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 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | → | Archive 110 |
Earlier today I replaced the lead's last sentence that said:
In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives.
with the clearer:
In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump abused his power to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry.
My edit summary was: "Rephrase impeachment sentence; active voice; mention Ukraine and Biden so that readers get a clue of what the alleged abuse of power is about." SPECIFICO later reverted to the original text, stating: "Restore text to clear statement. Newer version refers to abuse of non-existent Presidential "power to pressure"." In response to the possible confusing grammar around the passage "abused his power to pressure Ukrainian President", I would suggest simplifying the proposal with:
In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry for abuse of power.
Contrary to my learned colleague's assertion, I do believe stating what the controversy is about is much clearer than letting the reader guess what "widespread abuse of power" we are talking about. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 21:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, following allegations that Trump abused his power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to investigate the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry.
In addition to using active voice, why not put the independent clause at the beginning of the sentence?
In September 2019, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured a foreign government to investigate a political rival.
This also excludes all names. While "a political rival" could be replaced with "Joe Biden and his son Hunter" I think the former might be more informative to the casual reader. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
In September 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.
A formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives in September 2019 after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.
In September 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump. According to the complaint and a transcript of a call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump attempted to offer Ukraine missile launchers in exchange for a "favor" in which Zelensky's government would investigate Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential candidate, and his son.
"a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order", but we can just shorten it to "abuse of power" which is widely reported. Perhaps something along these lines:
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after a whistleblower complaint alleged abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.
In September 2019, shortly after it learned of a whistleblower complaint that detailed widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives launched a formal impeachment investigation .
― Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, after a whistleblower alleged Trump sought to trade military aid with Ukraine for political dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry.
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after a whistleblower alleged Trump abused his power by seeking to trade military aid with Ukraine for political dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden, and then tried to cover it up.
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding abuse of office for political gain in the Trump–Ukraine controversy. Trump in July 2019 requested Ukraine investigate rival 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, while a whistleblower alleged that this was part of a wider pressure campaign on Ukraine, and that the White House had tried to cover up Trump's request.
starship .paint ( talk) 02:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
. Just identify the topic, put details below or in linked articles. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, following a whistleblower allegation that Trump had pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.
Thanks everybody. I have amended the wording and added relevant wikilinks. Here's my version:
Separately, in September 2019, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry alleging abuse of office for political gain. In July 2019, Trump had asked Ukraine to investigate the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival presidential candidate for 2020, and a whistleblower alleged that the White House had tried to cover up Trump's request.
Keep tweaking as this develops… — JFG talk 13:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|PunxtawneyPickle|Atsme))WP acknownledges reality by acknowledging that editors have, in some instances, POV's. However they are suppose to edit in a neutral fashion. Claiming that Schiff lied, when there is absolutely no evidence or RS to support such a statement is demonstrable proof that said editor has stepped over the bounds and undeniably demonstrated his POV and bias. It would be different if there was a RS to support the statement. Oldperson ( talk) 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I object to this reversion by Mandruss This is not world history but important information as a counterpoise to Trumps justification for betraying the Kurds. I wish this to be reinserted.Other aspects of this event are included in the article. I will not get into revert wars. Please discuss: "Trump justified his action by saying that they didn't help us in WWII [1] The Iraq Levies provided Kurds, Yazidis, Iraqi's, Syrians, Christians that served under French and British command during WWII, whereas Turkey was, until 1944, allied with Germany [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Since there is "Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" referencing twelve articles, maybe we should have a "Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" article. Yes, yet another Trump article!
