Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 83

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

→

Archive 90

Peripheral indictments in lead

A turn of phrase mentioning peripheral indictments in the Russian interference affair was recently added to the tail of the lead section.[1] The content was swiftly removed,[2] re-inserted in slightly-amended form,[3] challenged on procedural grounds with a request to obtain prior consensus,[4] and restored in a lengthened form with a combative edit summary.[5] ("Not mentioning this in the lead is malpractice.")

It is high time to sit back and open a discussion. @Andrevan: please self-revert your latest addition pending consensus here. @Mandruss and MONGO: please comment. — JFG ^talk 04:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed it and now both Mandruss and Andrevan violated the page requirements to obtain talkpage consensus first. I stand by my removal as the passage even now reworded somewhat less implicatingly alludes to guilt by association. Furthermore, this is the lead section of the article and is not the place to be bringing up persons out of focus of the subject.--MONGO 04:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My revert was a good-faith mistake, as I said here. If I had re-reverted after being corrected by JFG, MONGO would have reason to refer to me in that tone. Agree that Andrevan needs to self-revert pending consensus, and someone else should do it if Andrevan fails to do it in a timely manner.
There is no guilt by association as it refers to Trump's denial of campaign collusion. If the lead is not the place to be bringing up persons out of focus of the subject, we need to remove content about DOJ appointing special counsel; Trump had nothing to do with that.
On balance I think the paragraph is more neutral with the addition than without it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, my 2nd change was not the same as the first change. It was not slightly amended, it was rewritten, to attempt to address the reason it was reverted and clarify that there is no implied "guilt by association," simply a reporting of the basic facts of the Trump campaign and its associated controversy. You may of course revert it as well, though it would be my position that you are the one being combative, not I. I will have to read up on the special sanctions in effect on this page to see if my edit ran afoul of them. However, as an editor previously uninvolved, it seems to me that your hawk-like instant reversion of the addition of the indictments and guilty pleas to the lead section, along with tendentious editing to defend Mr. Trump and his associates from transparency or basic reporting, is probably what would run afoul of discretionary sanction on this page, as opposed by my simple attempt to describe the facts of the case in a complete way in the lead section. To ignore these facts is absolutely journalistic malpractice, and probably partistan protectorship and ownership of the article in a POV pushing vein. Andrevan@ 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: We can say the second edit is equivalent to the first for purposes of the ArbCom remedies. Or if it's a different edit, MONGO can challenge it separately. Either way we end up here seeking consensus for the second edit, so what's the difference? Please self-revert pending consensus and we can get on with the content discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Andrevan:, it is a good time to familiarize yourself with those editing restrictions as I already politely tried to discuss with you on your talkpage. Should you feel a need to pursue this further it will indeed provide you the opportunity to somehow prove my (and others I assume) alleged "tendentious editing".--MONGO 05:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, in my reading of the sanctions, 2 edits with different text and meaning are not mentioned to be specifically equivalent, though of course anyone who hasn't reverted yet in the discussion could revert me. I also haven't reverted yet, nor do I intend to, and I wouldn't construe my 2nd edit to be a revert at all since it was an original sentence. Additional constructive edits to article text which address revert or removal reasons are, to the best of my knowledge, not considered reverts. Now, MONGO is challenging the second edit. I agree that we should seek consensus on how to change the text rather than simply revert or edit warring. Any attempt to protect Mr. Trump's lead section from mentioning the fact that his campaign manager and top surrogate have been indicted and pleaded guilty would be remarkable light on an issue that Mr. Trump himself mentions constantly, not to mention all of the RS and our own article content. Andrevan@ 05:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually your second edit was challenged by JFG but I see no difference between the two really.--MONGO 05:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which means JFG can revert the edit, unless he can't because he already reverted once in the conversation? Also, my edit isn't contrary to established consensus, because it's a new constructive sentence that didn't exist in the article before. Unless there's some specific guidance that states otherwise, or a previous discussion on the inclusion of what I wrote that you can point to. Andrevan@ 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. MONGO, will you kindly revert the second edit per routine process? Please write an edit summary that goes beyond IJDLI. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Its the same thing, you just tweaked the wording a bit but the message is the same. As I found out this isn't about right or wrong its about how this page is permitted to be edited. I suppose I can claim some moral high ground since I did self revert when alerted. If you don't like the way the editing restrictions are set up then welcome to the party....and no way am I reverting this mess again. The whole thing gives me a migraine.--MONGO 05:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so we have two editors who are determined to manufacture as much completely unnecessary conflict as possible. It's all yours, I'm out. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley, MelanieN, and NeilN: We may need some admin attention here. Andrevan contests the editing restrictions, and none of Mandruss, MONGO and me want to accidentally trip up a mine by reverting him again. Only after the procedural issue is resolved can we perhaps actually discuss contents… — JFG ^talk 05:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am contesting the editing restrictions, but claiming that my 2nd edit is distinct from my first edit, both in meaning and text. It clearly states that members of Donald's campaign were indicted and pleaded guilty, but that Donald and his family were not implicated. The first version did not say that. I don't see how I am revert warring if I have a total of 2 edits on this page, and they are both different. Andrevan@ 06:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Your second edit is considerably different than your first. It also a good example of how collaborative editing is supposed to work. The edit is good.- MrX 🖋 12:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a slight copy edit. See what you think. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

[6] - "despite guilty pleas and indictments from several members of his campaign."
[7] - "although there have been several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff that do not directly implicate Trump or his family members."
The basic meaning of the two additions is identical. Andrevan, you need to work out wording on the talk page if you wish to re-add substantially identical material that has been challenged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, in general people respect the restriction as meaning revision etc is not enough to be considered different. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Thanks for reverting to a stable version, and for getting the ball rolling on suggested content below. — JFG ^talk 17:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed content

Well, I restored the stable version of the last paragraph. I have to say that in the revised version by Andrevan, that "although" rather seemed classic WP:SYNTH (see the UN example there), and overall it was very badly written; the version just before I reverted back was the best, but still could be revised; proposing

After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters, resulting in several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.

As a better written one that is basically a short update that indictments have resulted than trying to do something more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Comprehensive, yet short. This material is should be in the lead because of it's persistent and extensive coverage in reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Adding, the basic change I made was adding "resulting in several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff", and I think it perfectly reasonable to devote 12 words to the indictments considering how much coverage they've gotten.

I do have a v2 version, not really related to whether we mention the indictments though

After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, a special counsel began investigating coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters, resulting in several indictments and guilty pleas involving campaign staff. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.

The current formulation rather unnecessarily wordy, I find, more important is what the investigation has led to not how precisely it was appointed Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose both--MONGO 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Adding that maybe this level of detail would be better served in the Presidency of Donald Trump article?--MONGO 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as UNDUE – If we are going to talk about indictments and guilty pleas, we should make sure that they are significant with regards to the article subject (Trump himself) and/or to potential collusion with Russia (the declared subject matter of the FBI's and Special Counsel investigations). Turning to the list of indictments to date, we see the following:

• George Papadopoulos charged with a process crime (lying to the FBI)
• Rick Gates and Paul Manafort charged with multiple crimes related to their prior activities supporting an Ukrainian political party and former president
• Michael Flynn charged with a process crime (lying to the FBI), similar to the reason he was fired (lying to the Vice President) – even though the lie was about his conversation with a Russian ambassador, that happened after the election and within his duties as incoming National Security Advisor; he was specifically not charged with helping or soliciting Russia to interfere in the election, or for anything he did during the election campaign.
• Richard Pinedo charged with identity fraud in relation with Russian propaganda; this person is unrelated to the Trump campaign.
• Alex van der Zwaan charged with making false statements in relation to his work with Gates and unspecified Ukrainians; this person is unrelated to the Trump campaign.
• 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian or Russian-controlled companies charged with interference proper (mostly peddling propaganda under false identities); none of these people have been reported to be related to the Trump campaign.

In summary, none of the criminal charges show any collusion and none of them implicate the BLP subject directly. Hence mentioning them in the lead of his bio would be massively UNDUE and POV. — JFG ^talk 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose both - it implies that special council was hired as a result of Comey's firing. NYTimes states that by appointing Mueller: ...Mr. Rosenstein could alleviate uncertainty about the government’s ability to investigate the questions surrounding the Trump campaign and the Russians. WP doesn't need to get caught up in the partisan spin - just states the facts - and keep in mind, it was upon Rosentein's recommendation that Comey was fired. And there's also what JFG said in his iVote above to consider. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  The special counsel was hired as a result of Comey's firing. That's really not in dispute. Andrevan@ 18:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that discussion of this topic is driven by partisans who, through tendentious editing, protect this article from factual truths. Overly broadly construed sanctions have allowed any workshopping of article text, including minor changes below, to become stymied by a log-rolled slowplay of talk page wrangling. For example, it's a fact that several members of Trump's campaign pled guilty. That's a very different situation from if 0 members had been charged with a crime and the entire investigation dismissed or closed, such as in the scandals that are discussed on pages like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. BLP doesn't mean whitewashing or PRing articles. Andrevan@ 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Andrevan, I hope you're not thinking my oppose had anything at all to do with partisanship - it does not. In fact, I'm a resident of two different countries, and rarely if ever vote in the US or on Bonaire. My thinking is that it may be considered more partisan to say it was the result of Comey's firing instead of perhaps following Comey's firing, or you could qualify it by saying it was the result of escalating pressure from a majority of Democrats, although there were a few anti-Trump Republicans in the mix. According to the NYTimes, Mr. Rosenstein had been under escalating pressure from Democrats, and even some Republicans, to appoint a special counsel after he wrote a memo that the White House initially cited as the rationale for Mr. Comey’s dismissal. And that's why I opposed and suggested what the NYTimes stated as the reason. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Trump himself stated that he had fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. [8] He later contradicted it, because it's an inconvenient fact for his obstruction of justice case. The line you've just quoted to me, that Rosenstein fired Comey because of the Democrats or some such, might also be part of the story, but in this CNN article, which is more recent than the May 2017 NYT piece, it says: Trump told NBC News' Lester Holt in an interview, "regardless of (Rosenstein's) recommendation, I was going to fire Comey." Andrevan@ 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Rudy Giuliani: Special counsel appointment was 'really about the firing of Comey'" *[9] Andrevan@ 22:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with what the most recent RS say (in retrospect rather than it being RECENTISM as in breaking news)...^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This article should permanently be tagged with the current events warning, although I'm guessing that it was in the past and some past discussion determined that it would not be? Is there a sanction or precedent about having that tag? Otherwise, I will throw it on. Andrevan@ 23:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. I can't remember which of the Trump articles NeilN suggested adding inline tags because a NPOV header tag was quickly removed, so good luck. Maybe you can make one stick. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're thinking of the {{current}} tag, I don't think it's appropriate. Usage guidelines for this tag say:

• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day; occasionally longer.

