This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | → | Archive 110 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The practice here being to discuss LEAD before making any change, I'm going to direct things to a discussion over the bold suggestions from User:MarvellingLiked.
What should be put into the Donald Trump lead about the inquiry ?
Sources
|
---|
|
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am I correct that it has been decided the fact Trump is only the 4th president to face impeachment proceedings is not worthy of a single sentence in the lead?
Please tell me I'm wrong about this. soibangla ( talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much of the information put into this article is made solely by the opinion of the writer on President Donald Trump and much should be debated by the reader. It would be best for readers to find information themselves and (in order to know your own opinion of a certain person is correct) not only research negatives but positives about a certain person. Because only having one side to a heated argument is never a wise thing to do to yourself and the people you influence. In fact, we are unable to keep opinions of our own if we only ever hear one side and will never be able to choose for ourselves whether it is right.
President Donald Trump's personal life may be different than the public displays it as, and he could very well be falsely accused by the people who stated these theories. They are theories unless someone of the right athoratiy to prove these accusations correct does so, which has not yet happened. So I urge you to find more than what is put on this page and site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriesForever ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
text: "deposing Volker and four other State Department employees," -- meaning is unclear. If this is meant to be "to depose" as in a deposition, this has not, as far as I know, happened yet. If this is sought by the subpoena, needs to say so and be referenced, as I have not seen this in news coverage and I have been paying attention, although it does strike me as plausible. If this is supposed to be a reference to Volker's resignation, it is the wrong word. Also who are these other four employees? Not really disputing this, and material can be restored if better worded and referenced, but clarification is really necessary. Elinruby ( talk) 22:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"The envoy's resignation came as three House committees slapped Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with a subpoena, demanding information on the controversy and scheduling depositions for five State Department officials, including Volker."
"scheduled depositions for Volker and four other State Department employees". I will make the necessary edit. - Mr X 🖋 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I hope this helps, too bad we can't decrease the size right now. Mgasparin ( talk) 07:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is anybody else having problems editing the article? There are issues with typing and highlighting, and nothing happening when pressing the publish button. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
|
I removed uncited text about impeachment, and it was reworded and reinserted:
The first sentence could be taken as saying the Democrats should have started impeachment earlier, which is not neutral. It is also misleading. Who was pressuring them to start? The second sentence misrepresents Pelosi in that she has said many things on the issue. In any case, I think with a high profile article we shouldn't have uncited text.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggest this needs a more prominent place now, perhaps its own article, rather than its current location under Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign policy. This is shaping up as a very big deal.
On August 12, 2019, an unnamed intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint with Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA). Having found the complaint both urgent and credible, on August 26 Atkinson transmitted the complaint to Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Under ICWPA, the DNI "shall" within seven days of receipt forward the complaint to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Maguire declined to do so, and House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) chairman Adam Schiff was made aware of the complaint's existence and asked Maguire why he had not provided it. Schiff asserted Maguire stated he had been told to withhold it on direction from a "higher authority" because it involved an "issue of privileged communications." The DNI is a cabinet-level position. Schiff stated he was also told "the complaint concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community." On that basis, the White House and Justice Department informed Maguire that the complaint was not within the purview of the ICWPA and thus it should be withheld. On September 13, Schiff subpoenaed Maguire to appear before the HPSCI. On September 18, The Washington Post reported that the complaint concerned a "promise" Trump had made during communication with an unnamed foreign leader. White House records showed Trump had had communications or interactions with five foreign leaders during the five weeks before the whistleblower complaint was filed. During a previously scheduled closed-door hearing before the HPSCI on September 19, Atkinson told lawmakers that the complaint referred to a series of events, and that he disagreed with the position that the complaint lay outside the scope of the ICWPA, but declined to provide details. The Post reported that day that the complaint related to Ukraine, and the following day reported that Trump had in a July 25 conversation pressed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate matters surrounding Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, a potential Trump challenger in the 2020 presidential race. The New York Times reported that Trump asked Zelensky to speak with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who for months had been urging Ukraine to pursue an investigation of the Biden family.
