see there was a place all ready to refute the suggestion that it's UNDUE. Those other enterprises are much more significant and have received much more discussion with respect to Trump's life and activities (not as standalone enterprises) for the reason that they exemplify his approach to buidling his fame and fortune. The failures and complaints related to the steaks, diplomas, etc. are much more significant to the story of Trump than the fact that he happened to take over and later divest a previously-established beauty pageant.
Remember we're no longer under "consensus required" here. It's now 24-hour BRD with discussion on talk, with the hope that will prevent insignificant dissent from blocking article improvement. So, for example, MrX has explained why it's not UNDUE, and I don't see any rebuttal addressed to the reasoning he explained. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I challenge your claim to authority about what dissent is insignificant and what is article improvement. I think we've been over this several times before. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I stand on the authority of Graham's hierarchy. X and I refuted the stated criticisms. Others either repeated "UNDUE" without basis, or deflected to irrelevant issues such as hypothetical lead length at some not-now date. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
He who self-appoints as debate judge will never have to lose a debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to go into debating. Meanwhile, you could try joining me and X atop the pyramid. Haven't seen that yet. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Consensus does not seem to be emerging here. This might be a good candidate for an RfC, unless other editors weigh in in the next day or so. - MrX 🖋 22:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't see that there's been responsive discussion as to the policy-and-sourcing based reasons given to support the text you inserted. "No consensus" or "Folks like beauty pageants" are not constructive evaluations of the arguments to include. If the issue is DUE WEIGHT, then we don't discuss the public taste for beauty pageants. To repeat, RS discussion of Trump's life and work have given lots of coverage and discussion of his tendency to skirt the boundaries of fraud, exploitation, and deceit. They have not presented commensurate discussion of Trump's having bought and sold a beauty pageant as central to or revealing anything about his life and behavioral traits.
We are no longer under "consensus required" where the mere complaint of "no consensus" is enough to block article improvement. The current sanction requires talk page discussion between reverts, and I read that to mean not just "I don't like it" but rather to mean responsive discussion of other editors' rationales for their views. Thus far I believe that MrX and I have provided policy and source based rationales for adding MrX's content while those who oppose have not impeached our reasoning or edited a compromise text into the article. I would not favor an RfC at this time. They have recently tended to diffuse rather than focus our efforts. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is stopping you or I from putting the material back in, except the knowledge that someone will probably revert it and we would have no consensus to point to. To counter part of Mandruss' argument, I will say that I did remove material from the lead when I added the university and foundation material, in an effort to maintain the the lead length.
Markbassett wrote "Undue prominence, as not supported by enough article content to satisfy WP:LEAD." That's not a policy based argument. WP:LEAD actually refers to importance of the material according to sources. ("the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.). As far as the word "beseiged" that Markbassett objected to, we could revise the wording to "Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were closed following fraud lawsuits.".- MrX 🖋 10:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
To counter part of Mandruss' argument - Thanks, and good for you, but that's not much of a counter. I was speaking to the whole picture/situation, not MrX's editing and certainly not a single instance of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, hold up for BRD procedural guidance; norms for LEAD edits around here; plus TOPIC concerns for a start. At a very minimum, JFG (and others) should get a few days to respond -- not just a few hours.   It's not like this needs urgent response.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mention BRD. If other editors want to comment, they will. - MrX 🖋 10:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett, "hold up" is another not-policy-based concern. And, because X and I have both given additional substantive replies to stated objections, either of us may restore MrX's text at any time. SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: - [9] - Objection, and I can't revert you per 1RR. AFAIK disputed content is still omitted when there is no consensus, so I can't make sense of your editsum. It's not "Try to get consensus for inclusion. If you can't, add it anyway." ―Mandruss ☎ 11:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I modified the sentence to accommodate Markbassett's wording concern and I also respected WP:Mmm, hold up. In my estimation, that tips consensus slightly in my direction. Had I re-inserted the original sentence, I could understand your objection. Perhaps we need a two part RfC that seeks consensus for my sentence and the beauty pageant sentence. That would serve up some interesting logic pretzels, I'm sure.- MrX 🖋 11:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: I don't understand why you don't understand my objection. My position from the start has been that that doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead. JFG's too, apparently, although for some reason he hasn't commented here yet. How is that addressed by changing the wording?
This article has been relatively peaceful because people agreed to abide by often frustrating process rules. Coins are two-sided and I think you and SPECIFICO should think about unintended consequences. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I think I understand your objection; I just don't agree with it. I'm concerned that both you and Markbassett have pinged an editor that you expect to support your position. That's not consistent with abiding by "frustrating process rules" in my opinion. My edit was an attempt to compromise based on comments from the four people who have participated in this discussion. My edit was in good faith, and entirely consistent with policy and practice. - MrX 🖋 12:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: We pinged JFG so he could comment here, reaffirming the position he took in his edit summary, modifying it, or even reversing it. The fact that he has refrained from commenting to date doesn't make me believe he stands very strongly behind it. Your flowchart talks about compromise, so I'd be interested to know how one compromises between inclusion and omission of that content in the lead.
WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Conspicuously absent from that: "And they may decide when there is sufficient consensus to include it, defining the criteria as they see fit." ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Rather than play policy shortcut bingo, let's see if someone removes the compromise sentence that I added. If they do, I will create an RfC and we can get a formal determination of consensus.- MrX 🖋 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: While I'm perfectly happy with the proposed text as a concept, I do not think these issues have enough significance to make the lead of this article, which is a roundabout way of saying I oppose inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've self-reverted. I will park the wording here for further discussion, pending an RfC. "Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were forced to shut down when they became entangled in serious legal issues." - MrX 🖋 14:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A useful resource

As Mgasparin correctly noted, no informal discussion is going to reverse the hard-fought existing consensus to omit any content about anything related to mental health or psychology, at least while he occupies the Oval Office. Ergo, this discussion cannot be directly related to article improvement, violating WP:NOTFORUM. There is no rule, per se, against revisiting the issue in a more formal way (i.e. RfC), but I can predict with some confidence that that would be extremely unpopular at this juncture. My suggestion, be it ever so humble, is to move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here is an extremely well-sourced forensic analysis of Don Trump's behaviour. Refreshingly free of policy or politics, it examines Trump's behaviour in terms of the office. Hard to find a more RS than The Atlantic. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To which we add Psychiatrists use Mueller Report to track Donald Trump’s mental health, warn: ‘There is very little time now’ and google Trump on the Couch.Oldperson (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Skyring What are you proposing we do with this? A VERY lengthy discussion has already been had on his behaviour/mental health, etc., and the result of that discussion is tabled in Current Consensus #39 and here. If you want to include something about his behaviour, you will have to start a more formal discussion. Mgasparin (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump's mental problems are as relevant here as any other BLP with similar issues. Robbie Williams or Brian Wilson, for example. We have an excellent source, which is in itself well-sourced. I noticed that nobody else had mentioned this fresh publication, so I posted the link here. There should be no problem with the sources. --Pete (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Skyring - MANY lengthy discussions have gone by, a side article split out and later merged (I think partly a POVfork verging on ATTACK page, but some resumed here), and numbered consensus here have gone *farther* away from this. Just too TABLOID and fraught with suspect motivations of partisanship. Maybe a year after he’s left office the coverage and editing may attempt to readdress it, but for now... no. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facts Not in Evidence