All of this guidance speaks against such tagging here. The article has been remarkably stable despite the stream of news, as recent events get incorporated in orderly fashion when relevant, and older or less important details get trimmed. — JFG ^talk 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This article completely fails the usage guidelines in that template. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fair. The days before the Trump era seem quaint now in terms of how often things in the news cycle change. Andrevan@ 05:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment See the discussion below for current and proposed wording for the sentence about Trump's denials.--MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose both -- Really about staff, not Trump, so not lead items for Trump BLP. Also, as charges are unrelated to Russian investigation, it is incorrect to include that as part of the same line. Prefer the simpler investigation and denial as being the elements specific to Trump. And generally prefer simpler and shorter. Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Collusion?

Why is the word collusion in there at all? Collusion isn't a legal term or a term of art. The relevant facts are that several members of Trump's campaign have been indicted and pled guilty to a criminal investigation, but Trump himself has not been directly implicated. His denials and repeated claim of "no collusion" are undue weight given to the subject's own narrative. Andrevan@ 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• See the recent messy discussion where the denial was added Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I propose we change it from "colluison" to "wrongdoing" since he has also denied other forms of wrongdoing. Maybe we could even say he has called the investigation a witch hunt. As written, the article basically says this, paraphrasing: Trump was investigated, but NO COLLUSION! That's not NPOV. Clearly the investigation is a major albatross that gets discussed massively like a slow motion train wreck on a daily basis by RS, unlike, say, Benghazi or the Fast and Furious scandal which, while they may have taken up a lot of Congressional time, were mostly a blip in RS. The comparison to the Trump investigation is Watergate. Andrevan@ 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Have boldly added language about the witch hunt to the lead. Please discuss here. Andrevan@ 23:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks fair, although a bit long-winded; will copyedit. What's your source for "demanding the Department of Justice drop the matter"? Apart from Twitter rants about the "witch hunt", I do not remember seeing any request from the Trump administration to DOJ to shut down the investigation. Plenty of rumors of his alleged desire to fire Mueller and the impending doom, but again no action. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, he generally says it is a witch hunt that MUST END NOW[10] and he's expressed desire to fire Mueller, Sessions or Rosenstein[11][12][13] on several occasions. Giuliani recently said the false end date[14]. Andrevan@ 03:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, and none of these musings amount to a "demand" to the DOJ, so we cannot write that. — JFG ^talk 03:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In order to convey Trump's impatience with the investigation, may I suggest a simpler wording: calling the investigation a witch hunt that should be wound down. — JFG ^talk 03:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's awfully charitable to go from "MUST END" to "wound down," wouldn't you say? Andrevan@ 03:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone… — JFG ^talk 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The special counsel investigation has produced almost 20 indictments, 5 guilty pleas, 3 from Trump's team & 1 already serving jail time. Defendants are facing 100+ criminal charges including conspiracy against the US, bank fraud, lying to FBI investigators. [15] Trump has demanded that the witch hunt must end. What about that is unencyclopedic? Andrevan@ 04:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Would this be your new proposed text? It's certainly encyclopedic in tone, but undue for the lede of this bio – better suited in the lede of Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). I see you trimmed the phrase in the article already, and I took the liberty to copyedit further, conveying a strong expression of Trump's wish that the investigation was "terminated". — JFG ^talk 05:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, we need another sentence at the end. Trump has called for the investigation to be terminated. Instead, it has continued, resulting in a number of indictments and guilty pleas of his campaign staff. Otherwise you're leaving it dangling with simply Trump's narrative without the reality. Because, of course, as you know, it is not a witch hunt at all -- or do we disagree on that? Andrevan@ 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether this investigation should be called a witch hunt, a fishing expedition, or the last refuge of democracy. Whatever it is called, I stand by my earlier argument against mentioning indictments at this stage and in this BLP lede section, because all known indictments as of today are unrelated to Trump. The continuation of investigations is due, and is reflected in the very existence of this last paragraph. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Many of the indictments are related to Trump. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can think the indictments aren't related to Trump. Of course they are. Trump has been associating himself with, hiring, or appointing shady characters who have ended up being indicted/charged/convicted. These associations Trump has are far stronger and have greater implications than, for example, Barack Obama's tenuous connections with Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko that the right wing succeeded in making a big deal of. I'm not a fan of guilt by association, but Trump's connections with some of the indicted people are pretty strong. He's STILL trying to defend Mike Flynn, despite some pretty disturbing revelations. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Guilt by association is an interesting concept to entertain, but it's still UNDUE here until such time as somebody from Trump's campaign or inner circle gets indicted for actually conspiring with Russia, not merely for fumbling their FBI interview. Incidentally, what do you call "disturbing revelations" about Flynn? I haven't seen anything new being reported recently. — JFG ^talk 16:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, do you mean to be saying that collusion, collaboration, or conspiracy are equivalent to "guilt by association", which has the universal meaning of an unfair and unfounded disparagement? For AGF's sake, I'd really appreciate some clarity on what you intended by the preceding comment before I respond. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just saying that the indictments of Trump-related people so far have not mentioned any "collusion, collaboration, or conspiracy" with Russia regarding election interference (double-check the list above). Hence, mentioning those indictments here would be peddling guilt by association. I'll be happy to change my mind if/when Mueller comes up with more meat. He did indict a bunch of people for "conspiracy to defraud the United States": they are all Russian and unrelated to Trump, so they have nothing to do in Trump's bio. — JFG ^talk 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Trump fired Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller, Mueller has indicted a number of Russian conspirators and Trump campaign associates. Some have pled guilty, some are going to trial. It doesn't really matter that the crimes are not "collusion." That isn't how this works. There's a major ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign that Trump called a politically motivated witch hunt, which has made some major indictments and guilty pleas of Trump campaign staff. There's no rule that all of that has to be "collusion" to be relevant to Trump. Andrevan@ 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, the exact charges matter a lot! The facts that have been laid bare by the investigators help us determine relevance to Trump's BLP lede, or lack thereof. — JFG ^talk 18:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I'm unable to understand your response as anything other than doubling down on the equivocation that is in your initial statement above. We'll see what others think, but I see no merit at all in your argument. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Perhaps you could present counter-arguments that would explain how any of the currently-known indictments are DUE for Trump's BLP lede? This would help our fellow editors reach an informed decision one way or the other. — JFG ^talk 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You've just completely ignored the point I've made clear twice now. Conspiracy is a crime. "Guilt by association is unfounded disparagement". You have repeatedly referred to a alleged crime, conspiracy, which is what's being investigated, as if it were the illogical and untoward "guilt by association" that most rational people dismiss out of hand. Deflection on a straightforward editorial decision makes it extremely difficult to achieve good article text and requires an undue level of diligence to catch subtle but significant distortions of language. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The idea that Trump's campaign staff have merely pled guilty to fumbling their FBI interview on a technicality is not at all true, and is a Republican talking point. For example, Rick Gates pled guilty to "conspiracy." [16] Andrevan@ 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Gates pled guilty to "conspiracy" indeed… about having been an undeclared foreign agent for Ukraine, and lying to the Special Counsel about a 2013 meeting as he lobbied Congress on behalf of Ukraine.[17] Off-topic. — JFG ^talk 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the "topic"? Whatever Donald Trump says is the topic? It's relevant because it is a matter that arose out of Mueller's investigation concerning members of Donald Trump's campaign. As I'm sure you very well know, the way prosecutors generally work is they obtain guilty pleas and cooperation agreements from involved individuals in order to build cases against the targets of the investigation. For example, Don Jr., Michael Cohen, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, etc. The fact that Gates and Manafort are being charged with their work with Ukraine does not mean it's totally irrelevant to Donald Trump. In fact, he makes it all the more relevant with his nonstop tweeting and commenting about it. Furthermore, it's completely relevant that Michael Flynn pled guilty and is cooperating, it's not a "technical" crime at all. He is cooperating with the investigation, ie he has "flipped." [18] The claim that these investigations are simply peripheral and irrelevant is a Republican talking point. Andrevan@ 18:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you are just speculating. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I most certainly am not. The above is covered extensively in RS. Which statement of mine do you find possible speculation and I will furnish a source. Andrevan@ 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Speculating that Flynn has "flipped", speculating that Don Jr., Cohen, Kushner, Stone, etc. will be indicted, speculating that Ukrainian lobbying over the last 10 years has anything to do with Trump's candidacy, speculating that Trump's tweetstorms have anything to do with reality. But we're drifting into WP:FORUM territory and we should stop. — JFG ^talk 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

'Team Trump in shock as Flynn flips' [19] 'Flynn Flipped. Who’s Next?' [[20] 'The explosive video that shows how Flynn flipped' [21] 'Flynn flipping is a major break for Mueller — and bad news for the next big target' [22] 'Mueller Seems to Be Flipping More and More Former Trump Allies' [23] 'Michael Flynn has signed a plea deal with Robert Mueller. Trump should be very worried' [24] Andrevan@ 18:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Google is our friend. But I do make a distinction between "cooperating with the investigation" (which is true and well-documented), and "flipping", which is speculation that such cooperation will lead to any damning charges against Trump or his inner circle. As for the rest, it's all WP:CRYSTAL. — JFG ^talk 18:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, RS say that Flynn flipped, and we should report as such. Do you disagree? I'm not saying that Flynn flipping should be in the lede in this article. My point is that guilty pleas and indictments are relevant to Trump himself. There's no crystal balling by simply stating the fact - the investigation has led to a number of guilty pleas and indictments. Andrevan@ 19:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Flynn pled guilty to lying about his conversation with Kislyak, and he is cooperating with Mueller; we agree on that much. You also admit that's not lede-worthy material for this BLP. Per my own advice, I'll stop arguing now. Good night! — JFG ^talk 19:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to mention Flynn specifically by name, but the total impact of several guilty pleas and indictments IS relevant to Trump. To keep it out of the lead is giving cover to Trump and his public relations interest. NPOV means stating Trump's position "it's a politically motivated witch hunt" and then stating Mueller's action as it pertains thereto "Mueller has indicted and obtained guilty pleas from a number of members of Trump's campaign, and has indicated his desire to interview Trump himself." Andrevan@ 19:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG in that the investigation is ongoing. I'm of the mind that these indictments and guilty pleas should not be included in the Trump bio - they belong in the Mueller investigation article, and to make it NPOV compliant, all relevant views should be included. Where is the factual statement that was published in a high quality RS that formally or even informally indicts Trump as having a direct connection? Yes, Gates pleaded guilty to lying about Manafort, and for conspiring to defraud the U.S. via false statements regarding his status as a foreign agent. Did he say Trump was involved, and if so where is that report? Papadopoulos (briefly a foreign policy advisor) made material false statements and material omissions about his contacts with Kremlin-connected Russians - did he say Trump was involved? Flynn pled guilty to making false statements, did he testify under oath that Trump was involved? Manafort has not pled guilty to the charges against him, so in the US, one is innocent until proven guilty and the investigation is ongoing. Facts only, please. In addition to the aforementioned, we have a partisan divide over what I'll refer to as Bubblegate based on the linked article. To summarize, unless we present all relevant views, we're teetering on noncompliance with NPOV. With regards to the Manafort issue we are treading into NOTNEWS territory since it's all still based on allegations, journalistic opinion/speculation until after the trial. We must be careful about how the information is presented, but again, it doesn't belong in Trump's BLP; rather it belongs in the Mueller investigation article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Au contraire, all of the claims you dispute above are not speculation or allegation, but in fact are reported in RS. I have never heard of Bubblegate, but the article you are citing seems to be from today, as opposed to nearly a year of RS reporting on the Mueller investigation and the conspirators. For example, Oct 17: "The big problem for Trump is that Manafort was present at a meeting in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. That meeting in Trump Tower was also attended by Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law." [25] To act like that meeting didn't happen or hasn't been covered extensively in RS is giving POV push to Manafort's case. Andrevan@ 21:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan - please see the NYTimes breakdown. That meeting is drowning in speculation, and until it reaches dry land and surpasses the phase of being a conspiracy theory, there's simply no substantial evidence that Trump is directly connected or that the meeting was even noteworthy. The NYTimes stated in closing: Finding a final answer, though, will likely be left to the special counsel. Democrats do not have subpoena authority, and Republicans have shown no interest in pressing for fuller records. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Mueller investigation...^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That NYT piece clearly says, "a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, attended the meeting, as did Paul Manafort, then the campaign chairman, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law." This is Trump-related, and other RS confirm this time and time and again. The claim that this is not relevant to Trump himself is even alluded to in the NYT piece you link in terms of discussing whether the "blocked number" was a call to Trump. There doesn't need to be judicial proof that Trump had specific knowledge of the meeting, it's still relevant to his claims of "no collusion" and "no obstruction" and that the investigation is a "witch hunt." Andrevan@ 22:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Collusion seems a Democratic vaguery, instead of the legal term 'conspiracy'. I would suggest not leading with 'witch hunt' as a minor subpart of the denial, and per BLP guidance to write without dramatic bits. (It says conservatively, but that might be misread as right-wing). Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the lede mention obstruction?