I believe it is warranted by Trump's known affinity for conspiracy theories, including recent ones that are of significant consequence and deserve to be expounded upon at length, such as:
Beginning in 2017, President Donald Trump and his allies — based largely on speculation on internet message boards and repeated across conservative media — promoted multiple threads of unfounded allegations that by 2019 had merged into a sprawling conspiracy theory centered on Ukraine. Trump had long felt that the findings of the American intelligence community and the Mueller Report that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 election to benefit him had undermined the legitimacy of his election as president. He and his allies — most notably his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — promoted an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government had interfered to benefit Hillary Clinton, in coordination with Democrats, the digital forensics company CrowdStrike and the FBI, alleging the Russian government had been framed. Trump falsely asserted that CrowdStrike, an American company, was actually owned by a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch, and the conspiracy theory claimed the company had planted evidence on the Democratic National Committee server to implicate Russia, while asserting the FBI had failed to take possession of the server to verify that claim. Although the FBI did not take possession of the server, CrowdStrike had provided the FBI with an image of the server to conduct its own analysis, which led the Mueller Report to concur with the intelligence community that the server had been hacked by Russian intelligence. Trump also asserted without evidence that Ukraine was in possession of the DNC server, as well as Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. The conspiracy theory later evolved to include baseless allegations of corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in their activities in Ukraine. This led Trump to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into the matters, which triggered the Trump-Ukraine controversy, which in turn led to the opening of an impeachment inquiry into Trump. His staff had repeatedly attempted to persuade Trump that the conspiracy theory had no merit, including his former homeland security advisor Tom Bossert, who later remarked, "the DNC server and that conspiracy theory has got to go. If he continues to focus on that white whale, it’s going to bring him down."
In a parallel effort, Trump directed attorney general Bill Barr to "investigate the investigators" who supposedly opened the FBI investigation into Russian interference for partisan political motives to harm Trump, including with alleged assistance from allied intelligence services. That investigation led to the Mueller investigation, resulting in convictions of some Trump campaign associates. In September 2019 it was reported that Barr has been contacting foreign governments to ask for help in this inquiry. He personally traveled to the United Kingdom and Italy to seek information, and at Barr's request Trump phoned the prime minister of Australia to request his cooperation. Barr sought information related to a conspiracy theory that had circulated among Trump allies in conservative media claiming that Joseph Mifsud was a Western intelligence operative who was allegedly directed to entrap Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in order to establish a false predicate for the FBI to open its investigation. That investigation was initiated after the Australian government notified American authorities that its diplomat Alexander Downer had a chance encounter with Papadopoulos, who boasted about possible access to Hillary Clinton emails supposedly held by the Russian government. On October 2, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump supporter and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the leaders of Britain, Australia and Italy, asserting as fact that both Mifsud and Downer had been directed to contact Papadopoulos. Joe Hockey, the Australian ambassador to the United States, sharply rejected Graham's characterization of Downer. [1] [2] [3] A former Italian government official told The Washington Post in October 2019 that during a meeting the previous month, Italian intelligence services told Barr they had "no connections, no activities, no interference" in the matter. American law enforcement believes Mifsud is connected to Russian intelligence.
Sources
|
---|
|
Also see:
soibangla ( talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
collusion delusionand
debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theoryon this very page. starship .paint ( talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
.I was thinking more conspiracy theory as small items of Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief like ‘Trump is a time traveller’ or such.- ??? Trump is a time traveler??????? You've got to be joking me. By the way, you need the User: in the link to ping. starship .paint ( talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
And where did you (Mark) come up with whacko "Time Traveller". I've never heard such a thing, or any such. Then again I don't do Twitter, Facebook or any social media as those are not RS,and (especially not is GOP TV aka Fox News and Fox and Friends or Fox lite (CNN), in fact most of the MSM is not a RS in as much as they are owned by a handful of corporations whose motive is profit, as Thom Hartmann calls it "Infotainment", you see only the news that they want you to see,and nothing that could cause damage to their profitability or existence. Best I can do is pull facts and ignore the pundits and talkers Oldperson ( talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
werewolf love-childwith
climate-change website purgesmacks of massive ignorance. Here are the sources on the purge Guardian, NYT, and Time. Where are your sources stating that the reports of the purge as
bizarre tabloid bits? If you can't provide these, I must really question your judgment on what constitutes
bizarre tabloid bits. starship .paint ( talk) 03:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA Administrator under George W. Bush, says the overhaul is “to such an extreme degree that [it] undermines the credibility of the site”.You essentially continue to defend your grouping of fantasies regarding time-traveller Trump, werewolf-child Trump with climate change website purge - to which, I can only remind you that Wikipedia:Competence is required, especially in controversial topics such as this. starship .paint ( talk) 01:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Trump is reported to have stopped supporting Kurdish insurgents because it was wasting money. Saying he did it to allow Turkey to kill them is lying. An anonymous source told Fox Pentagon officials were "blindsided". Pretending it came from those officials, somehow in unison, is a lie. America paid, fed, trained, equipped and directed these Kurds. Saying these Kurds supported American action is a lie.