In the 'Impeachment efforts and inquiry' section it claims that "... Trump had pushed the President of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter ..." except this is not what the transcript says. Rather than giving a Partisan interpretation of the transcript would it not be better to quote the relevant section, and then note that the Left interpretation of this is Trump pushing the Ukraine to investigate Biden? Wikipedia is supposed to be apolitical but that's not possible if articles simply parrot Democrat spin. 人族 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You may have a point, but it might go over better if not packaged in an attack on those whose politics you disagree with. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@人族: What transcript? It was a White House memo that presented a summary of the phone conversation. People need to stop calling it a transcript. And honestly, it's pretty clear Trump did try to push the Ukranian president into investigating the Bidens. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This transcript. Scroll down for the actual White House document. If news orgs like CNN are calling that a transcript without scare quotes, that's good enough for our purposes. Not many are calling it a completely trustworthy transcript. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This is why we use secondary sources, and not editor interpretations of primary sources. The content in question is fine.- MrX 🖋 12:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
If sources call it a transcript, we call it a transcript. They do. If sources say that Trump tried to pressure the president of Ukraine, then we say that Trump tried to pressure the president of Ukraine. They do. Volunteer Marek 13:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek, the older I get the harder it is for me to see the individual letters against the background in your sig... Drmies (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I know you can tell by the colors, since I know they frequently show up in your nightmares. Volunteer Marek 22:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The President of Ukraine denies that he was pressured. Since this information came out more recently, I think it should take precedence. Plus, the President of Ukraine is a better source for whether he was pressured than some third party that isn't the President of Ukraine. (An individual is always the best source for their own mindset.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree with your first four sentences. If you want to show independent sources that say that Zelensky wasn't pressured, that would be worth looking at.- MrX 🖋 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Is any of your reasoning policy-based? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    The President of the Ukraine is walking a tight rope considering the wolf (or rather, bear) is literally at his door and he is reliant on the U.S., currently headed by Trump. So, no, Zelensky denying that he felt pressured doesn't mean that he didn't feel pressured. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
For @Mandruss:, @Mr:, @Mubogshu:. Here's a reliable source on the matter, in which the Ukrainian president denies being pressured by Trump: [[10]] As per WP:RSCONTEXT, The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Certainly, the Ukrainian President is the most appropriate source for what the Ukrainian President's impression of the conversation was. And in any event, they are more appropriate than sources that merely speculate. As per WP:RS_AGE, these sources are newer and supplant the previous speculation. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, I've read the sources. And you're right, the context matters. "I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of U.S.A. No, you heard that we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.” That's what Zelensky said. I frankly think the "I don't want to be involved" part means more than "nobody pushed me". Then, “So no pressure,” Trump added. If Zelensky did feel that he was pushed, though, would he say that while sitting next to Trump? He just wants to stay out of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
And he can stay out as he cannot be subpoenaed, but his account is part of the public record whether you feel he is being disingenuous for political reasons or not.--MONGO (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia's account of an entire life; at some point we have to draw a line when it comes to inclusion of relatively unimportant details. The predominance of reliable sources recognize that the issue is not whether Zelensky felt pressured but rather Trump's intent and the ethical boundaries involved. Other articles can (and do) wade deeper into the weeds of the controversy. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. This is Trump's bio page, and Zelensky's response is WP:UNDUE here. We can include (and probably do already) what Zelensky said in the Trump-Ukraine controversy page. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: - I understand your concerns, but they are speculative in nature and would essentially be WP:OR should they guide the editorial process here. The fact remains that the Ukrainian president is clear - he was not pushed. So we shouldn't state that he was, as he is obviously the best source for his own opinions. Is it defensible to say "Yes, that's what the Ukrainian president said, but this Wikipedian doesn't believe he's telling the truth so we shouldn't include it in the article?" May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, he said he was not pushed. That does not mean he did not feel pushed. It's not my OR, I read plenty of analysis on this yesterday, but don't have the time to try to pull them up. Since when do we expect politicians to be truthful anyway? Secondary sources, like those pointing out that the Russian army is in the Ukraine, are better than verbatim regurgitating whatever Zelensky says to get the aid. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
It helps when I look at the text in question. It says "pressured", in quotes, with the word attributed to the NYT and WaPo. Secondary sources ftw. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: - While I agree with you that the meat of this controversy is suitable for other articles, the fact remains that this article does claim the Ukrainian president was pressured. Are you suggesting it should be taken out entirely? May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, Trump can attempt to pressure without Zelensky feeling pressured (even if we assume that Zelensky is being entirely forthcoming about that), and Zelensky is not the arbiter of ethics in American politics and government. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
(EC) To get back to what this page is supposed to be for, namely discussing what to put in the article: There's no need to cite Zelensky here, although he should be quoted at the article about the case. There are three possible reasons why Zelensky might have said this. One is that he was sitting next to Trump at the time and knew better than to contradict him. The second is that didn't want to get involved in US politics, and if he said "yes, I was pressured" he would be involved big time; he might even be called to testify to Congress. The third is that English is not his native language, and the subtle pressure/threat in a comment like Trump's response when Zelensky asked to buy US missiles - "“I would like you to do us a favor, though" - might have escaped him. We have much stronger evidence than what anybody now says. The most important evidence we have is corroboration, in a document released by the White House itself, that Trump did press him multiple times to do the investigations he wanted. Especially the time when he hinted that Ukraine's ability to buy weaponry would depend on whether the Ukrainians did the "favor" that Trump was requesting. That is not just pressure, it is pressure using the power of the presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: - You might be correct. But if Wikipedia says that the Ukrainian President was pressured, that should be backed by reliable sources. And the most reliable source for the impression of the Ukrainian President is the Ukrainian President. Your comments above may be correct, but at the end of the day, it boils down to "Zelensky said it, but this Wikipedian doesn't believe it for various reasons" which is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@MHSFUY: If you can produce a few solid sources that say Trump attempted to pressure, I wouldn't object to the addition of those two words and the removal of the scare quotes. We just need to reflect sources and try to leave other reasoning out of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is a third option. We could simply not say that Trump pressured Zelensky. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
That is not an option when so many sources not only say he did but make it the most important element of the whole story. And that's the last time I will repeat that point – if you haven't heard it by now you're not going to hear it if I say it a hundred times. Wikipedia is driven by reliable secondary sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
That would be a the second worst option. Sources predominately say "pressured" (or equivalent) and so should we. Can we move on now?- MrX 🖋 17:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Zelensky's statement that he was not pressured was made in an interview at the UN, and I could provide possibly endless reliable sources as it was covered by all major news outlets. Exactly how many do you need? May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 17:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Support moving on now, per WP:IDHT. We have achieved circularity. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing circular about it. You said that "so many sources" support using the "pressured" language. That's true. But there are also "so many sources" that cover Zelensky's comment that he wasn't pressured. You're using the number of sources as an argument for how we phrase it in the article. So why not discuss it? May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 17:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You're not hearing us. We don't care how Zelensky claims he perceived the pressuring. He's not a disinterested party. Your proposal is gaining no traction and your arguments are becoming repetitive. - MrX 🖋 17:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, No, this has become a circular discussion. We've discussed why secondary sources are better to use than simply reporting the words that he said. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
No idea why this discussion was shut down already? Some of us have jobs and can't chime in every 15 minutes. Since when is the NYT and WaPO better positioned than the person they are discussing to know how that person "felt"? If Zelensky said he felt no pressure, was not pressured, then of course if that is quoted by a RS secondary source, it belongs here. The fact that Zelensky says he did not feel pressured definitely belongs in this article.--MONGO (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not a soapbox for Zelensky's feelings. Let's stick to facts reported by highly-reliable independent sources. Trump was trying to affect the election by recruiting favors from a foreign actor. It's not Mueller Time anymore.- MrX 🖋 20:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't soapbox...either we put in the disclaimer quoted by multiple reliable sources that Zelensky says he did not feel pressured or I say a formal Rfc to determine this is mandatory.--MONGO (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want to initiate an RfC to determine if Zelensky's feelings belong in the article, knock yourself out. I can live with Drmies' edit, since it should be clear to readers that it was the asking (more like, coercing) that triggered the impeachment. - MrX 🖋 21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Rxamples...[11], [12], [13]. In other words, all we want included are outside observers and their opinions? Its an impeachment inquiry, btw.--MONGO (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Good grief—of course he said that. He desperately needs the Javelins. He's between a rock and a hard place. Would you really expect him to piss Trump off at this point?- MrX 🖋 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