soibangla ( talk) 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) soibangla ( talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
President Donald Trump’s administration has released $250 million in military aid for Ukraine...This week, three national security committees in the Democratic-led House of Representatives announced that they were launching an investigation into whether Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and possibly others had been trying to put pressure on Ukraine’s government to assist in Trump’s re-election campaign. The committees had said they would investigate whether withholding the military aid was part of Trump’s effort “to coerce” the Kiev government into launching an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his family... Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
soibangla ( talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's see where we stand on this fast-breaking story. Almost all of the details in the proposed paragraphs above are unconfirmed and are based on press reporting based on a few anonymous sources. But is there anything here we can report as fact? There is one thing that is actually confirmed and public. That is that the administration - specifically the White House and the Justice Department - have intervened in the whistleblower process, by refusing to allow the report to be forwarded to Congress by the people who are by law supposed to do so, specifically the inspector general and/or the acting DNI. In their public comments, Trump himself has in effect confirmed that it concerns a phone conversation with a foreign leader, and Giuliani has virtually confirmed that it involves Trump withholding money from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigates Joe Biden's son. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released.To the extent that this is used to address the encyclopedic value of this incident, I should note - that's exactly the purpose of foreign aid. Foreign aid is given primarily to influence the behavior of other countries, to either pull the strings on a decision or deny another country those strings. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Sheesh, I can’t believe this. Giuliani in a tweet has confirmed the "you must do this investigation if you want your money" aspect of the situation. He said, "The reality is that the President of the United States, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. If you're so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations -- our money is going to get squandered.” [1] How are we going to cover this? It’s got to go in here somewhere. IMO the whistleblower issue is not ready for prime time - and we don't even know if it is about this or something else. But the Ukraine-money issue has been reported for months and is firmly established now. I think we should find a way to put it in the article. We should discuss it here first, of course. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to put it in this article, as I suggested: where would it go? Our "foreign policy" section is pretty bare-bones, by consensus, with readers being directed to the "Foreign policy of Donald Trump" article for details. And there is currently no subsection about Ukraine. I'm not sure if this even really is a story about Ukraine; it may be more a story about how he is running his presidency. It may be that as far as this biography is concerned, this story will have to wait - until we write a new subsection or article about his use of presidential power to benefit himself, financially and politically. In the meantime we can cover it in the Foreign policy article. Any others? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from countries that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues?- when the "previous or ongoing issues" are "plz dig up dirt on my political opponentz ok?" then the answer is... since the beginning of the Republic? Volunteer Marek 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Biden already admitted that he strong armed the Ukraniansto do...what? soibangla ( talk) 17:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I hatted the conspiracy theory insinuation that Joe Biden's having pressured Ukraine in 2016 to replace the sham investigator Shokin -- not to end the anti-corruption investigation but to strengthen it, according to US and European nations' policies -- indicates possible wrongdoing by the Bidens. @ Soibangla: has provided documentation as to the facts. There was no finding of misbehavior by either Biden. See further debunking of the Trump Giuliani Pompeo narrative here. I am troubled that the CFR interview could be used to justify these conspiracy theories, and I believe that the hat should be restored, lest we promote those false insinuations. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The House is about to announce an impeachment inquiry. [5] [6] Given the significance and lead up to this moment, the article needs to cover this with at least a couple of well-rounded paragraphs. It should also be mentioned in the lead.- Mr X 🖋 20:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"...allowed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge."or
"He owned the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015".- Mr X 🖋 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I added the following to the lead, and it was challenged. I would like to get other's thoughts about whether this, in some form, might benefit the lead. Both ventures have extensive articles.
Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were besieged with legal issues resulting in their closure.
- Mr X 🖋 10:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. Meanwhile, I had reinstated the article text. The content is not UNDUE, manifestly, because it's received ongoing coverage and mentions in both the press and more analytic and longer-perspective RS publications. The broadening of the Trump brand from one-off real estate construction in NY to the a diversified global enterprise is a key thread of the past 50 years of his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. Meanwhile, I had reinstated the article text.- No worries, I have reversed your error. [8] ― Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"Undue prominence, as not supported by enough article content to satisfy WP:LEAD."That's not a policy based argument. WP:LEAD actually refers to importance of the material according to sources. (
"the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.). As far as the word "beseiged" that Markbassett objected to, we could revise the wording to
"Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were closed following fraud lawsuits.".- Mr X 🖋 10:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were forced to shut down when they became entangled in serious legal issues."- Mr X 🖋 14:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is an extremely well-sourced forensic analysis of Don Trump's behaviour. Refreshingly free of policy or politics, it examines Trump's behaviour in terms of the office. Hard to find a more RS than The Atlantic. -- Pete ( talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Skyring What are you proposing we do with this? A VERY lengthy discussion has already been had on his behaviour/mental health, etc., and the result of that discussion is tabled in Current Consensus #39 and here. If you want to include something about his behaviour, you will have to start a more formal discussion. Mgasparin ( talk) 23:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In the 'Impeachment efforts and inquiry' section it claims that "... Trump had pushed the President of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter ..." except this is not what the transcript says. Rather than giving a Partisan interpretation of the transcript would it not be better to quote the relevant section, and then note that the Left interpretation of this is Trump pushing the Ukraine to investigate Biden? Wikipedia is supposed to be apolitical but that's not possible if articles simply parrot Democrat spin. 人族 ( talk) 05:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.Certainly, the Ukrainian President is the most appropriate source for what the Ukrainian President's impression of the conversation was. And in any event, they are more appropriate than sources that merely speculate. As per WP:RS_AGE, these sources are newer and supplant the previous speculation. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of U.S.A. No, you heard that we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.”That's what Zelensky said. I frankly think the "I don't want to be involved" part means more than "nobody pushed me". Then,
“So no pressure,” Trump added.If Zelensky did feel that he was pushed, though, would he say that while sitting next to Trump? He just wants to stay out of this. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Good grief—of course he said that. He desperately needs the Javelins. He's between a rock and a hard place. Would you really expect him to piss Trump off at this point?- Mr X 🖋 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read the Current Consensus before making edit requests for this page, please. Mgasparin ( talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Uncrappy wordly edits, such as: "is the 45th and current president of the United States" -> "is the 45th President of the United States" "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." -> "The businessman and television personality entered politics in ..." etc. Costhee ( talk) 03:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|
Issue resolved. Mgasparin ( talk) 21:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Mandruss has pointed out that I hastily mass-changed the en dashes to em dashes in the article. I believed that to be a proper change per MOS:DASH, but the MoS actually says either style is fine. However, I still think that using a normal em dash symbol (—) is easier to understand while editing than the code "{{snd}}". While I will refrain from mass-changing in the future before gaining consensus, does anyone feel strongly enough about this formatting change to want to change it back? UpdateNerd ( talk) 03:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
|
User:Scjessey - I'm glad you agree to the part of ( my edit) that "shitholes" in paragraph 5 of the Racial Views section was a misquote for Trump's saying "shithole countries" (alleged by Durbin) during a negotiation about four countries in Temporary protected status. However, the part undone by you ( here) still needs fixing. The cite to Guardian about global rebuke for 'shithole' remark is suitable for use in paragraph 5 about that topic, but it is not appropriate to duplicate the topic and it is not sufficient WP:V for the broad claim in paragraph 1 "Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad."