SPECIFICO thinks differently, so let's learn why. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
[2] Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area. The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.
Hulk, the White House statement does not mention money at all. It mentions that Turkey is planning an attack. starship .paint ( talk) 03:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
In October 2019, after Trump spoke to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House acknowledged that Turkey would be carrying out a planned military offensive into northern Syria; as such, U.S. troops in northern Syria were withdrawn from the area to avoid interference with that operation. The statement also passed responsibility for the area's captured ISIS fighters to Turkey.[550] Congress members of both parties denounced the move, including Republican allies of Trump like Senator Lindsey Graham. They argued that the move betrayed the American-allied Kurds, and would benefit ISIS, Russia, Iran and Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime.[551] Trump defended the move, citing the high cost of supporting the Kurds, and the lack of support from the Kurds in past U.S. wars.[552][553] After the U.S. pullout, Turkey proceeded to attack Kurdish-controlled areas in northeast Syria.[554]
- what I wrote.
starship
.paint (
talk) 03:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's recently been reported that the whistleblower form was rewritten mere days or at most weeks before the current controversy to allow hearsay complaints. Given said complaint is exclusively hearsay material shouldn't this be noteworthy? Who authorised the change and when it was finalised is still TBD but we're dealing with a very short timeframe. The current text treats the complaint allegation of a pressure campaign as gospel, and yet we don't even know if we can trust the document! 人族 ( talk) 05:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Three points: 1) The last paragraph in the lead, "In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging..." gives undue weight to a recent event. There should be very little if anything about impeachment in the lead (and that probably in a context of continuing efforts to impeach) until/unless he's actually impeached. 2) The section on impeachment is too long and too detailed for what is supposed to be a biographic encyclopedia article. 3) It seems to me that the last couple of years have shown that it's better to give things some time to develop rather than jump on the current Trump crisis of the day. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
That story came out yesterday. Others have not yet had a chance to dispute it, except on twitter. And it wouldn't belong here anyway. soibangla ( talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
人族, see: https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888 soibangla ( talk) 00:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Fox falls close to the middle. starship .paint ( talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Please re-add the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award that was removed in edit 919723450. I have located a better reference that I believe meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES, and it is the Haaretz newspaper at https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-inside-donald-trump-s-history-of-donations-in-israel-1.5469673 . To wit, "In March 1983, Trump, then a relatively young real estate mogul, was the recipient of the prestigious Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, which honors individuals and families for their dedication to promoting U.S.-Israel ties and outstanding community work." -- Ingyhere ( talk) 08:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That sensational news is most likely not essential to his overall life and shouldn't be in the introduction segment. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I don't think it's appropriate to bring up this topic with the alleged Russian interference in the elections. It just sounds like someone wants to focus on his shady actions. I'm not American, so I'm not a Trump supporter, but this is not neutral writing. -- 94.222.21.41 ( talk) 00:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
someone wants to focus on his shady actionscomment doesn't hold water. As for
this is not neutral writing, see Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and don't miss the word "proportionately" in the first sentence. "Neutral" doesn't mean whatever we think it should mean; it is defined with some precision on that page. As for
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I agree that the lead of this article should contain quite a bit less detail about his presidency, but I keep getting outvoted. It certainly should say something about the impeachment potential – that would be historical even if there is no conviction, and it shouldn't wait until we know the ultimate outcome. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Articles related to impeachment efforts and Ukraine/Biden controversy. - Mr X 🖋 10:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: [7]