All I know is that he said he did not feel pressured and he stated this repeatedly and its in the reliable sources and that should be part of the public record here.--MONGO (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
RS have told us he and his country are being held hostage. The only thing I didn't understand is why there were initially scare quotes around "pressured". And it's not as if there was a shortage of sources that said he was pressured, threatened, coerced, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the quotes were meant to attribute that word to the source. Since it is a widely-reported view, the quotes are not really necessary.- MrX 🖋 21:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed "pressured" to "asked". Cause, as far as I know, he certainly asked. Whether some read that kind of asking as, you know, not really asking, that's another matter. Instead of discussing mindsets, let's move on. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Hardly an earthshaking matter, and it will undoubtedly be rewritten in due course with fresh sources and context. On the other hand this seems like a clear case of one/two editors obstinately overriding clear consensus on this morsel. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Think the enthusiasm is running ahead of facts here -- 'pressured' is an interpretation not a fact, and if speaking about that then NPOV would require including the denials of the individuals involved, President Trump and President Zelensky, as well as phrasing it as 'alleged pressure' or 'suspected pressure' and not saying it as if objective fact agreed to by all or that no other RS positions exist. On the other hand, one can say 'Biden pressured Ukraine' to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son was on the board of, because Biden himself asserts that (brags even) and the accounts of the Ukrainians and etcetera also match that. (But one should add the claim it was for firing for corruption concerns, and for goodness sake use cites of then not cites of now.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Horsepucky. The RS accounts of the matter say "pressured" "pressed" "extracted" "squeezed" "twisted" usw. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Un-hunh, and per NPOV if any of those are DUE mention, then apply attribution to the interpretation and provide the opposing significant views. The accounts of Biden on the other hand have a self-declaration and the view echoed from bipartisan viewpoint. Still an interpretation, but one that no longer needs attribution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    the opposing significant views -- Ain't none. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue I see is WP:RECENTISM - so what is the hurry? Let's wait and see if there will be any corrections published by MSM once all the facts are known? It is pretty obvious that one side wants to impeach whereas the other side is wondering on what grounds? We're dealing with a whistle blower who repeated second hand information which is not corroborated by the transcript of the actual discussion. Got Russian collusion? How is this helping our readers, and what is the long term encyclopedic value? I'm still waiting for the pee tapes from the 2016 election. What was the other "pressing" issue...uhm...oh yeah, obstruction of justice over the false allegations of collusion. Suggestion - we don't have the blue dress, yet - let's wait until we have some real evidence to substantiate the claims. Atsme Talk 📧 22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Atsme The so called Pee Tapes will never surface, unless they serve Vlad's purpose, when he needs to blackmail DRJ. There was a very brief image that surfaced on the net,then quickly taken down of a female, legs spread, urinating on a bed, DRJ in background smiling with two thumbs up, but this is the age of photoshop. What concerns me is this phrase: "oh yeah, obstruction of justice over the false allegations of collusion". First off there was never a charge of collusion, the whole word originiated in the Trump camp, and there is nothing in the literature which claims collusion is a crime.However the Mueller report does document conspiracy among other crimes,like obstruction. Of course we will have to wait 50 years,if ever, to see the complete report so heavily redacted by Wm Barr. Which raises another issue: Over classification. There are strict guidelines for classifying documents and not one of them is to protect the political career or persons of people. Classification is done to protect National Security period. Secondly I would like to challenge your assertion that these allegations of collusion" were false, even using your terminology in quotes, lends some validity to the notion of collusion, again the charge is not collusion, the evidence is conspiracy (with a foreign power) and obstruction. Oldperson (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad we can agree.--MONGO (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we can all agree that the President did "ask" or solicit help from a foreign leader (foreign government) to enable an investigation into the Biden's to benefit the the President's campaign. It sounds like there is agreement for that. It is in the document that recounts the call and in the whistleblower complaint. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The article now says asked, and that is a good solution. It doesn't get into the question of whether there was pressure or not, so there is no need to quote Zelensky (since it is irrefutably established that Trump did ask). I think the one other thing we might want to do in that section is to put quotes around "favor" to show that it was Trump's exact word. -- MelanieN (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I "hate" that "practice". Everyone knows what a favour is, just like everyone knows what pressure is, even Trump, quoting single words just makes them "questionable", "unusual" or "ironic". And we shouldn't forget Biden's current opponents; Ukrainian intelligence hurting his standing would benefit them all, politically. Not a totally selfish request, even if "the Donald" intended it that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, the problem is primarily contextual. There are reliable sources which do claim that Zelensky was "pressured", which is a subjective assessment of Zelesky's state of mind. Who is the best authority on Zelesky's state of mind? Zelensky. This is why we have WP:RSCONTEXT. It defies all reason to suggest that Zelensky is not the best source for what Zelensky thinks. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Please drop the stick. We do not say in this article that he was pressured, so there is no need for us to quote him saying that he was not pressured. "Pressure" IS mentioned at Trump-Ukraine controversy, and so is Zelensky's denial. Pressure is not mentioned here, so neither is his denial. Issue resolved; please move on. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2019

Please read the Current Consensus before making edit requests for this page, please. Mgasparin (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Uncrappy wordly edits, such as: "is the 45th and current president of the United States" -> "is the 45th President of the United States" "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." -> "The businessman and television personality entered politics in ..." etc. Costhee (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: We have longstanding consensus about the exact wording of this article's first sentence. — JFG talk 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

em dash vs. en dash

Issue resolved. Mgasparin (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Mandruss has pointed out that I hastily mass-changed the en dashes to em dashes in the article. I believed that to be a proper change per MOS:DASH, but the MoS actually says either style is fine. However, I still think that using a normal em dash symbol (—) is easier to understand while editing than the code "{{snd}}". While I will refrain from mass-changing in the future before gaining consensus, does anyone feel strongly enough about this formatting change to want to change it back? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: Hmm. That's different from what you told me on your UTP, "would be happy to fix that change". Not "would be happy to fix that change if anybody else cares".
You didn't just mass-change the article from spaced ndash to unspaced mdash. You also eliminated the use of a template that made it 100% clear what punctuation was being used, making it quite a bit easier to maintain consistency. The various types of dashes are not that easily distinguished by eye, particularly in some fonts. If an editor doesn't know what {{snd}} is, enlightenment is only a few keystrokes away at Template:Snd. When something like that is done throughout an article it should not be mass changed without discussion based on nothing but a personal preference. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I made my initial response while mobile so I didn't realize the change was across the board on the article. It's a personal preference either way, so I don't want to spend time re-formatting the article in what could be seen as a second disruptive change. Though I wouldn't oppose anyone who performed a 'find and replace' to change it back (or would be happy to perform it myself) if that's what the consensus comes to, or if no one else comments. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Your reasoning makes some sense with regard to the change in punctuation style. Not so much with respect to the removals of the template. Therefore I've gone ahead and reverted you, which I probably should have done in the first place. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In defense of not using the template, a good percentage of editors might not be aware that you can copy & paste the name of a template to find out more information on its page. It is a little weird that en & em dashes appear the same when editing, but that's what page previews exist for. I don't see the particular template used on very many articles, so it depends on local consensus. But I'm aware that that's what I should have obtained before trying to force a stylistic change originally. Thanks. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
a good percentage of editors might not be aware that you can copy & paste the name of a template to find out more information on its page. And doing things that tend to keep editors ignorant about editing basics is a good strategy in the long term? I think not.
If it's not used in many articles, that's most likely because few editors know about the technique, which is most likely because editors like you are avoiding/eliminating its use because it's not used in many articles. That's a self-perpetuating trap best avoided. To avoid/eliminate better things because they're not widely used is a recipe for mediocrity. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Is there a similar template for em dashes? I'm pretty sure they're preferred, but I can't be bothered to find a guideline for that right now. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@UpdateNerd: No problemo, the guideline is MOS:DASH, and mdashes are not preferred. To answer your question for future reference, you could use {{Em dash}} or any of its redirects. But not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Fix needed for line in Racial Views

User:Scjessey - I'm glad you agree to the part of (my edit) that "shitholes" in paragraph 5 of the Racial Views section was a misquote for Trump's saying "shithole countries" (alleged by Durbin) during a negotiation about four countries in Temporary protected status. However, the part undone by you (here) still needs fixing. The cite to Guardian about global rebuke for 'shithole' remark is suitable for use in paragraph 5 about that topic, but it is not appropriate to duplicate the topic and it is not sufficient WP:V for the broad claim in paragraph 1 "Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad."

  • The cite says Trumps remarks were racist, it is improper conflation to say that as "Trump has been condemned as a racist".
  • The cite does not support "U.S." as none condemning him nor saying "racist" is in that cite. The only U.S. mention seems to be Dick Durbin insisting the reports were correct, that shithole was said repeatedly, and that it was used in the context of African countries.
  • The "abroad" is exaggerating -- remarks being said as "racist" is only tied in the article for three governmental entities -- the UN Human Rights spokesperson, El Salvador, and Botswana. (p.s.add: and African Union said “very racist” comments. Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)) There is also at the end a single quote at the end from Blessing Dlamini, a 45-year-old administrative assistant which does call Trump a racist but that is not enough to support inclusion of a line in this article with the description as "abroad". (Though I suppose the Guardian writers themselves would also qualify as 'abroad', just two seem not enough.)
  • The bulk of the nations cited use different words. The African Union, the Vatican, Haiti, Uganda,and South Africa are mentioned as rebuking with other words like "harsh and offensive", "lack of respect and ignorance", and "abhorrent". To just say the word racist as the summary of these, without attribution, seems an misportrayal that is unnecessarily inflammatory and contrary to WP:RACIST and WP:BLP.
  • Finally - the line 1 is just too vague and gives an exaggerated impression by not specifying the event(s) involved or the attribution of who said "racist".