While I don't doubt that in the U.S. and abroad Trump is called many things (both praised and reviled), this cite is just not WP:V for the line as written. I suggest that I move the cite again to the section it relates to, but since you want the line in paragraph 1 think it would be appropriate to leave that line with a 'citation needed' tag for you to provide as able. RSVP, cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Markbassett: I have not "dropped out" of anything. I said I prefer the existing text. There's no "impasse" at all - you seem to be alone in complaining, which means consensus is against you. Why do you keep flogging this dead horse? -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@
MarkBassett: It’s been a while since your 13:01 19 Sept post which included “could add additional cites”
You keep mentioning this comment of mine that does not exist, which means this doesn't make any sense: From your next post 26 Sept responding to my reminder of waiting for such, it seemed you had dropped any intention of continuing or offering such cites.
At no time did I say additional cites could be added. And the rest of your comment seems to just be trying to bait me into arguing with you. --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@
SPECIFICO and
Markbassett:
Reuters: African politicians and diplomats labeled U.S. President Donald Trump a racist on Friday after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole” countries.
starship
.paint (
talk) 06:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
bit if it included the limiting in the same sentence“African politicians”
The article then states it as AU and Botswana calling his *comments* that, not calling him that. The artistic embellishment “condemned” isn’t there, nor were nations governments calling Trump himself racist, nor is it at all other than 12 January. The attribution (*) would be of “Reuter’s reported that African politicians labelled Trump racist on 12 January...”. Reuter’s seems closest cite so far although it seems the only RS to go that far. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)“...after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as having come from ‘shithole countries’.”
starship .paint ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, by both those within the U.S. and abroad
Just noting that I've removed some tweets which were presented verbatim in the Space where image thumbs usually go, that were also previously removed by User:Awilley but reinstated by User:SPECIFICO. These tweets are recent additions so per WP:BRD and the tight rules on this article we should discuss here. I'm also not sure if the copyright implications of copying three such chunks of text from twitter. It is not just presenting quotes with discussion, as we usually do in text... Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 22:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
His tweets are widely identified with him and are his preferred mode of communication.If press conferences were his preferred mode communication, would we cherry-pick quotes from the transcripts of press conferences, and include them verbatim? And in prominent and space-consuming side boxes? I don't think we would. Also, when did tweet boxes become substitutes for images? ― Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a rather biased playing down of Trump's 2000 campaign on this page. All other presidents have their first presidential run displayed prominently both in the lead and as a section of its own. A casual reader would be convinced that 2016 was the first time Trump ran for president, when it was in fact the second. The 2000 presidential run should be restored as a section in the article and in the lead, which was the case before Trump was sworn into office. Plumber ( talk) 07:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
How is it that the WP:LEAD contains the names of who he appointed to the Supreme Court and various other factoids that don’t have their own dedicated ‘Trump series’ articles are more notable and WP:DUE than a presidential run in 2000, which has an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to it?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump’s first presidential campaign was in 2000, where he sought but failed to obtain nomination for the Reform Party. His next attempt was the 2016 presidential race which he entered as a Republican and defeated 16 other candidates in the primaries.I am quite open to the wording being improved by other editors.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Literaturegeek I think I could support something along those lines, as it explains his past campaigns quite concisely, w/o going into much detail. Just keep in mind that we are trying to keep the lead within the recommended guidelines for size, as the ultimate goal of this article is FA. Mgasparin ( talk) 08:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Literaturegeek - Suggest instead work on content for it first, and see if that is significant enough for WP:LEAD. Perhaps you can do it by dividing the "Political activities up to 2015" section -- maybe this will help here. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 07:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DJT has given Turkey license to invade Syria and slaughter Kurds. It is underway as I speak, and kurdish women and children are in the way of Turkish bombs and artillery shells. Speculation is that it is all about his two hotels in Turkey, but that aside, this is an ominous event. It probably will result in 12,000 to 20,000 ISIS prisoners being held by the Kurds set free, not to mention the betrayal of allies who did the actual work of defeating ISIS at the cost of 10,000 of their lives,and who knows what ramifications Trumps assent to Erdogan will have. Regional war? I hear that Russia is going to join Turkey in the invasion, what about Iran and China? Israel? Saudi Arabia is thrilled that there sock puppet is doing there work for them, after all it is Saudi money and princess that have created Al Qaeda and Isis, whose ideology is drawn from salafist Wahabbiyah. Very serious ramifications. Oldperson ( talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article - diff.
The Ukrainian government didn’t know that Trump administration froze military aid to the country until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. [1]
The military assistance to Ukraine has expanded since Trump took office. [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 12:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call.", so we cannot state it as a fact. I am opposed to including this.- Mr X 🖋 13:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
It is about time to add a section to the article about the threatened or imminent civil war For instance this article from Mother Jones as I googled Civil War oath keepers I came up with oathkeepers.org who blame everything on those "nasty liberals" who spurn fascism (i.e. antifa). Oldperson ( talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
While waiting for my next herd to innoculate I spotted this little maverick, which I can't figure out how to reach. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Bless their hearts. Meanwhile, perhaps this … is a clue. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 13:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@ El C:Why was the section other ventures redacted? There is no explanation in the Edit Summary Oldperson ( talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This may have been discussed earlier, but apparently was not resolved. It is very strange that the "Russiagate" story that has dominated the first two years of Trump's presidency does not even get a passing mention in the lead section. Granted, there used to be a full paragraph about that with too much detail, but conversely I believe that it is a disservice to our readers to not mention it at all. In that spirit, I'd like to suggest the following summary of the affair:
During his campaign, and in the first two years of his presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation resulted in criminal convictions for several Russian persons and companies, but found no evidence of cooperation by any American citizen. Trump was still suspected of obstructing justice, but the special prosecutor and the Justice Department declined to charge him.