(Sub-discussion extracted from above thread — JFG ^talk 18:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We now say Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a witch hunt that should be terminated. I don't think that accurately reflects what he has said. To the extent possible we should use Trump's own words. Those words, repeated so often as to become catch phrases, are "NO COLLUSION!" and "witch hunt". He also repeatedly insists that the investigation is politically motivated. He rarely mentions obstruction of justice, and I haven't seen him use the word "terminated". In fact I think the calls to "wind down" or end the investigation have mostly come from his attorneys or members of his administration, not from Trump himself. How about this: "Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion, calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt". --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. I think you should insert your text and we can take it from there. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, thank you, but no. We should agree on a text before inserting it. Some additional points that occurred to me in support of this wording: Trump always talks as if collusion was the only issue under investigation. He may even interpret "collusion" as meaning personal collusion by Trump himself, and that may be what he means with his continual denials - that there was no collusion BY HIM. If that's his understanding, then any collusion by members of his campaign is irrelevant to him, and his denials do not take them into account. That's why I think "he has repeatedly denied any collusion", without any embellishment about guilty pleas and such by campaign associates and without any mention of obstruction, best expresses what he has said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with MelanieN's terse suggestion, although I'm fine with the current sentence too. The accusations of obstruction of justice have been prominent enough to be mentioned here as well, per DUE. Perhaps we can combine them, saying Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically-motivated "witch hunt". Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 16:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, yes, the ACCUSATIONS of obstruction are prominent, but his DENIALS of obstruction of justice - or even mentioning that issue - are few and far between. In describing his denial, we should only report what he has actually denied and not put words in his mouth. In this sentence we are not talking about what he has been accused of; we are talking about what he has denied. His denials virtually always consist of "there has been no collusion". In a search I could find only one citation, from January 2018, that was titled as Trump denying obstruction - and even then all he said was "I did everything properly". Obstruction is simply not a charge that he has paid any attention to, or made any effort to deny. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Since Andrevan has demonstrated, below, that Trump has specifically denied obstruction on several occasions, I now agree with your proposed wording here that includes his denial of "obstruction of justice".

Trump has actually denied obstruction on several occasions[26][27] and it's been discussed by the media as well, so I strongly disagree with MelanieN's description above. I also strongly disagree that we should hew as close as possible to the subject's own words or catch phrases. What policy guidance is that inspired by? Andrevan@ 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, Andrevan, thanks for the research. Seeing that, I now agree with JFG's proposed wording Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically-motivated "witch hunt". As for your "policy guidance" question, it seems pretty obvious that when you are trying to cite a statement or opinion to someone, such as "so and so denied it", you should stick as closely as possible to what they actually said, and not put words in their mouth or go beyond what they said. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I like and support the proposed wording per you and JFG, but I think we need to be careful about the difference between citing a statement to someone, and giving them a public relations soapbox for spin and lies, with no rebuttal or fact checking done by reliable 3rd party sources. As per above, I believe we should outline that Trump has denied obstruction and called the investigation a politically motivated witch hunt. In the meantime, the investigation has racked up several points to the contrary. Andrevan@ 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks MelanieN. @Andrevan, Atsme, Galobtter, Mandruss, MrX, MONGO, and SPECIFICO: Can we proceed with this wording for now? (Surely it can and will be improved later…) @Scjessey: Sorry I forgot you in the mass-ping. — JFG ^talk 18:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically-motivated "witch hunt".

• Support - well done, and sincerely appreciate the productive collaboration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• OpposeSee no reason to mention this issue if the intro has no mention of the North Korea issue. In the foreign policy portion of the intro every talking point aside from possibly Trump conducting missle strikes in Syria after they used chemical weapons, is in fact all items his opposition disagree with Trump on.--MONGO 19:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• The North Korea summit was cancelled today. Andrevan@ 19:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mongo, I don't understand your "oppose" comment. The question here is about the wording of a sentence saying that Trump denies having anything to do with Russian interference in the election. Are you really meaning to say that we should not include his denial? --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

See no reason to mention anything about the investigation(s) at all if we are omitting his biggest foreign policy issue of his presidency, namely North Korea. All these should be over at the article about his presidency anyways not in this bio, least not in the intro.--MONGO 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me that we have enough agreement to insert this sentence into the lede, and I will do so. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support - I don't oppose this wording, but I do think that obstruction of justice is not as prominent an issues as collusion at this point. We may also want to include money laundering,[28][29][30][31][32][33] although I don't know if Trump has actually denied those allegations.- MrX 🖋 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - while "politically-motivated witch-hunt" does WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE well, I think this being a BLP it is more important to stick to WP:BLP, giving biographically important items and to write conservatively rather than inflammatory quotes. The details of the investigation are not important enough to his life or the article for the lead anyway. Just short and simple and plain please-- mentioning the investigation and his denial of collusion seems quite enough. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the article mention money laundering?

• There's been extensive RS discussion and circumstantial evidence to indicate a long history of money laundering. While we do not know the outcome, we do know this is under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in this article, but maybe not in the lead section. Andrevan@ 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose any mention of money laundering, either in the lede or in the article text. The special counsel is investigating the Russian interference in the election and anything which may arise in connection with that (such as obstruction of justice). That much we know. There has been a lot of speculation that the investigation will turn up money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, you name it - but speculation is what it is. There has been no indication from the special counsel's office that they are looking into anything along those lines. (SPECIFICO, you said "we do know this is under investigation." How do we know? Aside from speculation in the press?) --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, are you acting as an WP:INVOLVED editor or an impartial administrator on this matter? While I don't specifically think that we've come across good language or evidence to conclude as yet, your statement that this is all speculation is worrisome to me, since we have a number of relevant facts that do pertain to money laundering and other bank- and tax-related issues, which should be included in the article in some fashion, as many of them deal with Trump's businesses prior to the presidency[34][35] as well as his relationship with Rudy Giuliani prior. We do know that the Southern District of NY and the FBI raided Michael Cohen's office in connection with a slush fund and issues to do with loans and funds paid from major corporations[36][37] [38] [39]. We know there are issues involving major cash transactions for real estate that are tied to money laundering[40] [41] There are also issues involving Felix Sater [42] and the NRA[43] Wikipedia policy is that we cover how subjects appear in reliable sources. We can't synthesize or connect the dots, or speculate. But I'm confused by your assertion that the PRESS are speculating. The press aren't speculating, they are REPORTING. For example: "Those transcripts reveal serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals," Mr Schiff said. [44] Andrevan@ 23:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, Andrevan, I am WP:INVOLVED at this article, because I am here discussing content. I participate at many of these political articles, and I function there as a regular editor, not an administrator - a role that I am very clear about and that is well understood by the other editors here. I assume the same is true for you, at this article at least, since you are also here discussing content. My point in this discussion is simply this: Yes, many people believe or assume that Trump’s business has been involved in unsavory or illegal practices such as money laundering. It is possible that the Muller investigation, or the separate New York investigation involving Cohen, are looking into these issues. But we don’t KNOW whether they are, and nobody in a position to know has said so. (SPECIFICO said we "know" this is under investigation, but I haven't seen that evidence.) Some people have voiced their suspicions, but we don’t use unsupported suspicions in a BLP. Rep. Schiff suggested that Glenn Simpson may have made such allegations in his testimony to the intelligence committee, but that is not strong enough evidence for us to mention it in a BLP. We might be able to bring out some of these issues at the article The Trump Organization. But especially for purposes of this article, we mustn’t get ahead of the evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, what about covering this article? [45] "Trump's casino ended up paying the Treasury Department a $477,000 fine in 1998 without admitting any liability under the Bank Secrecy Act." Or this one: [46] FinCEN Fines Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort $10 Million for Significant and Long Standing Anti-Money Laundering Violations Andrevan@ 21:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If they aren't in the Trump Organization article, they should be. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:I do not say that Mueller is investigating money laundering. I say there's substantial discussion and circumstantial evidence that have led to widespread discussion and suspicion of it. e.g. [47]. that does not seem undue. It's a lot more solid than chatter about how Trump pressured N. Korea, for example, or how Trump is worth $3.1 billion according to a third-tier "capitalist tool" business magazine, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"cirmumstantial" means probably bad idea to have it in a BLP.--MONGO 01:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is that? Its very widely covered in impeccable RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - lots of unfounded rumors from unnamed sources or speculations by partisan parties may well exist, but that does not make for a significant event or life choice of the Donald Trump Biography article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unfounded? Unnamed? Partisan? What? SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP needs factual events -- not fantasies. Without a Trump name on an actual indictment, this is just unsuitable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Amend consensus item 2, unlink New York City in the infobox

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.

---

Almost trivial (sorry). Wouldn't need prior consensus but for the existing consensus item. Propose amending #Current consensus item 2 to unlink "New York City" in the infobox. This is not an invitation to revisit the rest of that consensus, please stay on topic.