While I don't doubt that in the U.S. and abroad Trump is called many things (both praised and reviled), this cite is just not WP:V for the line as written. I suggest that I move the cite again to the section it relates to, but since you want the line in paragraph 1 think it would be appropriate to leave that line with a 'citation needed' tag for you to provide as able. RSVP, cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The current text appropriately represents the cited sources. Your points read as nitpicking to misrepresent the well-cited content. We could add additional sources that would address your nits -- e.g. "condemned as racist" -- but the tone and substance of the article text is consistent with mainstream reporting. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Racist appears to be an opposition "talking point", and not too unlike MB, I question its verifiability. Brazile summed it up nicely from a NPOV, and that is what I believe we should be looking at as well. Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We are not using the Democratic Party as a source. We use RS. I don't know if this is a "talking point". But, if it is what RS say, that's not relevant. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm just not seeing a need for a change. The text as presented encapsulates nicely what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources. I know consensus can change, but it is getting a little tiresome rehashing this over and over again. We are going to need to see something new to make a change something to consider. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that what is presented in mainstream RS is what we are supposed to include and when there are updates, we include them as well. There are several RS that dispute/question the waning claim of racism, and the one I linked to above is one of them that can be cited, but we also have NYmag and RealClear Politics which I confirmed is a RS via RSN, among others. It's time to update the old news with new news that will actually stand the test of time because it is based on factual evidence rather than opinion. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We've been careful not to label Trump a racist, but we do have ample cited sources for the way we handle this difficult issue in the current text. Donna Brazile, who's really quite marginalized nowadays, is disagreeing with something the current article does not say. So we are all in with her, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Huh? ??? Atsme Talk 📧 17:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
WP does not label him a "racist" -- we talk about racist speech, racist actions, and it's all pretty weaselly. Just like Donna Brasile on Fox. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: First of all, you did not "confirm" the article in RealClear Politics, which is actually a syndicated opinion piece from Creators Syndicate, in that thread you linked to. That refers to an entirely different article from a different source. Second, there is no "dispute" in reliable sources about this so-called "waning claim" of Trump's racism. If anything, more and more reliable sources have begun to label Trump in this way as more evidence of Trump's racism has come to light and the media gets more comfortable with the word. It is so unusual and extraordinary to be in this position, it took a while for the media to come around to it. And as SPECIFICO says, we don't actually label Trump a racist (even though many reliable sources do). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Scjessey OK, go ahead with that “could add additional sources”. That could make the V fine, if you want to keep the line. To me the line seems not worth it as unspecific and unremarkable. (Nothing remarkable in being criticized abroad as being racist... for example, JFK was criticized for racist hypocrisy.). But there has to be a cite that actually SAYS what is put into text, not just any old cite like this one was. The wording of WP:V that I was following is fairly explicit for this: “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” If one doesn’t give a cite of US criticism, the line cannot say US criticism; if doesn’t give a cite re calling Trump a racist then the line cannot say re he is called a racist. Shouldn’t be too hard to find, but either more is put in or the line has to go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:SPECIFICO I backed out your edits as not good citing and contrary to discussions. Those edits moved the line about "condemned" so it overwrote the "characterized as racially charged or racist" but left the cites that were for "characterized as racially charged or racist" and they just are not good for the other line. This was also contrary to a lot of "characterized" discussions including for this line. The "condemned" line is back to where it was, now with a 'citation needed' on it. Please only put cite(s) that ACTUALLY support the line, and if such is hard to find then I suggest take that as clear indication the line needs to change to match what's actually out there. (Instead of what looks like some editor just did creative writing.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure it was better before your recent edit. I didn't make any significant changes to the meaning that would have required new sources, and between the aggregation of your changes and the tone and substance of you claim are my sourcing and content changes, I have no interest in sorting it out to fix whatever you just did. Maybe somebody else will feel like at least undoing your changes to get back to the status quo. Thanks for the ex post ping. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, its been a week for Scjessey to give a citation needed and he apparently didn't mean it - so just got Specifico flying thru the mix. Did get cites - that went to 'characterized'; later got cites to Jan 11 that also did not WP:V the line of text. They could support 'widely denounced' for shithole comments paragraph lower down but do not contain "condemned globally as a racist". So proceeding with the WP:V guidance to do deletion. And also returning the much discussed and longstanding consensus 'characterized' phrasing at start. Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:SPECIFICO I see you have reverted my edit again - it seems Scjessey, Atsme, and Objective3000 had their say and dropped out to just the two of us now involved, so are we at an impasse ?
WP:RACIST and WP:V are the policies that I’m looking at. Again, my position is that the cites re shithole comments are good for the shithole section saying “ shithole comments were denounced worldwide”, or “shithole comments were denounced worldwide, with El Salvador, Botswana and the U.N. Human Rights spokesman calling them racist”. But to use such a cite to repeat it at the top as an vague unlimited overall and personal claim “Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad” seems to me clearly exaggeration/conflation failing V and RACIST.
I have no doubt that Trump is both praised and condemned and disputed over in many ways ... but I am just not seeing cites given for making a RACIST claim or “condemn” phrasing as the whole world except for Trump. (I actually think it’s widely disputed. Though I’ve seen some simply making accuracy distinctions among Xenophobia VS Bigotry VS Racism.). So again - are we at an impasse ? Markbassett (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:RACIST is a) not a policy and b) not relevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
So more precisely, the Core content policyWP:V and the guideline WP:Racist are mostly what I’m looking at, with some input from Core content policy WP:NPOV and the policy WP:BLP. Cites to e comments denounced by many nations’ are present at the shithole section, and two nations called those comments racist - but that is not V for’Trump (the person) has been condemned as racist worldwide’. If you’re saying that WP:Racist is not relevant, that’s interesting, but the question was: *** are we at an impasse ? *** RSVP, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I have not "dropped out" of anything. I said I prefer the existing text. There's no "impasse" at all - you seem to be alone in complaining, which means consensus is against you. Why do you keep flogging this dead horse? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey ah, welcome back. It’s been a while since your 13:01 19 Sept post which included “could add additional cites” in response to my topic here of the cite was not saying ‘Trump condemned as racist’ nor ‘worldwide’. From your next post 26 Sept responding to my reminder of waiting for such, it seemed you had dropped any intention of continuing or offering such cites, possibly that you were content re Specificos edits and multiples of what I said is not V — repeat of the shithole paragraph cites ‘shithole comments denounced, two nations say they were racist comments’ is not proper for ‘Trump the man condemned as racist by the world’. Thanks for letting me that you still are involved. It being a vague LABEL poorly sourced seemed a clear delete by policy, and easy as it also was without particular context or position in any narrative. That’s why I deleted it, as seemed viewed favorably by Atsme and Objective3000. (Note also archive 104 discussion of this section content from Kbruen, Literaturegeek, BusStop, where this started from.). Since you’re back that means the proper label is “disputed” instead of a 2-editors “impasse”, will proceed accordingly. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett, that's not "more precise" -- in fact it's less precise, as in "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" (no offense). The text can be put back because we are not under the unanimity required thing here and if you feel strongly perhaps you could go to NPOVN or similar? I think we're good to go and move on to other areas of improvement. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO ok, will do. Was thinking it time to throw at some dispute resolution, glad to see your suggestion is likewise. Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarkBassett: It’s been a while since your 13:01 19 Sept post which included “could add additional cites” You keep mentioning this comment of mine that does not exist, which means this doesn't make any sense: From your next post 26 Sept responding to my reminder of waiting for such, it seemed you had dropped any intention of continuing or offering such cites. At no time did I say additional cites could be added. And the rest of your comment seems to just be trying to bait me into arguing with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Dooh! sorry, I got that wrong — it was SPECIFICO and not you. And no baiting intended wherever it is you’re concerned about, I was just trying to summarize events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO ok, I have filed this one at WP:3O. That's meant for a 2-editor impasse, but it says "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." -- and it seems Scjessey, Atsme, and Objective3000 had their say and mostly dropped out to just the two of us now involved, so maybe we will see what someone outside the usual players thinks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Markbassett: Reuters: African politicians and diplomats labeled U.S. President Donald Trump a racist on Friday after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole” countries. starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint thanks, but that’s kind of more of the same. We already had that on 12 Jan 2018 Botswana “called the comments” “racist”, didn’t have the AU alarmed by “very racist” comments. Still, that’s the issue - it is only the one event and the alleged comments being called racist at 12 Jan 2018, a narrow event/item, and relatively few of the 195(?) nations. It doesn’t V directly or well to say that as Trump being called racist, in general, worldwide, no specific time/area. (I was able to find RS of ‘Democrats call Trump racist’ which does seem a common/general item, and occurring since 2016 ... but while being a talking point is missing content, it isn’t the question here.) With multiple cautions against name-calling in V, BLP, RACIST, and NPOV, ... think should just state the facts at the para about the event, without artistic license or vagueness into some overall. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

African politicians and diplomats labeled U.S. President Donald Trump a racist

satisfies Trump has been condemned as a racist ... abroad. starship.paint (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Nope, again still kind of the same as we had except for the AU info. The article supports what it says, not what the article said, which is

“African politicians”

bit if it included the limiting in the same sentence

“...after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as having come from ‘shithole countries’.”