Comments welcome. — JFG talk 10:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with
Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A
Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on
obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General ruled there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump.
starship
.paint (
talk) 15:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with
Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A
Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on
obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, both Trump appointees, declined to indict Trump.
--
Scjessey (
talk) 18:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia in its interference in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation failed to find sufficient evidence that Trump coordination with Russia, but declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice, instead referring the matter to Congress.
Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation was unable to discover sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.
Trump and his associates were extensively and falsely accused of “collusion” with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.Not that I expect this to be welcomed exactly as that, but may be useful to reflect on a wider perspective, and useful to reflect on consistency in article handling. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 19:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Mueller Report quotes
|
---|
|
By the way, please cease referring to the Russian interference by the tongue in cheek "Russiagate", which insinuates a suggestion that narratives are overblown or refer to a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The Trump campaign was accused of complicity with Russian interference in the 2016 election that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also investigated for obstruction of justice, but was neither exonerated nor indicted.
starship .paint ( talk) 01:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a mark of Trump's messaging success that everyone above is talking about "collusion", which isn't even a crime by strict definition, and so his constant drumbeat of "NO COLLUSION!" made it look like he was as innocent as a babe in the crib when, surprise surprise, there was no collusion. The shocking conclusion to the Mueller report was that, despite clear and obvious obstruction of justice, Barr declined to indict him for it (Mueller said he couldn't, which is why the initially proposed text doesn't work). -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Three more proposals from me, because I'm unsure of the last part. starship .paint ( talk) 03:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
(S1) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump and referred the evidence to Congress.
(S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, then the Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.
(S1+S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, referring the evidence to Congress. The Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.
Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.
opposed to saying that he was not indicted. starship .paint ( talk) 02:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored Trump, but a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.
Also, it's better not to use talk page language like "'collusion' or whatever it is called", because the false equivalence of collusion with defined criminal behavior has been Trump's principal talking point on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in the Russian election interference that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal behavior in this regard. Trump was also investigated personally for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr." Citing NYTimes.
It isn't about what you or I think - it's about what RS say, and the Times is a RS in this instance. We use in-line attribution, and we don't theorize or editorialize what we think it means, which should end all arguments about the outcome. In the US, when there is no evidence and a conclusion has been reached, the person is found not guilty. I'm not sure how that works in other places in the world, but we are talking about a US incident and that is how we should present it. Atsme Talk 📧 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
starship
.paint (
talk) 00:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Barr letter versus Mueller Report
|
---|
-
-
-
-
|
Sources
|
---|
|
No, I cited a RS that published what US Attorney General William Barr presented. Here's another one from the BBC: The report stated that no evidence of a conspiracy was found,... If we are going to consider partisan opinion and journalistic speculation as DUE, then we have a lot of work to do updating all the BLP's of former presidents. Barr's statement is an official statement - like it or not - it is not a journalistic interpretation of the law, much less partisan speculation that proves nothing and provides zero evidence of collusion. The result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. Trump's rhetoric did not qualify as collusion, and neither does being receptive. If the latter was all that's needed to be guilty of collusion (whatever that might be), then Adam Schiff's receptiveness during a phone call from a Russian prankster qualifies as Russian collusion. It's time to drop the stick. Atsme Talk 📧 20:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
the result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. The Associated Press article was not an opinion piece, and the Associated Press is known for one of the most neutral media organizations. Barr is known for being partisan. You dare to tell me that Barr's statement is
official, but when I already posted quotes of the actual Mueller Report above and I even pointed them out to you, you still stated that I was theorizing or editorializing. Please reflect on your own behaviour. Meanwhile, here is what Mueller wrote [22] about the Barr letter: it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship .paint ( talk) 00:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In this diff [23], an editor has reverted an improvement to the article text that describes the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The diff reinstates the vague wording that states the Special Counsel did not find evidence to "establish" guilt. I had recently tweaked that to replace "establish" with the clearer wording that there was not sufficient evidence to "prosecute".
The US does not operate under Napoleonic Law. It is not the role of a prosecutor in the USA to "establish" criminal behavior. The State charges a crime by bringing an indictment, the facts of which are then decided by the jury. As Attorney General Barr made clear upon receipt of the report, Mueller was acting as prosecutor, not a fact-finding commission such as the Warren Commissionor the 9-11 Commission, which were charged with establishing factual narratives. Again, to be specific with respect to the weasel-word "establish", Mueller's report states
...After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes...
. It's unfortunate that my clarification of the wording was reverted with no substantive objection to the improvement itself. I will reinstate the reverted wording, unless someone has a better way to clarify this point in the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.
Mueller tried to establish findings to determine if there was an underlying crime during Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice, although an underlying crime is not needed for obstruction of justice anyway. Let us also remember that Mueller is hardly a traditional prosecutor, he would have exonerated Trump if the evidence pointed to that, and he wouldn’t even accuse Trump of a crime. starship .paint ( talk) 00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Barr letter versus Mueller Report- that establish why March 2019 sources such as the ABA absolutely cannot be used because the Barr letter is misleading. Let us also remember that Mueller himself wrote that [24] the Barr letter did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship .paint ( talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia.Accordingly, I will revert to this version. — JFG talk 22:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | → | Archive 110 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The practice here being to discuss LEAD before making any change, I'm going to direct things to a discussion over the bold suggestions from User:MarvellingLiked.