• Support as proposer per WP:OVERLINK, which lists New York City as one of the examples of things that don't need linking, and has done since 1 August 2016[48] without challenge. That was 3+1⁄2 months before the consensus 2 discussion and we just missed it. Overlinking bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - overlinking...a pet peeve for many. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry, I dislike overlinking as much as the next guy, but a standalone link in an infobox does make sense to help readers who may want to indulge in exploratory clicks. The guideline mostly refers to avoiding links to common terms in prose, where they can degrade the reading experience. Infoboxes typically have plenty of links, and I rarely see people complaining of overlinking there. Shall we unlink President of the United States because it's a common and well-understood term? I don't think so. Ditto New York City. — JFG ^talk 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is the problem with whataboutism. Yes, you could make a case for unlinking President of the United States, but then you would face strong resistance from the Wikipedia Presidential Infoboxes Consistency Coalition. You would probably have to seek a community consensus to change all 44 at the same time, a very different proposition. That's a false equivalence. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I just sampled 30 articles from Politicians from New York City, and all of them have their birth and death places linked from the infobox. There is some variance as to mentioning the borough, the state, and linking thereof, but all instances of New York City are linked. You're facing an uphill battle if you wish to de-link them… — JFG ^talk 19:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think cross-article consistency should be the first concern in this case, and I don't seek to unlink any but this one. WP:WIP. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - As I said above, but for the consensus item I would have BOLDed this edit and I doubt anyone would have challenged that (even JFG). The consensus list is overall a Good Thing, most of us agree on that, but it shouldn't cause a lack of interest to be an obstacle. I would appreciate some participation here, even if it's more Opposes. I promise not to argue with any more Opposes—there isn't much more to say about this issue—so it will only take 30 seconds of your life. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm vacillating between weak support and weak oppose. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per JFG. Consistency does matter in infoboxes, which exist mostly to display information in a consistent, easy-to-read manner. And wikilinks aren't eyesores in infoboxes, because they don't make the information stand out from other stuff as much (the very formatting of the infobox emphasis the information contained within). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:42, 4 June 2018 (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.

"his victory upset the expectations of polls and analysts."

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.

---

This is idiotic and misleading wording. His victory did not upset the expectations of polls, it was within a normal polling error. His election upset the expectations of some analysts. His election also upset the expectations of data analysts within both campaigns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree somewhat. Maybe change it to upsetting pundits? I mean, it's true that 538 and other analysts were giving Hillary 80-90% odds of winning. Then again, that was before the impact of the Comey letter October surprise. Andrevan@ 19:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

538 gave Trump a 28.6% chance to win on election night and had a piece days before the election noting, "Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Carry on... Support above Andrevan@ 19:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Good catch - awkward wording. The picture was murky, and particularly murky because of the vagaries of the electoral college. What was unexpected was the lopsidedness, less than 88,000 votes in three states deciding an election where the winner received 2.8 million (2.1%) less votes than the loser. Aside from that, the polls & the expectations of pundits may belong in the lead of the article on the 2016 general election and the individual campaigns, but not in Trump's general bio. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

By most accounts, this election was a historical upset, we need to mention this somehow. I agree that the previous wording put too much emphasis on pundits. Fact is that everyone was surprised. — JFG ^talk 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Accordingly, I called it a "surprise victory"[49] like most sources did. — JFG ^talk 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A historical number of people were and are upset but whether the election was an upset, historical or otherwise, depends on who you ask. Anyway, more awkward wording: Can you be elected against someone? Campaign - yes; win - yes; elect - I don't think so. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The wording is now "in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton". I believe that's fair. — JFG ^talk 15:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

But the victory was not a "surprise victory". He had a 28% chance according to the most prominent forecaster. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Surprise" "shocking" or "upset" -- both by being a win and by the substantial electoral margin. Also in that Republicans in general beat expectations for Congressional races at the same time. Most of the coverage and most projections just before the election put Clinton at about 90% chance to win, and analysts were showing how unlikely the series states in question were that would be anything else. e.g. Huffington Post 3 October at 98%, The Independent 5 November at 99% , BBC 7 November at 84%, Reuters 7 November at 90%, CNN 7 November at 91%, NYTimes 8 November at 85%. Much of the post-election analysis was over how could the polling projecions have been so far wrong, in so many states. You can read more at the election article here and here "shocking" and "upset". CHeers Markbassett (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of those are the same forecasts. Again, a 28% chance (538) and a 15% chance (NYT's Upshot) that something will occur is not surprising. Those are the same odds as hitting a 1 or a 2 (28%), or a 1 (15%), respectively on a dice. The correct language is "some analysts" and "some forecasters" (though I think it's dubious to refer to forecasters in Wiki voice, when most people consider 538 and the Upshot to be the premier forecasters and those two were not far off in their forecasts). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include "upset", "surprise", or similar wording -- here are some sources published right after the election that discuss the election being an upset, a surprise, or unexpected: [50][51][52][53] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Get real, folks. Trump’s victory was universally reported as a surprise [54] or stunning [55] or an upset [56]. Per Politico, it was The biggest upset in U.S. history (that’s probably a bit of an overstatement). But we would be totally distorting history if we pretended his win wasn’t against all expectations. (Even if one brave pollster did give him a 28% chance of winning.) Even 60% of Trump’s supporters hadn’t expected him to win.[57] I totally object to the suggestion to water it down to “some analysts” and “some forecasters” or similar language, because the reaction to his victory was universally surprise, per all Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I think our current wording - Trump's victory was considered a stunning political upset by most observers - gets it just right. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Better to say the same w/o passive voice. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN on this, all points she made. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

538 isn't a "pollster", it's a forecaster and the by far most prominent one. The second most prominent, NY Times' Upshot blog, gave Trump a 15% chance. Journalists do not understand probabilities, polls and forecasts (a frequent subject on 538), which explains the absurdly overconfident news coverage prior to the election and the straight-up false reporting from news outlets after the election about what forecasts had said (the reporting by some reporters clearly demonstrated that they equated a 72% of winning to a 99% chance of winning). If the two most prominent forecasters gave Trump a 15-28% chance (with 538 clearly noting that Trump was within a normal polling error of winning), then "all reliable sources" did obviously not react with surprise to the fact that he narrowly won. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well we're not proposing "by most sophisticated observers". You may be right that the public underestimated the prior likelihood of Trump's victory, but the text refers to surprise and upset so that's consistent with unrealistic expectations being dashed. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Nate Silver (538) wasn't totally STUNNED, since he had given Trump a decent chance - but he was about the only one who was merely surprised but not stunned. We are bound to go by the weight of coverage from what we normally consider Reliable Sources, and that weight is overwhelmingly what we have cited here: stunning upset, to the point where even Trump himself didn't expect to win. If we don't say it was a stunning upset, we will be pretty much the only ones saying so. But we are expected to follow the sources, not re-interpret them to report what we think they should have said. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A 28% chance isn't a surprise. They are the same odds as hitting a 1 or 2 on a single dice throw rather than 3, 4, 5 or 6. The Upshot's forecast are the same odds as hitting a 1 on a single dice throw rather than 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. One outcome is more likely than the other, but neither outcome is stunning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Boom! The exact same things I talked about is the subject of the 538 podcast episode released today. Nate Silver says explicitly that journalists do not understand polls in the first two minutes.[58] So, there's a conflict among reliable sources where the reliable sources least equipped to understand polls and probabilities say that Trump's win was stunning whereas the reliable sources most equipped to understand polls and probabilities (538, NYT's Upshot) gave Trump a decent chance to win. Why should we opt for the RS that are least equipped to understand polls, forecasts and probabilities rather than the reliable sources whose existence are centered around dealing with polls, forecasts and probabilities? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess this is where "preponderance" comes in. Most reliable sources, whether they were better equipped or not, say that Trump's election was a "stunning upset" or a variation thereof. It is also worth considering that precisely zero polls gave Donald Trump a snowball's chance in hell to win the election before the first primary, and polling is not the only basis for the "upset" description (which is why we use the term "analysts" as well). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add, I consider the existing language to be satisfactory, per MelanieN. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A poll isn't a prediction tool like that. It's a snapshot of the electorate at a specific point in time. It's bizarre to believe that a poll released months prior to an election should reflect the election outcome. The correct language is that "forecasts considered a Clinton victory to be more likely than a Trump victory, with forecasters 538 and the New York Times' Upshot giving Trump a 28% and 15% chance respectively. On election day, 538 warned that Trump was within a normal polling error of winning. A systemic polling error across the Midwest gave Trump a narrow victory in several Midwestern states, giving him an edge in the electoral college. Trump's victory was widely considered surprising by pundits and news outlets, as well as to the Trump and Clinton campaigns." The text should of course be more concise, but that's the gist of what it should say, so as to not mislead readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is Monday morning quarterbacking. A preponderance of reliable sources say it was a "stunning upset" (or variation thereof). Now, we could add something like "widely considered at the time..." to give an appropriate historical perspective, I guess, but the gist of what it says now is fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN's text captured the gist of public reaction. As to whether there were pollsters who have a well-developed professional sense of how surprised they are by a 1/4 or 1/7 outcome, that seems beyond the scope of what this sentence is contributing to the narrative. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, most people, even many Trump supporters, were very surprised that he won. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite to win and even the suggestion that Trump even had a possibility of winning would be met with astonishment and disbelief. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2018 (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.

Challenging "spygate" 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.

---

I'm challenging the recent edit(s) by User:Andrevan adding the following to the lead:

Trump has said "Spygate" could be one of the largest political scandals in history. Conservatives and progressives alike have said that the scope of Trump's scandals may be bigger than the Watergate scandal.

First, when Trump says something could be one of the largest X in history is nowhere near unique. His best friends will admit that hyperbole for him is a regular manner of speaking. Possibly this could fit somewhere in the body, but it has not been proven to be worthy of the lead. Second, the second sentence is not backed up by the source which merely says that conservatives say Spygate could be bigger than Watergate, but liberals say it is unfounded; neither talk about "the scope of Trump's scandals". --GRuban (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC).

Alright. Perhaps, instead of removing or reverting altogether, you could have moved the content elsewhere and edited it to more closely reflect the source material. What I'd like to ultimately add to the lede is the idea that Donald Trump is the most scandal-ridden president in recent history. Andrevan@ 03:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just wondering..spygate isn't a scandal of Trump, it is trump accusing the FBI - how that is supposed to be about Trump's scandals is beyond me, or how that it is important enough for the lead when it isn't even mentioned in the body. Actually, it'd be better if you'd even read the source - seriously, the USAToday source has nothing to do with the statement that Trump's scandals are bigger than watergate. We should probably add something about the various accusations trump has levelled in the body (e.g Obama this too), but anyhow, what you could add per your goal is "Trump's presidency has been characterized by many scandals and turmoil among Whitehouse staff and cabinet." At-least the latter portion about turmoil is supported by the body; but not the scandal portion, where you'd want to add that to the body first.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I support your wording. Andrevan@ 07:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Before adding something like that to the lede, it would have to be in the article; that's the nature of ledes, to summarize the main points of the article. Do you want to draft up a paragraph or section about "Trump administration scandals"? We would certainly need clearer sourcing than that "Bubble" article, and it would probably wind up getting discussed here until there was consensus to include it. Also, I would not want to see us use Trump's latest buzzword "Spygate" anywhere; the word is pure propaganda, promoting a claim for which we have seen no evidence. AFAIK it has not been picked up by the general media, except in quotes attributed to Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, @Melanie. Andrevan@ 21:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - "spygate" is in BBC as a term, and of course Fox news and such mention it. Should not be in BLP lead as it is not a major life event and BLP guidance is to write conservatively, and it just is not a significant part of the article. But please apply those same restraints to the 'money laundering' and other items trying to insert into the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark, a general point aside from the particulars of any of these proposed additions to the article -- they're not BLP issues. There may be due weight or recentism or other problems, but it's not a BLP problem to mention widely and reliably reported details about so public a figure. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark, I still oppose using "Spygate" anywhere. And you will notice, in the discussion above, that I strongly oppose mentioning money laundering anywhere in this article. We may have fewer of this kind of proposals now that Andrevan has been topic-banned. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree Spygate is not a thing yet. UNDUE for article. Money Laundering, however has achieved thing status, so it needs to be somewhere, appropriately and per RS discussion. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 29 May 2018 (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.