The article then states it as AU and Botswana calling his *comments* that, not calling him that. The artistic embellishment “condemned” isn’t there, nor were nations governments calling Trump himself racist, nor is it at all other than 12 January. The attribution (*) would be of “Reuter’s reported that African politicians labelled Trump racist on 12 January...”. Reuter’s seems closest cite so far although it seems the only RS to go that far. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
(*)from WP:RACIST “best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.” Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
(cont.) or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/WP:SUBSTANTIATE attribute an opinion or another approach is to specify or substantiate by giving those details that are actually factual. Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: changed to

Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, by both those within the U.S. and abroad

starship.paint (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint ! Excellent merge sir, with adding the ‘shithole’ articles of Reuter’s and Politico to the ones previously supporting the prior first line “Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Tweets

Just noting that I've removed some tweets which were presented verbatim in the Space where image thumbs usually go, that were also previously removed by User:Awilley but reinstated by User:SPECIFICO. These tweets are recent additions so per WP:BRD and the tight rules on this article we should discuss here. I'm also not sure if the copyright implications of copying three such chunks of text from twitter. It is not just presenting quotes with discussion, as we usually do in text... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I removed them originally because they didn't seem very encyclopedic (the "commons" edit summary was in jest). I don't think they're copyright violations...they're direct quotes and they're clearly attributed. It just seemed like a lot of weight to give Twitter, especially considering one of the tweets was from Robert Jeffress, not Trump. Pinging ZiplineWhy to the discussion, since they added the tweets originally. ~Awilley (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: [14][15][16][17]
Agree with Amakuru on process. Reverts and edit summaries, after the initial BRD revert, are not a substitute for discussion.
Agree with Amakuru and Awilley on content. SPECIFICO argued: His tweets are widely identified with him and are his preferred mode of communication. If press conferences were his preferred mode communication, would we cherry-pick quotes from the transcripts of press conferences, and include them verbatim? And in prominent and space-consuming side boxes? I don't think we would. Also, when did tweet boxes become substitutes for images? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The images in this article are largely scrapes from amateur websites and are of very poor quality. Cluttered, distorted, ill-lit, etc. However there need not be an equivalence between photos and screen-renderings of tweets. So that's irrelevant. Also please review 24-hour BRD. There's nothing wrong with a revert and subsequent discussion. Neither Awilley nor I would think of reinstating our edits w/o discussion, I am sure. These are widely-cited tweets and one could ask for secondary sources that indicate they're qualify per WEIGHT, but there's no false or misleading narrative implied by their inclusion. Finally, there is no copyright violation with using them in this way, although as I said the graphic format could readily be improved. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
So it's your understanding that re-reverting can continue indefinitely as long as no editor reverts twice? That is not my understanding, nor does it make sense, nor does it foster article stability. The place for discussion is the article's talk page, not its page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Note about process: Specifico is right that nobody violated the BRD sanction, and technically under the sanction the reverts could continue with an endless supply of fresh editors. But in practice that never happens because after a couple of reverts the interested editors realize it's time to discuss, as happened here. WP:STATUSQUO is still a thing. ~Awilley (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how SPECIFICO's decision to re-revert instead of starting discussion was constructive or beneficial in any way, but ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

2000 presidential campaign

There is a rather biased playing down of Trump's 2000 campaign on this page. All other presidents have their first presidential run displayed prominently both in the lead and as a section of its own. A casual reader would be convinced that 2016 was the first time Trump ran for president, when it was in fact the second. The 2000 presidential run should be restored as a section in the article and in the lead, which was the case before Trump was sworn into office. Plumber (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion re. Lead

How is it that the WP:LEAD contains the names of who he appointed to the Supreme Court and various other factoids that don’t have their own dedicated ‘Trump series’ articles are more notable and WP:DUE than a presidential run in 2000, which has an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to it?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Literaturegeek There is a whole article dedicated to Trump's appointment of Supreme court justices. See List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. I'm not sure what other "factoids" are mentioned that don't have their own article, but if you can point any out that would be fine. Mgasparin (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of the last paragraph of the lead contains factoids that while wiki-linked do not wiki link to Trump focused articles. In other words, like I suggested, we include less WP:DUEWEIGHT material in the lead. Surely, a single short sentence added to the start of the second paragraph saying: Donald Trump first ran for president in 2000 and was unsuccessful is more than justified, per WP:WEIGHT? We are doing our readers a great disservice by withholding this from the lead; I know as a reader from the U.K. who did not know about this previous run until yesterday that it is something that would interest me and others. Currently the lead tells us the names of two judges appointed to the Supreme Court — the average reader, especially outside USA, does not care about a factoid like that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Literaturegeek Yeah, I'd agree that a sentence mentioning that he did run in 2000 is warranted, especially given that he has claimed in the past that he won the election on the first try (don't ask me to find RS for that, though). If you want to remove his Supreme Court nominees, an Rfc or a more formal dicussion might be the best avenue. What would you propose the revised lead look like? Mgasparin (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Mgasparin I was just making the point that less notable, less interesting stuff is in the lead, I am not strongly motivated to remove the Supreme Court stuff. The proposed change would be something like adding the first sentence in green and tweaking slightly the second sentence of the second paragraph like the second sentence in green. Like this: Trump’s first presidential campaign was in 2000, where he sought but failed to obtain nomination for the Reform Party. His next attempt was the 2016 presidential race which he entered as a Republican and defeated 16 other candidates in the primaries. I am quite open to the wording being improved by other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Literaturegeek I think I could support something along those lines, as it explains his past campaigns quite concisely, w/o going into much detail. Just keep in mind that we are trying to keep the lead within the recommended guidelines for size, as the ultimate goal of this article is FA. Mgasparin (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Literaturegeek - Suggest instead work on content for it first, and see if that is significant enough for WP:LEAD. Perhaps you can do it by dividing the "Political activities up to 2015" section -- maybe this will help here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett - I disagree, the body already supports the sentence I propose adding to the lead and we wiki link to the main article on the 2000 election there. The article is already breaking our WP:SIZE rule so I oppose expanding the article needlessly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Literaturegeek Oh, I agree it's too big -- but it's recentism and not the BLP portion that's the problem -- and making the 2000 election its own subsection of a couple paras instead of a sub-sub-subsection would at least show it a bit more here towards the WP:LEAD notion of one should mention major parts of the article. At just 5 lines, the 2000 campaign here may just appear too little of the article to mention. Regardless, I think it good and valid to add a few words about 2000 into the lead just as I would mention numerous movie appearances and the WWE parts of his life. ("he appeared in numerous films, was a major host for WWE from 1988 to 2009, andin 2000 he sought nomination of the Reform party for President"). But I think the lead has its own SIZE issues. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How do we handle this crisis?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it, as always. We don't have "anticipatory" discussions. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not have deadlines, there is no need to "save time" by pre-discussing things. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DJT has given Turkey license to invade Syria and slaughter Kurds. It is underway as I speak, and kurdish women and children are in the way of Turkish bombs and artillery shells. Speculation is that it is all about his two hotels in Turkey, but that aside, this is an ominous event. It probably will result in 12,000 to 20,000 ISIS prisoners being held by the Kurds set free, not to mention the betrayal of allies who did the actual work of defeating ISIS at the cost of 10,000 of their lives,and who knows what ramifications Trumps assent to Erdogan will have. Regional war? I hear that Russia is going to join Turkey in the invasion, what about Iran and China? Israel? Saudi Arabia is thrilled that there sock puppet is doing there work for them, after all it is Saudi money and princess that have created Al Qaeda and Isis, whose ideology is drawn from salafist Wahabbiyah. Very serious ramifications.Oldperson (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. — JFG talk 21:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Duh, I know that WP is not a forum, but this is a serious and current issue, so how are we going to handle this?Oldperson (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oldperson, please show some RS accounts that you think would help us decide whether and what to include in this article, bearing in mind that it is Trump's bio, so it would have to relate to his personal role, behavior, or execution of his duties. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It would help if I knew who made the above statement as it wasn't signed. I assume that it was Specifico. Alas this is a situation that has recently developed (within the day), there is not yet time for RS to report. Meanwhile all that we have, or that I have, is reports from cable news, which is a questionable source (on many topics), does not include Fox which is not a RS. There will be a plethora of RS as the days go on. My question was anticipatory. I repeat how are we going to handle this topic, especially if it leads to war or a tremendous loss of life~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. military aid to Ukraine

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article - diff.