What should be put into the Donald Trump lead about the inquiry ?
Sources
|
---|
|
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am I correct that it has been decided the fact Trump is only the 4th president to face impeachment proceedings is not worthy of a single sentence in the lead?
Please tell me I'm wrong about this. soibangla ( talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much of the information put into this article is made solely by the opinion of the writer on President Donald Trump and much should be debated by the reader. It would be best for readers to find information themselves and (in order to know your own opinion of a certain person is correct) not only research negatives but positives about a certain person. Because only having one side to a heated argument is never a wise thing to do to yourself and the people you influence. In fact, we are unable to keep opinions of our own if we only ever hear one side and will never be able to choose for ourselves whether it is right.
President Donald Trump's personal life may be different than the public displays it as, and he could very well be falsely accused by the people who stated these theories. They are theories unless someone of the right athoratiy to prove these accusations correct does so, which has not yet happened. So I urge you to find more than what is put on this page and site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriesForever ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
text: "deposing Volker and four other State Department employees," -- meaning is unclear. If this is meant to be "to depose" as in a deposition, this has not, as far as I know, happened yet. If this is sought by the subpoena, needs to say so and be referenced, as I have not seen this in news coverage and I have been paying attention, although it does strike me as plausible. If this is supposed to be a reference to Volker's resignation, it is the wrong word. Also who are these other four employees? Not really disputing this, and material can be restored if better worded and referenced, but clarification is really necessary. Elinruby ( talk) 22:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"The envoy's resignation came as three House committees slapped Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with a subpoena, demanding information on the controversy and scheduling depositions for five State Department officials, including Volker."
"scheduled depositions for Volker and four other State Department employees". I will make the necessary edit. - Mr X 🖋 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I hope this helps, too bad we can't decrease the size right now. Mgasparin ( talk) 07:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is anybody else having problems editing the article? There are issues with typing and highlighting, and nothing happening when pressing the publish button. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
|
I removed uncited text about impeachment, and it was reworded and reinserted:
The first sentence could be taken as saying the Democrats should have started impeachment earlier, which is not neutral. It is also misleading. Who was pressuring them to start? The second sentence misrepresents Pelosi in that she has said many things on the issue. In any case, I think with a high profile article we shouldn't have uncited text.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggest this needs a more prominent place now, perhaps its own article, rather than its current location under Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign policy. This is shaping up as a very big deal.
On August 12, 2019, an unnamed intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint with Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA). Having found the complaint both urgent and credible, on August 26 Atkinson transmitted the complaint to Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Under ICWPA, the DNI "shall" within seven days of receipt forward the complaint to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Maguire declined to do so, and House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) chairman Adam Schiff was made aware of the complaint's existence and asked Maguire why he had not provided it. Schiff asserted Maguire stated he had been told to withhold it on direction from a "higher authority" because it involved an "issue of privileged communications." The DNI is a cabinet-level position. Schiff stated he was also told "the complaint concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community." On that basis, the White House and Justice Department informed Maguire that the complaint was not within the purview of the ICWPA and thus it should be withheld. On September 13, Schiff subpoenaed Maguire to appear before the HPSCI. On September 18, The Washington Post reported that the complaint concerned a "promise" Trump had made during communication with an unnamed foreign leader. White House records showed Trump had had communications or interactions with five foreign leaders during the five weeks before the whistleblower complaint was filed. During a previously scheduled closed-door hearing before the HPSCI on September 19, Atkinson told lawmakers that the complaint referred to a series of events, and that he disagreed with the position that the complaint lay outside the scope of the ICWPA, but declined to provide details. The Post reported that day that the complaint related to Ukraine, and the following day reported that Trump had in a July 25 conversation pressed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate matters surrounding Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, a potential Trump challenger in the 2020 presidential race. The New York Times reported that Trump asked Zelensky to speak with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who for months had been urging Ukraine to pursue an investigation of the Biden family.
soibangla ( talk) 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) soibangla ( talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
President Donald Trump’s administration has released $250 million in military aid for Ukraine...This week, three national security committees in the Democratic-led House of Representatives announced that they were launching an investigation into whether Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and possibly others had been trying to put pressure on Ukraine’s government to assist in Trump’s re-election campaign. The committees had said they would investigate whether withholding the military aid was part of Trump’s effort “to coerce” the Kiev government into launching an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his family... Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
soibangla ( talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's see where we stand on this fast-breaking story. Almost all of the details in the proposed paragraphs above are unconfirmed and are based on press reporting based on a few anonymous sources. But is there anything here we can report as fact? There is one thing that is actually confirmed and public. That is that the administration - specifically the White House and the Justice Department - have intervened in the whistleblower process, by refusing to allow the report to be forwarded to Congress by the people who are by law supposed to do so, specifically the inspector general and/or the acting DNI. In their public comments, Trump himself has in effect confirmed that it concerns a phone conversation with a foreign leader, and Giuliani has virtually confirmed that it involves Trump withholding money from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigates Joe Biden's son. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