Strikes on Syria undue for lede?

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 lede section currently mentions the two missile strikes on Syrian infrastructure in retaliation for chemical weapons attacks. As evoked in an earlier discussion, these events were one-off actions, and as such they do not look notable enough to be included as a key foreign policy event. I would suggest to remove this sentence. What do my fellow editors think? — JFG ^talk 13:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - I encourage editors - please - go read the bios of past presidents - eventually, this bio will end-up along the same lines as those of former presidents in size and presentation - and those presidents served 2 terms. Unless the plan is to start Trumpipedia, and I imagine he'd like nothing more, we cannot include all of his actions as president in his personal bio. It's quite obvious that even Presidency of Donald Trump is going to need trimming to keep it inline with statements of fact, and less journalistic opinion (currently news style instead of/should be encyclopedic). Content forks will be created, and that's where some of this outlying material needs to go - keep relevant material in relevant articles, and clean-up the problematic syntax and challenged spin, such as what I've pointed out above. WP:NOTNEWS: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and regarding the syntax and MOS: Wikipedia is also not written in news style. Wikinews and WikiTribune are thataway. ↗ ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. As JFG pointed out, these are one-offs and because of that, the content is not lead appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - this is his BLP, so the item does not even belong in the article let alone in the lead. The Presidency article might get a minot mention of it -- but I do not think that would make it a lead item there. Markbassett (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2018 (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.

Coal

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.

---

Why doesnt the article mention Trump support of coal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.215.40 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC) De-shouted and removed 22 of 23 question marks per WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. Because it's super embarrassing? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not helpful. Also not necessarily accurate. (Personal attack removed) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: For the record, I am not an American; however, for the last seventeen years I have lived in "The Coal State". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then for my comment above, I accept responsibility for making a completely wrong judgement re: your home-status. I was under the false belief you lived across the pond. Of course then, you are aware of what people in and outside the industry feel from a personal, first hand perspective. You have my sincere apologies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources mentioning the steps he took to "support coal," whatever that means? In the last quarter of 2017, coal jobs and production were down. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Actions don't always indicate support. Support is also an expression, not just a deed or action taken. Trump has been vocally for coal production and use in the past. All that considered, I'm not sure that coal itself needs to be singled out, although it could be mentioned (if not already) in regard to his energy policy in general. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a minor thing; place it in Energy policy of the Trump administration or some such. Undue for the bio. — JFG ^talk 19:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Does not belong in his WP:BLP. If this is something to do with his actions as President, then the article Presidency of Donald Trump might get a minor mention, but unless he has significant personal involvement it should not go here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not particularly a minor thing. It's one of his fave campaign and public speaking narratives how he's going to put all the great American hard-working coal miners back to work and coal is coming back. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 29 May 2018 (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.

Repeat sentence challenged

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.

---

@MrX: About your revert,[59] here was my rationale:

1. The article says, when discussing Trump's "shitholes" comment: His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by several members of Congress. Two lines later, we say practically the same thing: Trump's racially insensitive statements have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world. I thought that sounded redundant, so I trimmed it. You do point out that the first instance only talks about the "shitholes" incident, while the latter is more generic. Perhaps we could keep just the generic version then? I don't think it makes much difference, because the international outcry was rather focused on the shitholes incident.
2. The Vox source does not talk about international condemnation, which is why it is superfluous here, as the sentence is already supported by three very good sources.

Would you agree to restore my edit, or do you have an alternate suggestion to resolve the above two concerns? — JFG ^talk 20:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out the discussion above is in regard to this same topic. Can we merge them for local consensus or should we call an RfC and skip the middleman arguments? I'm willing to do whatever is best to find resolution with minimal argument...^{Atsme📞📧} 21:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, since there is no consensus right now about Trump or racial issues or the article text involving such, the stable version should stand. An RfC would be out of order at the current time. We need to discuss in further depth the considerations and concerns being raised. For example, there are a million Google results for trump racist shithole, many of which are reliable sources in 3rd party authoritative voice. Similarly there are many sources for the condemnation of the world, and so on. We can discuss which sources we prefer. I'm trying to find if there had been a prior discussion on this or another article about the reliability of Vox.Andrevan@ 21:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can all agree on a couple of things that Atsme and I discussed. She correctly said that the Democratic congress called the remarks racist, so that word could be added. I correctly said that more than "several" members of congress condemned the remarks. (See our discussion above). Perhaps the wording could be changed to "a number of"? Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Republican congressmen have attacked Trump's racism many times. Lindsey Graham said, "America is an idea, not a race,”[60] In the aftermath of Charlottesville, Orrin Hatch and Marco Rubio both had critical comments[61] Andrevan@ 21:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps...though I did not find any Republican using the word "racist" following this incident, though I could have missed some. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Utah Republican Rep. Mia Love, whose family came from Haiti, called the president's comments "unkind, divisive [and] elitist." They "fly in the face of our nation's values. This behavior is unacceptable from the leader of our nation," she said. [62] Andrevan@ 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So it looks like she refrained from calling those comments "racist", as Gandydancer pointed out. Thus I would have no objection to qualifying Congresspeople's condemnation as "Democrats". But I can also live without it, that is not such an important distinction, as this shitstorm did not look like a partisan issue. — JFG ^talk 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I don't think anybody is questioning the reliability of Vox as a source; I certainly am not. All I'm saying is that the cited Vox article by Zack Beauchamp does not support the sentence it is tacked on, as it says nothing about international or even domestic condemnation of Trump's remarks. Because we have several other great sources supporting this sentence, we can dispense with citing Vox here. — JFG ^talk 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:. My suggestion would be to change the first occurrence of "condemned" to "characterized" or "criticized", and change "worldwide" to "widely". Something like "His remarks were widely-characterized as racist, including by several members of Congress." How's that sound (to anyone)?- MrX 🖋 21:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Listen to Graham's own words - CNN interview summarizes it. This section is about racism, not the opinion of his detractors, although we do include them with intext attribution. Include what Graham says but make sure it is a factual quotation of his statement as relevant to this section regarding racism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Graham attacked Trump for what were described in 3rd party voice by many RS as "racially charged comments." Mr. Graham referred to Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot." It's true that he walked back his critique and said he doesn't believe Trump is racist per se. We can include that too. Andrevan@ 21:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump doesn't strike me as a very religious person. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Right; Graham's statements while he was fighting Trump in the primaries should be given less weight than his more moderate words during the presidency. — JFG ^talk 22:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems fair Andrevan@ 22:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of Graham's words to a sentence that summarizes a broad reaction. What are we talking about?- MrX 🖋 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, some editors mentioned Graham as an example of a Republican criticizing Trump; I don't think it's necessary to name names. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on the diffs, I thought this was about his *&6^@ comment and the responses from Democrats that followed. If we're going to ID the HIC as majority Republican, then every decision should follow suit - the majority of Democrats considered his comment racist. Someone said Lindsey Graham supported the latter, and it simply isn't true based on the interview I included above. Graham denounces the claims of racism, and actually supports what you said JFG - he's that way with everybody. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

For an example of Republican criticism, it's not appropriate to use the self-serving comments of an active politician who may support or oppose Trump on a per-day and per-issue basis. So forget Graham. But because so many Republicans and Conservatives do consistently condemn Trump, I suggest using one who's not in office -- e.g. David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, John Podhoretz, Steve Schmidt... SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So many "Republicans and Conservatives do consistently condemn Trump"? We need specifics please SPECIFICO. As for adding more pundits and bloggers like David Frum, Jennifer Rubin...uh, nope. If we're going to start identifying Republican House members in investigative decisions, then we should maintain consistency across the board - we either do or we don't include identity politics. Cherrypicking those we like in Congress is not NPOV, so I think we need to follow your original suggestion across the board regarding identity politics and say if it was a Republican or Democratic majority. The few stragglers in each party are not really notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I just gave you 4 prominent Republicans. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It was an allegation that was denied. What difference does it make what people say about an allegation? It's great click-bait fodder but it is not encyclopedic. When there are conflicting views, we use intext attribution - why is that a problem? Liken it to the allegation that the whole birther thing was started by HRC when we know full well it was started by her campaign, not her - she continuously denied it - yet WP gives the former DUE in the lead in WikiVoice; i.e., that it was Hillary who started it. The argument used to eliminate that misinformation applies here as well. And yes, the analogy is a useful comparison. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Your suggestion waters down the reactions; "condemned" is imho the adequate word reflecting most sources about this affair. And even if we adopted your change, there would still be a lot of redundancy between the two sentences. I would keep "condemned" after the "shitholes" incident, and briefly mention in the same breath that it was not the only time Trump's "racially-insensitive remarks" had met with widespread pushback, so that we don't have to keep two sentences that look very similar with only a denial and a paragraph break between them. We could then move Trump's denial near the "why his supporters accepted that" bit, as suggested in another edit by Space4Time3Continuum2x[63] that was self-reverted due to your challenge of my prior edit. Putting it all together in Draft A below for comments. — JFG ^talk 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. If I can come up with alternative wording, I'll propose it. At the moment, I'm not seeing a case for combining the specific with the general. Remember, there is a 45 year history of racially charged remarks and racially motivated actions to consider.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a 45-year history.... I'm seeing mostly recent partisan spins, basically starts at nomination. Seriously, if all that could be turned up before that was a 1973 allegation, a 1989 opinion, and a 2008 politics bit -- that's basically 45 years of not much, more inclined to say that is proving him as not racist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you are not familiar with Trump's history or the RS accounts of it. Don't forget Archie Bunker was from 1970's Queens, NY. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope you're joking since Archie Bunker is a fictional character from a real place but a fictional version of it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft A

As happened with several other incidents, his racially insensitive remarks attracted widespread condemnation domestically and worldwide, including by several members of Congress. Trump has denied accusations of racism multiple times, saying he is the "least racist person". His supporters have embraced his controversial statements either as a rejection of political correctness or because of their own racial views.

Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Support ^{After sleeping on it, this approach more closely follows what Senator Tim Scott said, "racially insensitive" - that term is compliant, and far less contentious. 13:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)} - with all due respect, that's lazy writing. There is no way to determine "widespread" either domestically or worldwide, and it certainly should not be stated in WikiVoice. None of us can say that for certain, not even media. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

NYTimes, Politico, 5:38, NYMag, Vox, The Guardian...just some food for thought considering we have a mixed audience, and why I prefer to more closely adhere to policy when it comes to intext attribution and generalizing in WikiVoice. I'd rather err on the side of caution when all we have to cite are news sources rather than well researched, unbiased academic/scientific studies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This kind of linking -- to sources questioning the media and talking about liberal bias -- is not productive here. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations Andrevan@ 02:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why not. There's nothing wrong with questioning sources/media. It's not as if we have taken an oath to be true to the sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia when we created our accounts. There is liberal bias, just as there is conservative bias. I see discussions on talk pages at every politically charged article that talks about conservative bias and questions sources. What's good for the elephant is good for the donkey. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source used in the article that you feel is not reliable because of liberal bias? Andrevan@ 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice, so I thought that since we're using some biased news sources and journalist opinion to do that, it would prove helpful for editors to be reminded of what media thinks of themselves, and maybe encourage the use of more academic sources. If we constantly cite news sources and say what they say, then what will distinguish WP from all the other news sources? It certainly doesn't hurt to provide a list of RS under such circumstances, especially where sound editorial judgment is needed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Basically every domestic and international news outlet covered Trump's racism on several occasions, not to mention academic sources. Is there a specific source or situation where you feel a source was not reliable that we can discuss? Andrevan@ 03:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying they aren't RS - they can be biased and still be RS. What we're dealing with is stating an opinion in WikiVoice, and that is noncompliant with NPOV policy - and it is something that consensus cannot change. We state opinions as opinions per REDFLAG, NEWSORG, CONTENTIOUS LABELS and NPOV. I have already stated that it requires intext attribution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Basically every domestic and international news outlet covered Trump's racism" You have your terminology mixed up. News sources didn't "cover" Trump being a racist, individuals referred to Trump as a racist and news sources covered that. News sources published opinion pieces that referred to Trump as a racist. If you think I'm wrong about this, then please, Andrevan, post links to news sources that covered Trump being racist. And when you do that, make sure it's the kind of coverage that David Duke received over him being racist (that's coverage of racism) or that Richard guy the White Supremacist (can't remember his last name right now). That's covering an individual's blatant racism where they make undeniably racist statements and perform undeniably racist acts. Calling Trump a racist in an opinion piece is not covering "Trump's racism". Individuals calling Trump a racist is not covering "Trump's racism". You believing news sources have "covered Trump's racism", when they didn't is not proof of such coverage. It needs to be on par with news coverage of actual racism - then we can say they have "covered Trump's racism". I will look forward to seeing what you are able to come up with. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This was resolved long ago. We should not be WP:REHASHING arguments that were settled and are now in the archives. No editor has a burden of proof and the article does not call Trump racist in Wikipedia's voice. We can certainly discuss whether the article's content is verifiable, or whether rewording material would benefit our readers, but the rest of this is but a distraction.- MrX 🖋 12:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thought - When Senator Tim Scott was asked by Politico's Tim Alberta if he thought Trump was a racist, he shook his head and said “I don’t. I don’t,” he replies. “Is he racially insensitive? Yes. But is he a racist? No.” There are many other sources that say similar things so when you ask me if we should state in WikiVoice that he's racist, I say no - we use intext attribution, and we provide all views in the same manner. That is how it is supposed to be done with contentious labels and derogatory comments based on opinions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(Responding to above thread) It's not a question of bias whether Trump has met with "widespread condemnation" on many occasions. He's scarcely cracked 40% approval rating in the US alone, and he's deeply unpopular abroad. His individual statements have also met with widespread condemnation. There's no OR in observing the basic facts of the descriptions of Trump and his actions and activities in everything from WSJ, Fox News, NYT, WaPo, BBC, Guardian, BuzzFeed, Trump is condemned by tons of people for almost everything he does or says. There are also plenty of scientific and scholarly treatments of Trumpism already. That's me talking, not the article. "We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice, so I thought that since we're using some biased news sources and journalist opinion to do that, it would prove helpful for editors to be reminded of what media thinks of themselves," sorry, lost you there. In what way does Wikipedia policy say that US presidents get special treatment? "and maybe encourage the use of more academic sources" You mean like this one? Trust me, the academy is not going to help salvage Trump as a reasonably not racist person. At least in newsland there is the soft centrism that is actually right wing bias. The academy is where the socialist ivory tower academic intellectuals live, according to you guys, remember? Andrevan@ 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The link you provided is another opinion piece. Where is the coverage of Trump being a David Duke? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's actually not an opinion piece. It is a work of academic political science written by a professor whose job it is to write backward looking scholarly treatments, which is why he didn't publish until March 2018 and it's about the events of 2016. I only brought it up because Atsme referred to wanting more academic sources versus the bread and butter news org sources we generally use for current events stuff. There's plenty of all kinds of sources describing the widespread condemnation of Trump racism. But if you want the David Duke ones specifically here[64] it's in a journal called "Terrorism and POlitical Violence." Did you know Trump has his own journal symposium now? Andrevan@ 04:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (P.S. the author is quite accomplished Michael Barkun so we could even call him out by name and give him a few sentences about his interpretation of Trump)

It's an opinion piece by three authors with academic credentials telling us why the election went the way it did. Just because they have advanced college degrees, that doesn't make them right or the paper anything more than an opinion piece.

"his interpretation of Trump" Interesting how you now admit it's his "interpretation of Trump". Which confirms it's an opinion piece (precisely what "interpretation" is). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

An academic interpretation is not the same as an opinion. Just like a Supreme Court opinion or an ArbCom decision is different from an op-ed. Andrevan@ 04:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this interpretation actually is an opinion. And, you really didn't just compare the SCOTUS to ArbCom, did you? Yikes. Have you been able to come up with a news source that have covered Trump as they did/would David Duke with quotes and actions that scream racism? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here, let me help you with that. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I'm confused. You said you prefer scholarly sources over reliable mainstream media coverage, and then when a scholarly source is offered you reject it as an opinion piece? Is it possible your problem is with what the sources are saying, rather than the sources themselves? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that, but I'll take your word for it. In this case, the paper is an opinion piece. Unless you have evidence of Donald Trump being a David Duke or Richard Spencer or even a George Lincoln Rockwell (I know most here will have to look him up), it's all speculation. You can't quantify racism with data or statistics (no serious person thinks you can), it's not measurable. That's why the paper is nothing more than an opinion piece - doesn't matter how many scholars/academics are attributed to it. Bottom line: without real evidence - and the same kind that comes from actual racists - the label in relation to Trump should be dropped. But I'm not foolish or naive enough to believe that will ever happen. Too many agenda-driven hyperbolic-rhetoric obsessed racism-hoopla-ists in this country today. It's like an epidemic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no intention of debating whether or not Trump is or isn't a racist. Some sources allege racism, and others deny it which makes it a challenged claim. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution.. That is what policy states. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there's a consensus that the article as-is is fine. @Winkelvi, [65] Andrevan@ 04:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, there is far too much weight given to an alleged comment that was repeatedly denied in the same sources being cited for its inclusion. The source responsible for the allegation was a misrepresentation by Trump's biggest detractor, Dick Durbin, which makes it a partisan allegation. Fact: Durbin was the only Democrat at the meeting; Fact: his allegation went viral; it was great clickbait for news sources, and that is one reason sound editorial judgment by WP editors is crucial. Our PAGs caution about NOTNEWS, and I'm still of the mind that just because it was widely covered in news sources, it is not a valid reason for DUE; policy supports the latter. Fact Check presented a timeline, beginning with the origin of the allegation. The latter is closer to how we should be presenting the material; i.e., succinct, fact-based and brief. It's longevity has already been reached - flash in the pan, unencyclopedic, NOTNEWS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"repeatedly denied"?? not really. Succint, fact-based and brief would be like, "$**hole". No spin zone version. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality encyclopedic material that has lasting value is what withstands the test of time, and is far more important than wasting time debating these flash-in-the-pan partisan allegations that are being utilized by news media. I'm not seeing any lasting importance or resulting impacts as a result of any of the published allegations, and certainly nothing at this point in time that would change my mind in judging their encyclopedic value. WP has no deadline - articles are consistently updated. I hesitate to use the term "it will pass" because it sounds too purgative-ish...but there it is. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

^^^This.^^^ -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So, Nijinska, now you're pivoting from "it's not verified, he never said it" to "it doesn't matter"? But this whole thread is about something that we agree does matter, and we were trying to word an appropriate narrative. Or did I read you wrong? SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC

• Oppose - If there is a case for combining these two sentences, then it's not clear how they would flow with the last two paragraphs of the section. The passive wording is not good, and I have problems with the word "incidents". That said, we do repeat the word "racist" five times in the section, and a form of the word "condemned" three times. I think that's a problem that should be addressed. Anyone have a thesaurus?- MrX 🖋 12:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, a delete key would work better towards improving the size and quality of the article. Fewer opinions, and more factually based, encyclopedic material would be a vast improvement over campaign rhetoric and unproven allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current wording isn't perfect, but it is better than this suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like no consensus for any change to the stable text, here. Andrevan@

Fine with me. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 28 May 2018 (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.

Trump's claims about Wharton

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.

---

We’ve recently had several edits and changes about his claim to have excelled at Wharton. The article used to say he "boasted" about this; editors changed it to "claimed", later "said", for NPOV reasons; the latest edit changed it to the POV word "bragged". The article currently says

He later bragged he had excelled at Wharton and had been ranked number one in his class of 333 students. Classmates of Trump when asked to verify his claim have stated they do not recall him as having been an exceptional student. He was not named in the student newspaper for the honor roll list.

Sources

The cited NYT article stated as fact (obviously getting it from Trump but not citing it to him) that he graduated first in his class; it does not say "number one in his class of 333 students" and there’s no telling where that came from. That NYT article is very laudatory; it is anything but objective reporting. The other, debunking source is not viewable online so we don’t know what claim it is responding to. There are much better sources out there. I’m proposing a rewrite with better sources, as follows:

He later claimed to have been first in his class at Wharton, but records show that he was not on the Dean's List, and the 1968 commencement program does not list him as graduating with any sort of honors. His classmates do not recall him as exceptional.

Sources

Comments? Pinging User:SPECIFICO and User:Winkelvi. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The book cited a sentence or two later has the text "bragged" and the factual statement that he was not on the published honor roll. You can see the cited pages on google books searching for the associated words. See what you think. The Times story doesn't appear to be useful for this content, since the reporter must have taken Trump's/Howard Rubinstein's words at face value. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it does. [66] That's a better source than the Philadelphia Inquirer article I used, if people could easily see what it says. (I am no fan of this type of reference listing, that just gives the name of the book and a page.) Up to discussants here whether to say "bragged" in the article. Personally I would choose a more neutral word. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I had no problem with the original article text "boasted". I only changed to bragged after reading the source. But there's nothing neutral about changing the sense of the source when the authors, who spoke to many sources including many classmates and others to whom Trump made the remarks, chose "bragged" to capture the tone of his remarks. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the text in the book said "bragged", it's POV and was in Wiki-voice. Can't do that. "Boasted" is also POV, and when I changed it, it was in Wiki-voice. Still can't do that. Unless the sources have a named individual or individuals who have been quoted as saying, "he bragged about it at this date/place/on this occasion, it's just not encyclopedic and certainly not neutral language to use either bragged or boasted in wiki-voice. We need a neutral word. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The book's text does matter. It's an NPOV violation to neutralize or censor sourced content. Neither sources nor content must be neutral, just editors, who must remain neutral in how they present biased content. Reality is not neutral, and that's what we document, warts and all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The way to do this, as always, is with attribution:

According to Trump Revealed, he "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class." When asked to verify his claim, classmates of Trump stated they did not recall him as having been an exceptional student. He was not named in the student newspaper for the honor roll list.