The Ukrainian government didn’t know that Trump administration froze military aid to the country until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call.[1]

The military assistance to Ukraine has expanded since Trump took office.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Trump Said to Have Frozen Aid to Ukraine Before Call With Its Leader". The New York Times. September 23, 2019.
  2. ^ "Trump's Russia Policy Is Better Than Obama's Was". Foreign Policy. April 13, 2018.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that material improves the article. Besides being overly detailed, it seems to try to argue that Trump has been generous to Ukraine and that his attempt to trade political favors with Zelenski was not noticed by the Ukrainian government. The NYT wrote "A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call.", so we cannot state it as a fact. I am opposed to including this.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tobby72: - please get a better source than a self-declared blog on Foreign Policy. Seems full of opinion pieces. Also a recent source is better than April 2018. starship.paint (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
A non-starter poorly sourced SYNTH UNDUE POV. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Include the first part but omit the blog part.--MONGO (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint:
  • "President Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker said that the U.S. is considering delivering even more lethal weapons to Kiev's military to help the country fight pro-Russian separatists. The Trump administration already reversed the decision of former President Barack Obama to not send lethal weapons to Ukraine after sending 200 javelin anti-tank rockets to the country in April. Now, Volker said that the U.S. would be willing to provide even more military equipment to help address any additional military vulnerability." — [18]
  • "A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million), it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles—the kind of weapons that Barack Obama’s administration had declined to give Kiev. Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama’s administration, but the White House blocked implementation." — [19]
  • "When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration. The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted." — [20]
  • "According to The New York Times, Zelensky’s government did not learn that the military aid was frozen until more than one month later. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who met with Zelensky in early September, said that the Ukrainian president “did not make any connection between the aid that had been cut off and the requests that he was getting from [Trump attorney Rudy] Giuliani. It will be difficult to prove extortion if Trump’s purported target was unaware." — [21]
-- Tobby72 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As these four, #1 and #3 seem like fine sources (your original NYT too) But I will defer to fellow editors if this material bears inclusion. I suspect it is too much detail for this BLP. Maybe the presidency article? Apart from the sourcing, I will sit on the fence. starship.paint (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Dated, out of context, cherrypicked "sources" are not OK when they're used to insinuate political POV talking points. We've seen this in many articles recently -- it's the same stuff and the same sourcing and policy errors. No way this belongs. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Civil war

It is about time to add a section to the article about the threatened or imminent civil war For instance this article from Mother Jones as I googled Civil War oath keepers I came up with oathkeepers.org who blame everything on those "nasty liberals" who spurn fascism (i.e. antifa).Oldperson (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah...no.--MONGO (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This item is not entirely without merit for inclusion, but I don't see it warranteeing a section (at least, not yet, as too WP:RECENT). It might be suited to the Impeachment inquiry section, or to one of the articles linked to the section: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump or Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, as to Trump's commentary, and implied threat of civil war, regarding the effort. Lindenfall (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You can't have an article about Trump without mentioning his threats and alleged crimes. He has threatened to use his cops, military and bikers in a civil war, and they (like the Oath Keepers) have taken him up on it.Oldperson (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I see that the tweet itself is already on the page. Adding sources for prose, though may be best to leave it at the tweet and wait on developments, lest we forget WP is WP:NOTNEWS:
  • Delete all fringe insane speculation items. Like speculations towards civil war. Also exclude fringe tabloid about him being Hitler, being a werewolf love child, secret messages, etcetera.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Every businessman trades secret messages. As have all but the most naive civil warlords. But yeah, if we don't know the content, it's insane to try and explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most likely it should not go here ..."

While waiting for my next herd to innoculate I spotted this little maverick, which I can't figure out how to reach. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am confuse. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 21:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Is that because you're in a fog?[FBDB]- MrX 🖋 22:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This talk page section put me in a fog. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bless their hearts. Meanwhile, perhaps this … is a clue. --Brogo13 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was other ventures redacted?

@El C:Why was the section other ventures redacted? There is no explanation in the Edit SummaryOldperson (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't redacted. It was archived by a bot.- MrX 🖋 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
MrX Thanx, but that is not what this edit summary says long with at least three other edits by El COldperson (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
El_C revdel'ed a comment by another editor (something different from redaction in the Wikipedia world) in the "A useful resource" thread. That had nothing to do with the "Other ventures" thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss But he (who is an admin) did not use revdel in his summary. He used the words redacted (three time).Oldperson (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe El C used the term "redact" only in reference to his removal of the offending comment from the thread, which is distinct from preventing the diffs containing the comment from being viewed in the page history (revdel). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in this instance, that is correct. Though, in fairness, I do sometime use revdel and redact interchangeably, which maybe I shouldn't. El_C 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Russiagate in lead

This may have been discussed earlier, but apparently was not resolved. It is very strange that the "Russiagate" story that has dominated the first two years of Trump's presidency does not even get a passing mention in the lead section. Granted, there used to be a full paragraph about that with too much detail, but conversely I believe that it is a disservice to our readers to not mention it at all. In that spirit, I'd like to suggest the following summary of the affair:

During his campaign, and in the first two years of his presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation resulted in criminal convictions for several Russian persons and companies, but found no evidence of cooperation by any American citizen. Trump was still suspected of obstructing justice, but the special prosecutor and the Justice Department declined to charge him.

Comments welcome. — JFG talk 10:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe it was in the lead at one point. I would support something in the lead, but at no more than about half of the length proposed.- MrX 🖋 10:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
That reads very close to what US Atty. General Barr would say. Nowhere near acceptable for any part of this article. Not to mention the "'suspected' but not prosecuted" SYNTH. Please propose NPOV text so we can discuss from a reasonable basis. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that the proposed text is not a realistic summary of what actually happened. I would support "Trump and his cronies used a combination of obstruction and public opinion to change the narrative to make it look like his treason was no big deal." (only slightly joking here) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe my proposed text is more factual and neutral than yours, even setting aside the slightly joking tone. Non-joke improvements welcome, of course. — JFG talk 21:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
You're going to need to share why you disagree with Scjessey and with me, because that's not very credible on its faces. Or even better, having considered the dissent, you could suggest a synthesis that addresses the identified flaws in your first attempt. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: You wrote that the "investigation resulted in criminal convictions for several Russian persons and companies" but when I look at the table in your wikilink the only convictions I can find were of American people. ~Awilley (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Awilley: You are correct, and the phrasing should be amended accordingly. I meant to say that Mueller found no willful participation into election interference by any American citizens, be they part of the Trump campaign or not. In parallel, the Mueller probe resulted in convictions of several Trump campaign members for criminal activities that were unrelated to the election, and thus should in my opinion be omitted from the lead of Trump's biography. Need to think more on an updated phrasing. — JFG talk 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General ruled there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump. starship.paint (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Not even "ruled". More like "declined to indict Trump" -- but that doesn't fully represent Barr's response. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, both Trump appointees, declined to indict Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Still too lengthy for my taste. How about:

Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia in its interference in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation failed to find sufficient evidence that Trump coordination with Russia, but declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice, instead referring the matter to Congress.

- MrX 🖋 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I think "failed" isn't quite right. The report says that their investigation into conspiracy was hobbled because evidence was concealed and destroyed. Also, there's plenty of evidence of coordination and even a narrative of collusion. It's only the crime of "conspiracy" that was not asserted in the report. So how about,

Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation was unable to discover sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.