namely, withholding money Ukraine is supposed to get, and demanding a political favor before it will be released.To the extent that this is used to address the encyclopedic value of this incident, I should note - that's exactly the purpose of foreign aid. Foreign aid is given primarily to influence the behavior of other countries, to either pull the strings on a decision or deny another country those strings. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Sheesh, I can’t believe this. Giuliani in a tweet has confirmed the "you must do this investigation if you want your money" aspect of the situation. He said, "The reality is that the President of the United States, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. If you're so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations -- our money is going to get squandered.” [1] How are we going to cover this? It’s got to go in here somewhere. IMO the whistleblower issue is not ready for prime time - and we don't even know if it is about this or something else. But the Ukraine-money issue has been reported for months and is firmly established now. I think we should find a way to put it in the article. We should discuss it here first, of course. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to put it in this article, as I suggested: where would it go? Our "foreign policy" section is pretty bare-bones, by consensus, with readers being directed to the "Foreign policy of Donald Trump" article for details. And there is currently no subsection about Ukraine. I'm not sure if this even really is a story about Ukraine; it may be more a story about how he is running his presidency. It may be that as far as this biography is concerned, this story will have to wait - until we write a new subsection or article about his use of presidential power to benefit himself, financially and politically. In the meantime we can cover it in the Foreign policy article. Any others? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
since when is it not acceptable practice to withhold financial aide from countries that are unwilling to investigate previous or ongoing issues?- when the "previous or ongoing issues" are "plz dig up dirt on my political opponentz ok?" then the answer is... since the beginning of the Republic? Volunteer Marek 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Biden already admitted that he strong armed the Ukraniansto do...what? soibangla ( talk) 17:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I hatted the conspiracy theory insinuation that Joe Biden's having pressured Ukraine in 2016 to replace the sham investigator Shokin -- not to end the anti-corruption investigation but to strengthen it, according to US and European nations' policies -- indicates possible wrongdoing by the Bidens. @ Soibangla: has provided documentation as to the facts. There was no finding of misbehavior by either Biden. See further debunking of the Trump Giuliani Pompeo narrative here. I am troubled that the CFR interview could be used to justify these conspiracy theories, and I believe that the hat should be restored, lest we promote those false insinuations. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The House is about to announce an impeachment inquiry. [5] [6] Given the significance and lead up to this moment, the article needs to cover this with at least a couple of well-rounded paragraphs. It should also be mentioned in the lead.- Mr X 🖋 20:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"...allowed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge."or
"He owned the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015".- Mr X 🖋 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I added the following to the lead, and it was challenged. I would like to get other's thoughts about whether this, in some form, might benefit the lead. Both ventures have extensive articles.
Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were besieged with legal issues resulting in their closure.
- Mr X 🖋 10:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. Meanwhile, I had reinstated the article text. The content is not UNDUE, manifestly, because it's received ongoing coverage and mentions in both the press and more analytic and longer-perspective RS publications. The broadening of the Trump brand from one-off real estate construction in NY to the a diversified global enterprise is a key thread of the past 50 years of his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. Meanwhile, I had reinstated the article text.- No worries, I have reversed your error. [8] ― Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"Undue prominence, as not supported by enough article content to satisfy WP:LEAD."That's not a policy based argument. WP:LEAD actually refers to importance of the material according to sources. (
"the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.). As far as the word "beseiged" that Markbassett objected to, we could revise the wording to
"Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were closed following fraud lawsuits.".- Mr X 🖋 10:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"Other ventures such as Trump University and the Donald J. Trump Foundation were forced to shut down when they became entangled in serious legal issues."- Mr X 🖋 14:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is an extremely well-sourced forensic analysis of Don Trump's behaviour. Refreshingly free of policy or politics, it examines Trump's behaviour in terms of the office. Hard to find a more RS than The Atlantic. -- Pete ( talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Skyring What are you proposing we do with this? A VERY lengthy discussion has already been had on his behaviour/mental health, etc., and the result of that discussion is tabled in Current Consensus #39 and here. If you want to include something about his behaviour, you will have to start a more formal discussion. Mgasparin ( talk) 23:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In the 'Impeachment efforts and inquiry' section it claims that "... Trump had pushed the President of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter ..." except this is not what the transcript says. Rather than giving a Partisan interpretation of the transcript would it not be better to quote the relevant section, and then note that the Left interpretation of this is Trump pushing the Ukraine to investigate Biden? Wikipedia is supposed to be apolitical but that's not possible if articles simply parrot Democrat spin. 人族 ( talk) 05:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.Certainly, the Ukrainian President is the most appropriate source for what the Ukrainian President's impression of the conversation was. And in any event, they are more appropriate than sources that merely speculate. As per WP:RS_AGE, these sources are newer and supplant the previous speculation. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of U.S.A. No, you heard that we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.”That's what Zelensky said. I frankly think the "I don't want to be involved" part means more than "nobody pushed me". Then,
“So no pressure,” Trump added.If Zelensky did feel that he was pushed, though, would he say that while sitting next to Trump? He just wants to stay out of this. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Good grief—of course he said that. He desperately needs the Javelins. He's between a rock and a hard place. Would you really expect him to piss Trump off at this point?- Mr X 🖋 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read the Current Consensus before making edit requests for this page, please. Mgasparin ( talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Uncrappy wordly edits, such as: "is the 45th and current president of the United States" -> "is the 45th President of the United States" "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." -> "The businessman and television personality entered politics in ..." etc. Costhee ( talk) 03:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|
Issue resolved. Mgasparin ( talk) 21:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Mandruss has pointed out that I hastily mass-changed the en dashes to em dashes in the article. I believed that to be a proper change per MOS:DASH, but the MoS actually says either style is fine. However, I still think that using a normal em dash symbol (—) is easier to understand while editing than the code "{{snd}}". While I will refrain from mass-changing in the future before gaining consensus, does anyone feel strongly enough about this formatting change to want to change it back? UpdateNerd ( talk) 03:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
|
User:Scjessey - I'm glad you agree to the part of ( my edit) that "shitholes" in paragraph 5 of the Racial Views section was a misquote for Trump's saying "shithole countries" (alleged by Durbin) during a negotiation about four countries in Temporary protected status. However, the part undone by you ( here) still needs fixing. The cite to Guardian about global rebuke for 'shithole' remark is suitable for use in paragraph 5 about that topic, but it is not appropriate to duplicate the topic and it is not sufficient WP:V for the broad claim in paragraph 1 "Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad."