Something like that, anyway. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Andrevan@ 21:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly how it's done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

More crap un encyclopedic writing that doesn't belong here. Talk about getting into the weeds. Maybe put this "material" into one of his sub articles or the Trump Revealed article since those are even shitty than this one. --Malerooster (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Malerooster: Given that we are currently discussing the material and your opinion appears to differ considerably from others here, this edit would seem to be highly inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey, wrong, it is highly appropriate. This crap was added days ago. If there is consensus for including this garbage, fine, add it back, but it should not be in until then, and you know this. --Malerooster (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wink, If the source says "bragged" then "bragged" is not POV. If the source said "Jack jumped over the moon" would you change it to "jack walked over the moon: to make it "NPOV"? SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: While that would seem logical, I do think attribution for such a loaded word is the way to go, rather than in Wikipedia's voice. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's rather matter-of-fact to say that he boasted or bragged. And this stood up for a long time in the article before a few minor edits prompted this discussion. What to do? We could try to find a second RS to confirm bragged before stating it in WP's voice. In this case, because the book itself is notable, it is not UNDUE to attribute it, but I do think the attribution appears out of place in the narrative and considerably weakens or casts doubt on what appears to be a thoroughly-researched bit of information. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO,this stood up for a long time in the article, this was introduced days ago. --Malerooster (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

OK folks, read the articles and books at this search result. It is so widely and reliably reported that there's no need to attribute this and boast/brag is clearly a central theme in Trump's life story so it is very much an important detail and an interesting peek-a-boo into his early days of bragging. Search[67] SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's clear there are plenty of reliable sources to support using a variation of "brag" in this context, but I'm still not sure we need to. At least you are willing to have a meaningful discussion about it, rather than choosing a more hostile path. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What you call hostile, I call removing crap added a few days ago that is now being discussed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, then add this garbage under the section about him bragging and boasting or making false comments ect, that works for everybody, me included. --Malerooster (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of this material by Malerooster; not appropriate when the topic is under discussion here. I like the suggestion of using a direct quote from the book, and I will adapt it into my proposed rewrite (not because of OWNERSHIP, just because we need good sources). --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Support MelanieN. Can I also add that trying to protect Trump's biography from discussion of his braggadocio is a fool's errand. The man once said of himself, "Napoleon. Alexander the Great. Donald Trump. We're cut from the same cloth."[68] He's a "stable genius" who primarily consults himself for foreign policy advice because he has the best, biggest brain. He pretended to be his own spokesman on multiple occasions to call magazines and inflate his own net worth, not to mention his career as the subject of tabloid accounts of his amazing sexual prowess. Boastfulness is his modus operandi. Andrevan@ 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, could we stick to discussing the content of the article and not get off into FORUM territory? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Then add that garbage under the appropriate section about his bragging or what not. Every fact in his bio could be followed by his denial or brag or whatever followed by facts disproving his brag ect. --Malerooster (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"trying to protect Trump's biography from discussion of his braggadocio is a fool's errand." No one is doing that. I see at least two of us in this discussion wanting only to rid any hint of POV in the wording. Andrevan, please stop with these accusations that you've been throwing around for days and remember to WP:AGF. As well, please read WP:FOC. Honestly, if all of this coming from you doesn't stop soon, you can probably expect to see an AN or AN/I that is about your behavior. Behavior, I might add, that is simply unacceptable coming from an administrator. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh course it was appropriate, I would direct you to BRD. This garbage was just added to the article. If consensus is to keep it, fine, but until then, it shouldn't be included. Which part of BRD are we struggling with?--Malerooster (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC x2) OK, how about this?

According to Trump Revealed, he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class." However, records show that he was never on the Dean's List, and the 1968 commencement program does not list him as graduating with any sort of honors. His classmates do not recall him as exceptional.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is this garbage that was added 5 days ago per BRD not reverted and discussed first before re adding it?--Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I like what you've written, but suggest the following slight changes:

According to Trump Revealed, he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, as well as claiming to be first in his class. Wharton records, however, do not show he was on the Dean's List, and the 1968 commencement program does not list him as graduating with honors."

"...even claiming..." sounds like immature language use rather than encyclopedic; "however" was improperly placed/used per rules of grammar; "never on the Dean's list" is awkward, bordering on immature language; "...any sort of..." is extraneous and unnecessary. Good job - please don't take my changes personally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, non of the sources say that he later "bragged about being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to be first in his class", is that what the Kranish Fisher source claims? --Malerooster (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)ps, it is certainly not in the Times citation. --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

My dear Malerooster, in the past hour or so, you've made a number of comments here that primarily consist of "garbage" and "crap." I recommend you switch to a policy-based argument other than BRD because as you may or may not know, the WP:DS regime includes special reversion and consensus checks which stabilize stable versions against bold edits, gamesmanship, and so on. If you have a policy-based opinion on how to include this content, I suggest you comment on MelanieN's text and not simply argue in a disparaging way about this "garbagio," capisce? Personally, I like MelanieN's text quite a bit! Anyone else? Andrevan@ 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, which part of BRD don't you get? This "material" was just added. The NYT article does not support it. Period. --Malerooster (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The book source is here and like I said, part of the arb enforcement suspended normal BRD. Andrevan@ 22:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, can you link to where BRD is "suspended"? DS above looks like it covers article deletion sorting? but I am no lawyer. --Malerooster (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree about the citation to the book; as a reader I want to see the actual quote, and in my proposed version above I have now cited it to the appropriate page in the book. Maybe that's a case of IAR since the book has already been cited in a different format, but I think it's important here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC) NOTE: In order to see the link, you have to "show" the references. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Malerooster, about BRD: The idea of BRD is supposed to be: Person A adds something to the article; Person B objects to it; so Person B reverts it and starts a talk page discussion about whether it should be in the article or not. BRD does not really address this situation where: Person A adds something to the article; Persons B and C modify it; person C starts a talk page discussion to decide on the exact wording; after a fair amount of discussion (six participants) has already occurred, Person H comes along, removes the material, and tries to claim BRD for why it shouldn’t be in the article. Bottom line, the discussion here has been about the wording; no one but you has said the material should be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, the discussion started today. The section/material in question has been stable for a year, two, more? An editor boldly adds material, sorry I missed it, Wikipedia is not my full time job. If I had seen it, I would have removed it and started the discussion (the only reason I saw that it was added recently was todays discussion) myself. This material is fine under false statements, or bragging or what have you. I don't think its appropriate here since the actions or whatever you want to call it have happened long after the early life education section, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have to ask, why does this need to be in the article? Does not seem like something that matters. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng, it might, big might, be ok in a section about Trump's bragging or false facts (section already exists, put it there), but I would not have it where an editor boldly added it to a few days ago. --Malerooster (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN has done a fine job of writing clear and encyclopedic text for this information. I also like that version because the links to the book and to Dean's List allow this article text to be direct without belaboring the point. The only question one might have is that, since there appear to be so very many sources for this information, do we want to indicate in a few additional words that it's not just presented by a single notable book. ? Well done, MelanieN, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What are the other sources? --Malerooster (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm removing the hat from the sources; that seems to be causing confusion. You should now see four six sources listed under my proposed text. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And only one claims that he bragged about being #1 in his class. --Malerooster (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have re-added the NYT article (I had regarded it as unreliable as I discussed above) along with the Philly article that directly refers to the NYT article as the first place this claim was made. To be clear, I am talking about my latest proposal, the one under the heading "OK, how about this?" --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Support including Melanie's text into the article as written. See also [69] Andrevan@ 00:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article says Trump graduated first in his class, it does not attribute that statement to Trump himself, or did I miss something? TFD (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You missed[70][71] it was fact checked and debunked Andrevan@ 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I realize the claim is false, but I don't see where the statement is attributed to Trump himself. TFD (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Support MelanieN's version. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Leave it all out - Just cut this out as all much ado about nothing trivia. There is a 1973 article saying he was first in his class; there is data that he was not on the Deans list; there is a 2016 book saying he 'bragged' -- none of these logically exclude the others, none of them seem seriously researched, and none of them are biographically important. For a prominent WP:PUBLICFIGURE which he was even before the presidency, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The lack of much mention simply demonstrates that it was not "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented". I see the Phillyvoice article cite to 1984 NYTimes "He says he never told them that either.", and the link to AP news saying only that the 1973 story is disputed and the school has no comment. No where is Trump saying this. No where does it matter to anything. All we have is an ancient rumor and a fresher rumor and no reason for it to be in his BLP as if it were a major life event. Leave it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit - I pretty much agree with Markbassett. As much as I would like to see the article more accurately reflect the extensive coverage of Trump's character "issues", we don't have enough—or solid enough—RS to pass WEIGHT for this particular content. With a handful of exceptions, RS has apparently taken a pass on this, and that makes it a wikinothingburger.
  Meta: We simply can't cherry-pick a few sources and decide, using nothing but "editorial judgment" as our guide, that what they say is article-worthy. Editorial judgment is too biased for that to work. I could be wrong, and I would read with interest the Wikipedia policy that grants that much power to editorial judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• There are plenty of RS, they have not taken a pass on this. There are many more on top of the ones Melanie included. [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] His education and his misleading statements about it are extremely relevant to a biography, and are in no way "rumor." Above comments by Mandruss and Markbassett are not policy-based. Andrevan@ 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I decline to spend two hours of my life tediously producing a thorough analysis of the cited sources, showing which are opinion pieces and which do not specifically support the specific content. A cursory look at a few of them makes it clear that you have not been that rigorous yourself, so the specific non-opinion support for the specific content is sure to be far less than you make it seem with a bunch of external links.
  I'll also note FYI that interpreting the vague and self-contradictory morass of policy differently than you do is not "not policy-based". WP:WEIGHT is policy, and editorial judgment is not policy. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from such spurious claims. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Omit – This is a hurricane in a coffee cup. Did Trump attend Wharton? Yes. Did he graduate? Yes. Did he talk shit about his top-levelness? Yes. As he talks shit about everything. Let's stick to facts, lest we want to triple the article size by adding every claim and counter-claim peddled in every pro-Trump and anti-Trump book. — JFG ^talk 06:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• The fact that he constantly brags and exaggerates about everything is a fact though, that should be covered as that is a major part of his character. Per Mandruss, I don't know if this has WEIGHT for inclusion, but the overall braggardness, and the most prominent examples, should be included. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. The more specific the content, the less RS support there is for it. Lesson: Avoid specific wikivoice content in controversial areas. Make general, carefully-worded wikivoice statements for which there are literally hundreds of reliable sources. Then supplement with some attributed opinion, from both sides but proportional to the overall coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Leave out all the "deans list" and anything "bragged" about. It can't/hasn't been verified and is SYNTH to try and correlate deans list/honor roll and class rank. He certainly could have been #11 and not on an honors list or vice versa since we don't have any sources connecting them. He has a Wharton Economics degree and he transferred from Fordham. We don't need to characterize/verify/debunk these anecdotal bits and claims that have no bearing on the absolute factual statements of BS Economics @ Wharton, University of Penn and require a level of synthesis to make them relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:192C:D49F:EAB:7AEC (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Omit per every omit argument above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I suppose we don't need it. I can sort of get behind the UNDUE position. Trump's extraordinary mendacity is a defining characteristic of the man, but the lies he told about his time at Wharton are insignificant compared to the whoppers in the last few years, or even in the tweets he's sent out just today. Nobody really cares about these small potatoes lies, even though they'd be front page news for any other politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What a load of horse crap, front page my azz. --Malerooster (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• But one's education and implied skills and intellect are key points, especially early in one's career in NY where the competition -- even in the real estate and government circles -- is full of top-tier ivy league grads. So these lies are foundational and were a foreshadowing of what was to become one of the central themes of his life and character. If it were truly undue, like the breed of his pet cat or the name of his tailor, it would not be mentioned in so very many sources. It sounds like some editors here have not reviewed all the RS reports of this. The notable book is only one among many and there's nothing to suggest that report was based on casual or incomplete research. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• To be clear, I still support the inclusion of MelanieN's version (as I state above); however, I'm not going to make a fuss if there's a consensus to omit because I think it's a borderline case. I totally agree with you that it's a foreshadowing of what's to come, but I'm not sure the sources are strongly making that point. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of MelanieN's version. In a biography, we should strive to include relevant material that helps readers understand the character of the subject.- MrX 🖋 14:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempt at a close, reversion, and continued discussion