Mueller stopped short of a "referral" to Congress, which would have been an explicit recommendation that Congress take action. He just spoke of other avenues of resolution. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: - "coordination" was also not established - We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
SPECIFICO's rewrite of my version looks good.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mmmm I’ll point out that a shorter statement of the collusion delusion, using the norms here on “false” might be: Trump and his associates were extensively and falsely accused of “collusion” with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Not that I expect this to be welcomed exactly as that, but may be useful to reflect on a wider perspective, and useful to reflect on consistency in article handling. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    Do you really have any basis, other than Trump's own words, to say that there was proven "no collusion"? Please present it. Frankly, your statement suggests you're not as well-read as one would hope. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cites don't go to LEAD if the LEAD is summarizing the body, but in the body for 'no collusion' we'd have Barrs words, Muellers words, the words of the coverage since Mueller report (NBC, Politifact, Wash Exminer, Vox...)so from April on the notion of 'collusion' seems a fringe conspiracy theory and one can say 'false' (or 'exonerated'). Cites speaking re the extensive coverage before that --- mm, the snark from NY Post and Fox comes to mind, but we can also go to RealClearPolitics, or use USAtoday for "endless" Russian collusion coverage, Washington Times on media obsession, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Um, gee. I didn't ask you to put your sourcing in the lead -- I was asking you here on talk to identify your sources.
At any rate, it's very helpful that you have now done so. I would say that your list is a who's who and what's what of sources that goes from weakest-to-worst. Please read the mainstream reporting, discussion, and analysis of these matters (the kind of sources we use for WP references). I think it will go a long way to settling many of your concerns. SPECIFICO talk 11:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - please read the Mueller Report, by no means was "collusion" proven to be false because investigators did not ultimately have a complete picture of what happened. starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Mueller Report quotes
  • Volume 1 Page 2 says we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.”
  • Volume 1, Page 10 says The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination ... Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts ... given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
User:Starship.paint Read it long ago, thanks. It pretty much killed off “collusion” because it looked hard and found no conspiracy, no coordination, and all the Russian interference of social media campaign or hacking not thru or with anything Trump. (It never seemed very plausible anyway that a Russian secret op would want to include Trump - that would risk both secrecy and success - nor that Putin would share control.) The biggest effort possible to look everywhere feasible came up empty, so now “collusion” has moved into fringe conspiracy theory territory. Obstruction of justice not so much, but “collusion” yeah that’s said dead in normal press (usatoday, realclearpolitics, foxnews, nypost, msn op, Washington post op) and the more right wing media were snarking over it, YouTube parody tunes (to the tune day the music died), etcetera. Coverage has died off and there’s apparently nothing further coming... yeah, it’s dead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, please cease referring to the Russian interference by the tongue in cheek "Russiagate", which insinuates a suggestion that narratives are overblown or refer to a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the section title "Russiagate in lead" as I originally wrote it. The term "Russiagate" to me does not insinuate anything: it is just an abridged descriptor for the 2016–2019 saga of Russian election interference, Trump campaign collusion accusations, his accusations of witch-hunting, the Mueller probe, convictions, report and conflicting interpretations thereof, just like "Brexit" is an abridged descriptor of the UK/EU withdrawal referendum, Article 50 negotiation process, British cabinet and parliament shenanigans, and still-in-doubt eventual outcome of the whole mess. I opened this discussion to determine how to briefly summarize this whole saga in the lead section, not to opine about narratives peddled by both sides of the controversy. — JFG talk 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Russia-gate is derived from Watergate and the latter is not considered a conspiracy theory.--MONGO (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Alos, not in favor of the word "entourage". Maybe "campaign staff" or similar?--MONGO (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
A descriptive phrasing would seem more serious and precise, and less ambiguous than an informal. "Russiagate" in here runs up against WP:LABEL cautions, and that it is used as right-wing term of snark for aconspiracy theory and/or democratic propaganda attack campaign as well as the sense of various late 2010s allegations about Trump and Russians - that they had blackmail material, or there was election conspiracy, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Trump campaign was accused of complicity with Russian interference in the 2016 election that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also investigated for obstruction of justice, but was neither exonerated nor indicted.

starship.paint (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to saying that he was not indicted. I also don't think "complicity" is the proper choice of words.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It is a mark of Trump's messaging success that everyone above is talking about "collusion", which isn't even a crime by strict definition, and so his constant drumbeat of "NO COLLUSION!" made it look like he was as innocent as a babe in the crib when, surprise surprise, there was no collusion. The shocking conclusion to the Mueller report was that, despite clear and obvious obstruction of justice, Barr declined to indict him for it (Mueller said he couldn't, which is why the initially proposed text doesn't work). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Three more proposals from me, because I'm unsure of the last part. starship.paint (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(S1) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump and referred the evidence to Congress.

(S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, then the Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.

(S1+S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, referring the evidence to Congress. The Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.

@Starship.paint: I think that third option (S1+S2) perfectly and neutrally encapsulates exactly what happened concisely, and I would wholeheartedly support its inclusion. Very well done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
How is that better than the X-SPECIFICO version,

Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.

? SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: - “complicity” is a bit iffy. It’s not what was investigated. People might very well propose “collusion”, which also was not investigated. Putting “conspiracy” would be repetitive. Your version also does not mention interference favouring Trump, coordination, and it does not mention Trump wasn’t charged. starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I just think Starship.paint's version is more concise, more neutral and less likely to be challenged. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and add my latest version to the lede. Let's see if it's contested. @MrX:, informing you because you said opposed to saying that he was not indicted. starship.paint (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have amended this edit to something based on your first version which was more concise, and in my opinion also clearer. Events are described in the correct order: first Russian interference, then accusations of "collusion" or whatever it is called, then the Mueller probe, then the obstruction claims, and finally Mueller's "can't indict and can't exonerate" outcome. Here's my update:

Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored Trump, but a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.

— JFG talk 12:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I think what you meant to say was

Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in the Russian election interference that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal behavior in this regard. Trump was also investigated personally for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.

Also, it's better not to use talk page language like "'collusion' or whatever it is called", because the false equivalence of collusion with defined criminal behavior has been Trump's principal talking point on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant what I wrote, and not what you think I meant, but I think you do mean what you say I may have meant, if you know what I mean.[FBDB] Besides, there is no collusion in my proposed text. Let's see what our fellow editors say. — JFG talk 14:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Aside from your Dr. Seuss imitation, do I really need to respond to the straw man suggestion that I misrepresented your article text? You insinuated the No Collusion bit in your talk page comment above. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
JFG, if Trump was cleared of any involvement in a conspiracy with Russia, it tells us that...uhm...a theory was put forth that Trump had conspired with Russia. As far as I know, a theory is a theory, and conspiring with Russia makes it a conspiracy so it would be accurate to summarize the Russian collusion allegation as a debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. Atsme Talk 📧 04:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That's of course absolutely backwards. There was a conspiracy theory that was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite plentiful evidence supporting it. It was not debunked. The Mueller report does not say "no collusion." It says, here is the evidence we found for collusion, which wasn't enough to prosecute (and, we couldn't prosecute because of DOJ guidance on charging a sitting president). Either way, the reliable sources don't say it is a "debunked conspiracy theory." So please, please, stick to the sources. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Atsme - things are not debunked when investigators did not have a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Please read the "Mueller Report quotes" in the light green box I provided above. starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr." Citing NYTimes.

It isn't about what you or I think - it's about what RS say, and the Times is a RS in this instance. We use in-line attribution, and we don't theorize or editorialize what we think it means, which should end all arguments about the outcome. In the US, when there is no evidence and a conclusion has been reached, the person is found not guilty. I'm not sure how that works in other places in the world, but we are talking about a US incident and that is how we should present it. Atsme Talk 📧 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme and Starship Paint: FYI. William Barr's summary letter was debunked the moment the heavily redacted Mueller Report came out and even that report, heavily redacted as it was, was a whitewash attempt. The Barr summary absolved Trump of absolutely nothing because it is false and misleading, and I repeat there was never a charge of collusion, the word collusion has been inserted into the discussion by Trump and his loyal followers as a distraction, a red herring. As regards conspiracy theories. Trump called out to the Russians in plain sight. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” . That is an explicit invitation to a (hostile) foreign power to interfere in our election, and he doesn't stop, he admitted that he would continue to do so in an interview with George Stephanopolous, and last week he and his administration reached out to China, Australia, Italy and knows what else to elicit dirt on Joe Biden. These are not conspiracy theories, but overt acts and facts.Oldperson (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Oldperson - debunked[by whom?] Diffs? Atsme Talk 📧 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme and Starship Paint:Debunked by the release of the Mueller report which debunked Wm Barr's "summary" which is what you appear to rely on. Wm Barr perpetuated a fraud, to taint the Mueller report before it's release and apparently considering responses like yours (and you are not alone),it was successful at least in cult of Trump circles.Oldperson (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I requested diffs, not OR or a personal interpretation of the summary. Atsme Talk 📧 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: - I don't have diffs but I have sources. You should really read the Mueller Report. Also, I will again point


starship.paint (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Barr letter versus Mueller Report

New York Times

Barr ... quoted several fragments of Mr. Mueller’s then-secret report. But none of the excerpts were in context or even complete sentences, raising the question of whether he was portraying their thrust and tone accurately or skewing them to make them sound better for President Trump.

Mr. Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of “coordination” ... Mr. Barr took a larger passage in which the Mueller report suggested that the Trump campaign and the Russian government were knowingly dancing together at a distance, and then excerpted a fragment to make it look like a cleaner exoneration ...

Similarly, Mr. Barr truncated the special counsel explanation of what “coordination” meant — and didn’t mean ... In the second sentence, which Mr. Barr omitted, Mr. Mueller again emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination.

-

Washington Post

As it turns out, in some cases, Barr’s characterizations were incomplete or misleading. The Mueller report is more damning of Trump than the attorney general indicated ...

Left out was a key statement from Mueller that came right before what Barr quoted in his letter ... "that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" ... Expecting to benefit may not be the same as actively cooperating, but the omission in Barr’s letter is significant nonetheless. The full sentence from Mueller casts a different, less flattering light on the Trump campaign than Barr’s letter indicated. In short, Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump campaign members were aware that they would reap an advantage from the “information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” ...

Barr at some points in his news conference used the word “collusion,” which is not a legal term for a crime ...

Trump Tower ... meeting posed “difficult statutory and constitutional questions,” Mueller said in the report, but his office “ultimately concluded that, even if the principal legal questions were resolved favorably to the government, a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Campaign officials or individuals connected to the Campaign willfully violated the law.” (Emphasis on “willfully.”)

-

New Yorker

The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability ... Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication ... Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report.

Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct.