While I don't doubt that in the U.S. and abroad Trump is called many things (both praised and reviled), this cite is just not WP:V for the line as written. I suggest that I move the cite again to the section it relates to, but since you want the line in paragraph 1 think it would be appropriate to leave that line with a 'citation needed' tag for you to provide as able. RSVP, cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Markbassett: I have not "dropped out" of anything. I said I prefer the existing text. There's no "impasse" at all - you seem to be alone in complaining, which means consensus is against you. Why do you keep flogging this dead horse? -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@
MarkBassett: It’s been a while since your 13:01 19 Sept post which included “could add additional cites”
You keep mentioning this comment of mine that does not exist, which means this doesn't make any sense: From your next post 26 Sept responding to my reminder of waiting for such, it seemed you had dropped any intention of continuing or offering such cites.
At no time did I say additional cites could be added. And the rest of your comment seems to just be trying to bait me into arguing with you. --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@
SPECIFICO and
Markbassett:
Reuters: African politicians and diplomats labeled U.S. President Donald Trump a racist on Friday after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole” countries.
starship
.paint (
talk) 06:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
bit if it included the limiting in the same sentence“African politicians”
The article then states it as AU and Botswana calling his *comments* that, not calling him that. The artistic embellishment “condemned” isn’t there, nor were nations governments calling Trump himself racist, nor is it at all other than 12 January. The attribution (*) would be of “Reuter’s reported that African politicians labelled Trump racist on 12 January...”. Reuter’s seems closest cite so far although it seems the only RS to go that far. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)“...after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as having come from ‘shithole countries’.”
starship .paint ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, by both those within the U.S. and abroad
Just noting that I've removed some tweets which were presented verbatim in the Space where image thumbs usually go, that were also previously removed by User:Awilley but reinstated by User:SPECIFICO. These tweets are recent additions so per WP:BRD and the tight rules on this article we should discuss here. I'm also not sure if the copyright implications of copying three such chunks of text from twitter. It is not just presenting quotes with discussion, as we usually do in text... Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 22:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
His tweets are widely identified with him and are his preferred mode of communication.If press conferences were his preferred mode communication, would we cherry-pick quotes from the transcripts of press conferences, and include them verbatim? And in prominent and space-consuming side boxes? I don't think we would. Also, when did tweet boxes become substitutes for images? ― Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a rather biased playing down of Trump's 2000 campaign on this page. All other presidents have their first presidential run displayed prominently both in the lead and as a section of its own. A casual reader would be convinced that 2016 was the first time Trump ran for president, when it was in fact the second. The 2000 presidential run should be restored as a section in the article and in the lead, which was the case before Trump was sworn into office. Plumber ( talk) 07:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
How is it that the WP:LEAD contains the names of who he appointed to the Supreme Court and various other factoids that don’t have their own dedicated ‘Trump series’ articles are more notable and WP:DUE than a presidential run in 2000, which has an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to it?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump’s first presidential campaign was in 2000, where he sought but failed to obtain nomination for the Reform Party. His next attempt was the 2016 presidential race which he entered as a Republican and defeated 16 other candidates in the primaries.I am quite open to the wording being improved by other editors.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Literaturegeek I think I could support something along those lines, as it explains his past campaigns quite concisely, w/o going into much detail. Just keep in mind that we are trying to keep the lead within the recommended guidelines for size, as the ultimate goal of this article is FA. Mgasparin ( talk) 08:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Literaturegeek - Suggest instead work on content for it first, and see if that is significant enough for WP:LEAD. Perhaps you can do it by dividing the "Political activities up to 2015" section -- maybe this will help here. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 07:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DJT has given Turkey license to invade Syria and slaughter Kurds. It is underway as I speak, and kurdish women and children are in the way of Turkish bombs and artillery shells. Speculation is that it is all about his two hotels in Turkey, but that aside, this is an ominous event. It probably will result in 12,000 to 20,000 ISIS prisoners being held by the Kurds set free, not to mention the betrayal of allies who did the actual work of defeating ISIS at the cost of 10,000 of their lives,and who knows what ramifications Trumps assent to Erdogan will have. Regional war? I hear that Russia is going to join Turkey in the invasion, what about Iran and China? Israel? Saudi Arabia is thrilled that there sock puppet is doing there work for them, after all it is Saudi money and princess that have created Al Qaeda and Isis, whose ideology is drawn from salafist Wahabbiyah. Very serious ramifications. Oldperson ( talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article - diff.
The Ukrainian government didn’t know that Trump administration froze military aid to the country until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. [1]
The military assistance to Ukraine has expanded since Trump took office. [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 12:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call.", so we cannot state it as a fact. I am opposed to including this.- Mr X 🖋 13:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
It is about time to add a section to the article about the threatened or imminent civil war For instance this article from Mother Jones as I googled Civil War oath keepers I came up with oathkeepers.org who blame everything on those "nasty liberals" who spurn fascism (i.e. antifa). Oldperson ( talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
While waiting for my next herd to innoculate I spotted this little maverick, which I can't figure out how to reach. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Bless their hearts. Meanwhile, perhaps this … is a clue. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 13:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@ El C:Why was the section other ventures redacted? There is no explanation in the Edit Summary Oldperson ( talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This may have been discussed earlier, but apparently was not resolved. It is very strange that the "Russiagate" story that has dominated the first two years of Trump's presidency does not even get a passing mention in the lead section. Granted, there used to be a full paragraph about that with too much detail, but conversely I believe that it is a disservice to our readers to not mention it at all. In that spirit, I'd like to suggest the following summary of the affair:
During his campaign, and in the first two years of his presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation resulted in criminal convictions for several Russian persons and companies, but found no evidence of cooperation by any American citizen. Trump was still suspected of obstructing justice, but the special prosecutor and the Justice Department declined to charge him.