Summary of opinion so far (and remember, we are talking about the version immediately under (EC x2) OK, how about this?):

• Use it: MelanieN, Andrevan, SPECIFICO, Scjessey, BullRangifer, MrX, Gandydancer, Signedzzz

• Don’t use it: Malerooster, PackMecEng, Markbassett, Mandruss, JFG, IP 2006, Winkelvi, MONGO, L293D, Sir Joseph, power~enwiki, GregL

• Expressed doubts, not sure what they recommend: TFD, Galobtter

It seems clear that there is NOT consensus to include this material in the article, and I will remove it. Thanks for your input, all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is more of a "no consensus" situation, actually. Which means it should really remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Scjessey. There needs to be consensus for inclusion of NEW material like this, not the other way around. --Malerooster (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you. This discussion started as a proposed language change for existing material, even if that material had only been around for a few days. On that basis, "no consensus" would imply the existing language should remain. Then a few editors showed up arguing for a complete omission, which was not originally on the table. Anyway, to preclude more hostile commenting, I suggest we just agree to disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's version. Sorry to be late but this moved so quickly and it's hard to keep up. I strongly support including this material. Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think this was an improper close and a wrong read of the discussion. At most, there is no consensus to remove it. As such, I am reverting Melanie's removal. Andrevan@ 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Add me to the Don't use it category. Its not a problem with issues such as him not being forthcoming with his grades (did Obama ever release his transcripts?), etc. but injecting the editorial wording "bragged/brag" etc. is not needed.--MONGO 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC x3) OK, I readded Scjessey and added Gandydancer. that makes it more of a split. Where there is not a clear consensus, the default (per DS) is to the longstanding or stable version of the article. Since this material was only added five days ago, the default at this point is to leave it out. People can continue to comment if they want. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Adding MONGO and L293D. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Since opinions are still coming in I will let things lie for the moment. When it appears everyone has had their say I will ask for a neutral third party to come and evaluate. If some new person adds an opinion, please add yourself to the tally above. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the revert war going on needs to stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, yesterday, you reverted the removal of this material because it was under discussion. The discussion has been continuing. You just now closed the discussion and removed the material. I respect that you will leave the discussion open, however, the material should also be restored. The stable version of the article is the 5-day-old version and not the 10-minute-old version. I reverted you for the same procedural reason you had reverted yesterday. Also, closing a discussion and getting a consensus is more than a majority or plurality vote, it involves evaluating arguments. For example, "Oppose, it's garbage." would be discounted as it is not valid. Andrevan@ 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

5 days doesn't make it the stable version especially as it's been under discussion for the last 2 עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not editors.- MrX 🖋 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You've violated DS on this article now twice I know of. Explain why I shouldn't report you to AE?--MONGO 15:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC) @MONGO: How can Andrevan have violated DS "twice" with only a single edit in the last 5 days? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [82]--MONGO 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Adding today's "violation" to a thing that happened almost a week ago and then threatening a report reeks of harassment. Let the uninvolved administrators deal with stuff like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Right. He was warned only a week ago, has now been issued a final warning by a neutral admin and you say I am harassing anyone?--MONGO 15:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I'm saying that. The problem was the implied threat for what was essentially a single reversion in a 5-day period (the rule being 1 revert per 24 hours, not 6 days). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

STOP reverting each other, immediately. It doesn't really matter which version is in the article for the moment. It DOES matter that we respect the DS and each other. I have lost count and am not sure whether it is currently in the article or not, but whichever it is, LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS for another day or two until discussion here winds down. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You can add me to the don't use it category. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, Melanie. The correct action is the stable version remains - the dispute/revert clause is not retroactive. Further, you are an involved editor, and I feel your involvement is not specifically neutral and even-handed, but that you have considerable sympathy for the arguments of those trying to trim the article of reliably sourced material. Andrevan@ 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We are both involved editors. When you reverted me at the article I immediately disengaged; I assume you will now do the same. However, your reading of my actions is incorrect; did you not notice that I accepted consensus to remove the material, even though I was personally on the "keep" side - and had expended considerable effort in trying to create an acceptable version? (You, on the other hand, reverted to your preferred version.) You really need to stop assuming that everyone here is pushing an agenda. That's what I was referring to at the ANI discussion, when I said you have a battlefield attitude. It would help a lot if you would just discuss what to put in the article, without always attributing slanted motives to anyone who disagrees with you about anything. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a preferred version, it's a pretty minor thing in the scheme of things, and I don't particularly care. The thing I feel strongly about is Wikipedia policy. I supported the rewritten version that you improved to address editors' objections. If there was really a consensus to remove it, I would abide by that as well. However, the discussion was more or less split -- consensus is not a simple majority -- and there were several reasons to question and continue discussing. You were involved and you closed the discussion early, even as people were discussing. I reverted your change because you had restored the stable version previously. Your close was improper. You may say you were on the Keep side, but you rushed to close for Remove. I am not saying you are misrepresenting your position, simply that your close was improper. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the discussion has been reopened? If so, what are you on about? As to the state of the article, the sole uninvolved admin here has weighed in below. And you are not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia policy, believe it or not. I think "the thing [you] feel strongly about" is arguing with other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Admin note: I've always said material should be in the article for four to six weeks before it can be considered stable. If editors can come to an agreement here to lessen that time period, I will certainly consider it but meanwhile, four to six weeks is the rule of thumb that needs to be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN: Are you telling us you consider yourself the sole interpreter of the DS language? There's too much nitpicking and not enough discussion going on here. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there have been multiple discussions about this, including a couple of discussions at my talk page [83] [84] . Those discussions have subsequently been cited multiple times as expressing admin understanding of the DS guidelines. I myself summarized the guidelines as I understand them here: “The intent of the "consensus" requirement is stability of the article. That means that newly added material can be challenged (by removal) and it cannot then be re-added without consensus. It also means that an edit which removes longstanding material can be challenged (by restoring the material), and the material cannot then be removed without consensus. The default in all cases is the version which has been stable for a period of time.” --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: In this case, however we had something much less clear due to various copy edits, none of which challenged the content per se, affirming its status as the consensus content aside from these copy-edit tweaks. My understanding is that this is what you explained to Malerooster here: [85]. The subsequent removal appeared to be a good faith misreading of consensus, which you quickly and graciously acknowledged. My general view is that this article is written too much as a series of anecdotes, leaving it to the reader to infer general narratives and conclusions relating to Trump's life. In fact, we have plentiful secondary and tertiary sources that present summary narratives and generalize in a way that gives coherence to similar actions, statements, or public reactions over the course of Trump's life. These are more tractable than RECENTISM and news sources for article content. The Book containing the Wharton "bragging" is such a reference. There are many others as well. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Don't use it per space concerns and concerns about how it is presented. The part about He later bragged he had excelled at Wharton and had been ranked number one in his class of 333 students would fit better under "False statements"; Trump had a long history of using "Truthful Hyperbole" [86] from before becoming President that isn't discussed in the "Public Profile" section at all. The fact that he graduated at the middle of his class isn't terribly interesting here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support keeping this well-sourced biographical info. It is hard to imagine it being excluded from any other article. zzz (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit - Per reasoning of both Markbassett and power~enwiki. Had the verb “claimed” remained as it was, which was more encyclopedic, this probably wouldn’t have come onto the radar screen. Instead, the edit focused editors’ attention on whether that whole bit is NotNews and is worthy of having been added to an already bloated article. Having a claim, boast, or brag refuted with tabloid-quality …they do not recall him as having been an exceptional student isn’t encyclopedic. Greg L (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Greg, have you read the cited sources? The "do not recall" bit is from a notable book and the authors interviewed a large number of Trump's former classmates at Penn. In other words, the authors did exhaustive fact-checking by that and other means to see whether they could verify Trump's claims. It's far from "tabloid-quality" and that is an unfortunate disparagement of the authors and their serious, critically recognized research for the book. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• First off, SPECIFICO, I note and applaud your mastery of debate with your …unfortunate disparagement of the authors and their serious, critically recognized research for the book. Nonetheless, I didn’t say the book was tabloid quality. However, for an encyclopedia to take that particular snippet from the book, which was buttressed not with school transcripts but with “don't recall” by fellow students and use it in the manner we did here is unfortunately not encyclopedic. Greg L (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have no idea what "debate" you think is on tap here. The authors did not rely solely on the recollection of the dozens of classmates they interviewed. They researched school records such as the published honor rolls and Dean's List. It doesn't sound as if you are fully familiar with the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• “Debate”? Why that is what occurs on these pages, SPECIFICO. On talk pages, we don’t “vote!” on questions and formal RfCs but discuss, share ideas, and debate topics in a formal manner as we endeavor to arrive at a consensus. Try looking up the word sometime.

  I don’t have any enthusiasm for tendentious, non-productive arguments; it’s clear you feel otherwise so there is little point continuing with you. My reasoning stands and I find your arguments to be unconvincing. Goodbye for now. Greg L (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well, basically, then, you've given no reason for your "omit" so it doesn't add any weight or insight to the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 03:50, 31 May 2018 (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.