-

Politico


Now that we have seen almost the entire report of more than 400 pages, we know Barr intentionally misled the American people about Mueller’s findings and his legal reasoning. As a former federal prosecutor, when I look at Mueller’s work, I don’t see a murky set of facts. I see a case meticulously laid out by a prosecutor who knew he was not allowed to bring it.

-

Intercept

The differences between Barr’s statements before the report’s release and the contents of the actual report were so striking that the New York Times did a whole story comparing, side-by-side, Barr’s statements and the report.

Barr’s statements prior to the release of the report, however, were also misleading when it came to the issues of Trump and Russian interference in the election. Barr discussed but did not linger on the portion of the report about the Russian cyberattacks against Hillary Clinton’s campaign — attacks that were designed to help Trump win the election. And Barr was disingenuous in the way he sought to cut and parse Mueller’s report to make Trump look better on issues related to contacts and links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In fact, the Mueller report’s findings on contacts between the Trump circle and Russia are extensive and damning. The report does not exonerate Trump or his campaign; instead, Mueller says he didn’t have enough evidence to bring criminal charges for conspiring with the Russians. The report states that “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal.”

“Further,” the report adds, “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.” But the report went on to say that the “investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to [Mueller’s team] and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

Far from vindicating Trump, the Mueller report leaves plenty of troubling questions unresolved for Congress and the press to investigate. Above all, the report shows that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win, and Trump was happy for the help.

@Atsme: - of course you would cite a source reporting on the Barr letter in March 2019, before the Mueller Report was released in April 2019. At that point in time, your reliable source had not read the actual Mueller Report. It is an outdated source. You’re the one theorizing/editorializing that things are debunked conspiracy theories. Not charged does not mean no criminal activity occurred. Nobody knows if criminal activity really occurred. Here’s the sources after the Mueller Report was released. starship.paint (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
  • Associated Press, in May 2019: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong
  • Associated Press in June 2019: Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of “collusion” addressed in the report. The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges. The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings. The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.
  • CNN in May 2019: Volume I of Mueller's report does not say there was "no collusion" or "no evidence" of collusion. The conclusions were more nuanced than that. As Mueller explained on Wednesday, the investigation found "insufficient evidence" to charge a conspiracy with Russia. In his new conference, Mueller said out loud what was carefully written in his sweeping report: "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy." Obviously, "insufficient evidence" is different from "no evidence." To be crystal clear, the investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump aides and the Kremlin. But Trump is whitewashing the collusion-related evidence that Mueller documented in Volume I. The special counsel found "multiple links" between Trump's campaign and Russian agents. He found that top people in Trump's orbit were "receptive" to offers of Russian help with the election. And he found that the campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from illegal Russian interference.

No, I cited a RS that published what US Attorney General William Barr presented. Here's another one from the BBC: The report stated that no evidence of a conspiracy was found,... If we are going to consider partisan opinion and journalistic speculation as DUE, then we have a lot of work to do updating all the BLP's of former presidents. Barr's statement is an official statement - like it or not - it is not a journalistic interpretation of the law, much less partisan speculation that proves nothing and provides zero evidence of collusion. The result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. Trump's rhetoric did not qualify as collusion, and neither does being receptive. If the latter was all that's needed to be guilty of collusion (whatever that might be), then Adam Schiff's receptiveness during a phone call from a Russian prankster qualifies as Russian collusion. It's time to drop the stick. Atsme Talk 📧 20:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There are copious RS saying that the "Barr summary" was not accurate to the report, it is an outdated source. The Barr summary doesn't get to determine what's in the lede of this article. That would be ridiculous. Barr is a partisan, he is considered more Trump's personal lawyer than an agent of the US gov't and the constitution. Please, do a little reading and research on the more recent RS or I would be happy to provide many. "No collusion" as the outcome of the report, is Trump's line, not the RS source line. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: - did you read my post? Did you read the sources I presented? Associated Press, in May 2019: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong. You: the result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. The Associated Press article was not an opinion piece, and the Associated Press is known for one of the most neutral media organizations. Barr is known for being partisan. You dare to tell me that Barr's statement is official, but when I already posted quotes of the actual Mueller Report above and I even pointed them out to you, you still stated that I was theorizing or editorializing. Please reflect on your own behaviour. Meanwhile, here is what Mueller wrote [22] about the Barr letter: it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship.paint (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Establish facts" vs. "prosecute crimes"

In this diff [23], an editor has reverted an improvement to the article text that describes the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The diff reinstates the vague wording that states the Special Counsel did not find evidence to "establish" guilt. I had recently tweaked that to replace "establish" with the clearer wording that there was not sufficient evidence to "prosecute".

The US does not operate under Napoleonic Law. It is not the role of a prosecutor in the USA to "establish" criminal behavior. The State charges a crime by bringing an indictment, the facts of which are then decided by the jury. As Attorney General Barr made clear upon receipt of the report, Mueller was acting as prosecutor, not a fact-finding commission such as the Warren Commissionor the 9-11 Commission, which were charged with establishing factual narratives. Again, to be specific with respect to the weasel-word "establish", Mueller's report states

...After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes...

. It's unfortunate that my clarification of the wording was reverted with no substantive objection to the improvement itself. I will reinstate the reverted wording, unless someone has a better way to clarify this point in the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I support Starship and Specifico's comments above. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@PunxtawneyPickle: Are you in the right section? Starship has not commented in this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a subsection of the section where he commented. If you wish I can clarify that I agree with Specifico and, the earlier comments made in above section, by Starship which are similar and have a similar point. I apologize for any confusion. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@PunxtawneyPickle: How about clarifying your position, if any, on this edit, which is the topic of this subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer and I don't know what kind of legal regime the United States is in pertaining to "establish" versus "did not prosecute," but the sources tell us that Mueller's report says he could not prosecute Trump for obstruction. On the issue of collusion he stated that his investigation was obstructed by the Trump administration, and offers a very lengthy case of evidence that provides a roadmap to further investigation of the issues presented by Congress, or, perhaps, courts. "Did not prosecute" is an accurate description of the sequence of events laid out. "Did not establish" opens a Can of Worms that we needn't enter, in my view. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
May His Shadow Fall Upon YouTwo items here. Collusion is not mentioned as a crime or grounds for impeachment, and Mueller did not investigate DJT for collusion. He did find grounds for conspiracy. Trump introduced the word collusion into the frey as a distraction. Mueller claimed that he was forbidden by a (ridiculous) "Office of Legal Counsel" memo to charging Trump with a crime, he left such proceedings up to the Congress. The Office of Legal Council is the Justice Department, that Memo has no foundation in law, or the constitution, it was written (I believe)by the current Attorney General of the United States either during or after the Nixon affair. It really has no legal standing and Idon't understand, it is simply one man's opinion, why the Congress has not challenged it(nor why they let witnesses get away with contempt, if they were investigating the Mafia, contemmpt would be answered with jail).Oldperson (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@PunxtawneyPickle:I forgot to ping you to the above edit of mine. Actually I was responding to you, but missed your user name.Oldperson (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I more or less agree with you, but I would say that "collusion" is just the colloquial term for "conspiracy" and is being used as such here. I agree we shouldn't use that word in the article as it is inexact. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.

- Mueller Report 1 2

Mueller tried to establish findings to determine if there was an underlying crime during Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice, although an underlying crime is not needed for obstruction of justice anyway. Let us also remember that Mueller is hardly a traditional prosecutor, he would have exonerated Trump if the evidence pointed to that, and he wouldn’t even accuse Trump of a crime. starship.paint (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of NPOV, I don't see any reason we cannot use in-text attribution stating: "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice." Cites to ABA, and I cannot think of a better source to summarize the Mueller conclusion (which is a legal decision) without bias. That result is corroborated by multiple RS including the BBC. Anything beyond what that summary states is too much detail. And since WP:RECENTISM has a tendency to make material subject to removal or updating, we need to connect the players in that investigation to the claims that were made and the firings that resulted because of obvious bias, an illicit affiar, and the connection between FBI and Fusion GPS involving the investigation. The ongoing investigations by Barr and the new information that's turning up such as that recently published by WaPo is going to change the landscape anyway, so we might as well do it right the first time. Atsme Talk 📧 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your claims and analysis. The March 2019 sources you are citing are old and inaccurate. They have been superseded by different info. The BBC and ABA sources are unusable for this reason. The 10-5 WaPo article you cite, is way too recent, and doesn't say what you claim it says. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: - this explains my revert. I have provided sources above, CTRL-F Barr letter versus Mueller Report - that establish why March 2019 sources such as the ABA absolutely cannot be used because the Barr letter is misleading. Let us also remember that Mueller himself wrote that [24] the Barr letter did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship.paint (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The bolded part of the Mueller Report quote above fully supports the article text I originally inserted: a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Accordingly, I will revert to this version. — JFG talk 22:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_105&oldid=935329340"