Comments welcome. — JFG talk 10:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with
Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A
Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on
obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General ruled there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump.
starship
.paint (
talk) 15:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with
Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A
Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on
obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, both Trump appointees, declined to indict Trump.
--
Scjessey (
talk) 18:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia in its interference in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation failed to find sufficient evidence that Trump coordination with Russia, but declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice, instead referring the matter to Congress.
Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation was unable to discover sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.
Trump and his associates were extensively and falsely accused of “collusion” with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.Not that I expect this to be welcomed exactly as that, but may be useful to reflect on a wider perspective, and useful to reflect on consistency in article handling. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 19:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Mueller Report quotes
|
---|
|
By the way, please cease referring to the Russian interference by the tongue in cheek "Russiagate", which insinuates a suggestion that narratives are overblown or refer to a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The Trump campaign was accused of complicity with Russian interference in the 2016 election that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also investigated for obstruction of justice, but was neither exonerated nor indicted.
starship .paint ( talk) 01:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a mark of Trump's messaging success that everyone above is talking about "collusion", which isn't even a crime by strict definition, and so his constant drumbeat of "NO COLLUSION!" made it look like he was as innocent as a babe in the crib when, surprise surprise, there was no collusion. The shocking conclusion to the Mueller report was that, despite clear and obvious obstruction of justice, Barr declined to indict him for it (Mueller said he couldn't, which is why the initially proposed text doesn't work). -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Three more proposals from me, because I'm unsure of the last part. starship .paint ( talk) 03:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
(S1) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump and referred the evidence to Congress.
(S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, then the Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.
(S1+S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, referring the evidence to Congress. The Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.
Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.
opposed to saying that he was not indicted. starship .paint ( talk) 02:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored Trump, but a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.
Also, it's better not to use talk page language like "'collusion' or whatever it is called", because the false equivalence of collusion with defined criminal behavior has been Trump's principal talking point on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in the Russian election interference that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal behavior in this regard. Trump was also investigated personally for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr." Citing NYTimes.
It isn't about what you or I think - it's about what RS say, and the Times is a RS in this instance. We use in-line attribution, and we don't theorize or editorialize what we think it means, which should end all arguments about the outcome. In the US, when there is no evidence and a conclusion has been reached, the person is found not guilty. I'm not sure how that works in other places in the world, but we are talking about a US incident and that is how we should present it. Atsme Talk 📧 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
starship
.paint (
talk) 00:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Barr letter versus Mueller Report
|
---|
-
-
-
-
|
Sources
|
---|
|
No, I cited a RS that published what US Attorney General William Barr presented. Here's another one from the BBC: The report stated that no evidence of a conspiracy was found,... If we are going to consider partisan opinion and journalistic speculation as DUE, then we have a lot of work to do updating all the BLP's of former presidents. Barr's statement is an official statement - like it or not - it is not a journalistic interpretation of the law, much less partisan speculation that proves nothing and provides zero evidence of collusion. The result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. Trump's rhetoric did not qualify as collusion, and neither does being receptive. If the latter was all that's needed to be guilty of collusion (whatever that might be), then Adam Schiff's receptiveness during a phone call from a Russian prankster qualifies as Russian collusion. It's time to drop the stick. Atsme Talk 📧 20:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
the result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. The Associated Press article was not an opinion piece, and the Associated Press is known for one of the most neutral media organizations. Barr is known for being partisan. You dare to tell me that Barr's statement is
official, but when I already posted quotes of the actual Mueller Report above and I even pointed them out to you, you still stated that I was theorizing or editorializing. Please reflect on your own behaviour. Meanwhile, here is what Mueller wrote [22] about the Barr letter: it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship .paint ( talk) 00:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In this diff [23], an editor has reverted an improvement to the article text that describes the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The diff reinstates the vague wording that states the Special Counsel did not find evidence to "establish" guilt. I had recently tweaked that to replace "establish" with the clearer wording that there was not sufficient evidence to "prosecute".
The US does not operate under Napoleonic Law. It is not the role of a prosecutor in the USA to "establish" criminal behavior. The State charges a crime by bringing an indictment, the facts of which are then decided by the jury. As Attorney General Barr made clear upon receipt of the report, Mueller was acting as prosecutor, not a fact-finding commission such as the Warren Commissionor the 9-11 Commission, which were charged with establishing factual narratives. Again, to be specific with respect to the weasel-word "establish", Mueller's report states
...After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes...
. It's unfortunate that my clarification of the wording was reverted with no substantive objection to the improvement itself. I will reinstate the reverted wording, unless someone has a better way to clarify this point in the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.
Mueller tried to establish findings to determine if there was an underlying crime during Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice, although an underlying crime is not needed for obstruction of justice anyway. Let us also remember that Mueller is hardly a traditional prosecutor, he would have exonerated Trump if the evidence pointed to that, and he wouldn’t even accuse Trump of a crime. starship .paint ( talk) 00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Barr letter versus Mueller Report- that establish why March 2019 sources such as the ABA absolutely cannot be used because the Barr letter is misleading. Let us also remember that Mueller himself wrote that [24] the Barr letter did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship .paint ( talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia.Accordingly, I will revert to this version. — JFG talk 22:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)