My edit was in fact a copy edit, since the meaning was not changed. It's redundant to say that 42% is two points below 44%, assuming that the reader knows what a point is and can handle 42+2. So I removed the redundancy, and I added 's following Reagan to maintain the pattern established by "Obama's". That's all. A simple, everyday, innocuous copy edit. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Mandruss, JFG, and Starship.paint: Please justify this edit where Mandruss trimmed a current and important edit justifying it with appeal to consensus 37. I don't see it, as it meets none of the requirements established. Oldperson ( talk) 17:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I won’t justify it because I am not involved. starship .paint ( talk) 00:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ MrX, Mandruss, SPECIFICO, JFG, and Starship.paint: MrX Reverted my edit about Trump being involved in three soft core porn films.Stating that Daily News was not a RS. I erroneously reverted his revert when I should have taken it to the talk page. so I am here now. Following are two reliable sources.From CNN When Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that Stormy Daniels has no credibility because she is is a porn star, he neglected to mention that his client, President Donald Trump, has appeared in three Playboy videos that feature nudity and softcore pornographic content. and Cite news|url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-porn-softcore-playboy-movie-a7340376.html%7Ctitle=Donald Trump once appeared in a softcore porn movie|last=Walker|first=Tim|date=1 October 2016|work=Independent.UK|access-date=13 October 2019. Question: Are these legitimate citations and is my revert of MrX's revert legitimate. Oldperson ( talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If the following meets WP:WEIGHT requirements sufficient to merit inclusion then so does his participation in softcore porn films. "n 1983, Trump received the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, after he helped fund the building of two playgrounds, a park, and a reservoir in Israel.[749][750][751] In 1986, he received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in recognition of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity",[752] and in 1995 was awarded the President's Medal from the Freedoms Foundation for his support of youth programs.[753] He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2007,[754] and was inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013.Let's not have double standards please. BTW the Freedoms Foundation funded in part by the Charles Koch Foundation and is aggressive in tactics to dismantle unions. So freedom from representation in the workplace Oldperson ( talk) 02:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Seems like all this would be WP being tabloid, instead of serious topics and reputable coverage. Markbassett ( talk) 12:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @ Markbassett, Starship.pant, Mandruss, and Atsme:There are no claims being made.The fact is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL but factual there are multiple reliable sources. The fact that he has starred in soft core porn films is relevant, especially for that portion of his following that describe themselves a evangelical Christians and defenders of family values. But I consider Starships suggestion viable, to include it in filmography, as a matter of fact that is where it was before being reverted. I will reinstate as it is as valid an entry as any other mentions.Objections to it fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT Oldperson ( talk) 17:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss Who then does get to pass judgement on arguments? Consensus? Who evaluates consensus. BTW your statement was a red herring. I did not declare any argument invalid. Oldperson ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not declare any argument invalid.I beg to differ. You declared all opposing arguments IDONTLIKEIT, hence invalid.
Objections to it fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.― Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
While it is amazing that the President of the United States has personally been involved in porn videos, it is not at all amazing for Donald Trump. Leave it out per WP:UNDUE. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The image used here has a wrong caption. Erdoğan was prime minister in 2012. He became president in 2014. It should be corrected.-- BSRF ( talk) 19:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: Thanks for editing the caption. But with this edit, you removed Erdoğan's middle name. He is known as "Tayyip Erdoğan", rather than "Recep Erdoğan". For clarification, you can read the last sentence of the last paragraph of this section.-- BSRF ( talk) 08:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Without prejudice, I believe that all fair-minded people who know anything about it will acknowledge that Trump has made a large number of untrue assertions. This significantly distinguishes him from other presidents. Is that not worth a mention in the article? 50.203.182.230 ( talk) 20:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I find parts of the lead to be conflicting and inaccurate:
"According to the testimony of multiple White House officials, this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. On October 3, 2019, Trump then openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, after he previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want.""
As the lead reads currently: " this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. "
From the Trump–Ukraine controversy: "The whistleblower also alleged that the call was part of a wider campaign by Trump, his administration and Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, which may have included Trump cancelling a scheduled trip to Ukraine by Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump withholding financial aid to Ukraine." [1] [2] [3]
This is an allegation, yet on the lead, it reads off as if this is confirmed. This is inconsistent.
On China, this is how the lead currently reads: "On October 3, 2019, Trump then openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, after he previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want.""
Trump did not "press" China into investigating Biden. "Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." - Verbatim what Trump stated. [1] [2] [3] This is not a "push" for China to investigate Biden; moreso of a general comment. The ""tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want."" is fine. As it stands, I find the lead to not be following WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
Sources
|
---|
|
Any suggestions/comments to improve the lead? Aviartm ( talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The lede is expanding because significant stuff is happening... let’s exercise patience with editors on this, alright? I may try trimming it though later today. starship .paint ( talk) 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes, including if Trump conducted a pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate fellow 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. In October 2019, right after discussing that the U.S. has "tremendous power" in the trade war with China "if they don't do what we want", Trump publicly urged Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.
starship .paint ( talk) 00:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
More detail below the lead in this article, and in the lead of the Presidency article. Yet more detail below the lead of the Presidency article. Not to mention the multiple other sub-articles. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.
That's even clearer. Agree about the details going in the body and the links. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives launched a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after he revealed that he had abused his presidential power for personal political purposes.
At this point,
Mandruss's version (reminder: In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.
) is superior in every respect. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Consequently, all we need to say is that a formal impeachment inquiry has been started because Trump has abused his position. The detail of those abuses (including the "doubling down") should be left to the body of the article. --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
just to continue portraying such as normalimplies that what Trump doing is abnormal, yet you also write that it is
just talking to reporters, as if it was normal. That doesn't make sense, unless talking to reporters turn abnormal things into normal things. starship .paint ( talk) 06:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
"Trump publicly speaking to reporters wishing China to investigate is just talking to reporters."What the hell does this even mean? The primary way an administration communicates with the world is through the White House press corps and anything said to reporters is an official statement. Trump threatened China with "tremendous power" and then suggested the Chinese should investigate the Bidens immediately afterward, implying the two things were related. It defies logic that you should think these China comments were trivial. These comments alone would bring down any other presidency. I can't even. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Markbassett:The man is POTUS, the most powerful man, so they say, in the world.There is no such thing as "just talking to reporters", not when such "talk" can affect the stockmarket, the world economy, world piece, start wars, cause consternation by world leaders, and heads of government. etc. Oldperson ( talk)
sockpuppet for Trumpis a personal attack. Please strike your statement and be more respectful in the future. — JFG talk 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Time to make a decision and not get sidetracked by all this noise and bullshit.
Mandruss's version (In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.
) seems like the way to go. Let the body of the article get into specifics, but this is better than the version that is currently in the lead. Are we all agreed? --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Detail should be in the body text. Who knows, maybe it will blow over? SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate Trump's alleged abuses of power and obstruction of justice.
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.
What is everyone's preferred description of the Mueller report in the lead? I personally believe that choice one conveys in a much more accurate manner what the Mueller Report says. But a few editors have suggested that it would be too long to include within the lead, so I wanted to come here and establish consensus on the matter. I personally don't see how it could be labeled as such. Thoughts? ZiplineWhy ( talk) 00:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Choice 1: (Suggested Version) A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.
Choice 2: (Current version) Trump and members of his 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored him, 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.".- Mr X 🖋 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
"which contradicts the very conclusions of the Mueller Report."No. It's a literal quote from the contents of the Mueller Report.
"sounds like an incriminating statement,."Why does that prevent it from being included in the lead? Wikipedia isn't either a promotion or attack page. ZiplineWhy ( talk) 23:23, 14 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.
Mueller Report quotes
|
---|
|
Added I added the revised version to the lead, although I corrected a minor typo within the original version I submitted. (Mueller said "Trump and his campaign" instead of "campaign", etc.) Feel free to include suggested revisions to mine below. ZiplineWhy ( talk) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
What you put in the lead:A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.
Sheesh! You can't do that. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia.
@ JFG: This seems worthy of a consensus #41. Care to create it to make this a "bipartisan" effort? ZiplineWhy said they "might" follow with discussion about a possible revision to the revision, but I don't see much benefit in waiting to see how that plays out; i.e. #41 would be revisable as always. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Trumps Chief of Staff announces here that the next G-7 summit will be held at Doral golf course/resort. This is not only a clear violation of the emoluments clause, The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.. Where and how do we handle this? Oldperson ( talk) 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
ZiplineWhyPlease clarify why you removed so much RS material from this . Your edit summary is non descriptive and inaccurate. Oldperson ( talk) 22:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Please DO NOT comment in this section. This is a test of auto-archival. See this UTP thread for more information.
Left them in place pending discussion in case this is contentious. But: "downplaying his concern about Russian interference in US elections" ???? Makes it sound like he was concerned but chose to be tactful, whereas he in fact said he really did not care. [1]
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The businessman was disconcerted when his train arrived late. Mgasparin ( talk) 01:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should have an agreement not to include lawsuits against Trump unless and until they are successful.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This line is OPINION and NOT fact!! It should be removed!! "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. This next line SHOULD read as follows: "Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as allegedly racially charged or racist." 72.95.147.133 ( talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 72.95.147.133 ( talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The lead section's third paragraph was written to summarize policy actions undertaken under Trump's presidency. It has been stable for a long time, and I'd like to open a conversation to discuss whether it needs any updates. Here is the current version:
During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, which also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate and allowed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and started negotiations with North Korea towards their denuclearization.
Stats:
Conspicuously absent topics: immigration policy, Trump wall, NATO stance, Middle-East policy beyond Israel support, deregulation efforts, trade deals ( Canada/Mexico, Japan, China), what else? Comments and suggestions welcome. — JFG talk 06:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of editor OR as to what's most significant. We now have extensive tertiary sources -- summary articles in academic media, non-daily periodicals, and books -- that should be used for perspective. Those sources prioritize the deprecation of post WW2 world order (NATO, Free Trade, etc.), Deconstruction of the US Federal Government, Politicization of the US Judiciary, the southern border atrocities, and the focus on reality-TV style show communication to replace historical and conventional modes of US presidential speech. These are the items RS tell us are of lasting significance. So, just for one example: The "Wall" is an instance of the last, not per se a significant policy or event. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
He embraced Twitter as a communication toolis possible. starship .paint ( talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in migrant detentions, family separations, and a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, while rescinding the individual health insurance mandate. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.
During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies included migrant detentions, family separations, and a travel ban. He enacted tax-cuts for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump's America First agenda included withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Iran nuclear deal. He triggered a trade war with China and Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.
I'm very encouraged with the discussion here. It looks like we are all on board the trimming train, but there's just a little bit of disagreement as to which track it should take. Let's see more examples of text, please. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
off-topic RE: Trump University trim SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Putting this in a green box for consideration. Lead should be summary not detail.
He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, other regional alliances, and the partnerships underlying the TPP talks and the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Short and sweet simple and descriptive, not narrative. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, other regional alliances, and the partnerships underlying the Paris Climate Accords, TPP talks and the Iran Nuclear Deal. He appointed scores of Conservative and Originalist Federal judges, rolled back environmental and consumer protection regulations. and forged personal relationships with various autocratic leaders around the world.
SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The signature image is quite out-of-date (from at least as far back as 2009); Donald Trump has changed the average look of his signature to look significantly different. Erik Humphrey ( talk) 23:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A Republican source inside the Trump-Pelosi meeting described attendees as "alarmed," "shaken" and "shell-shocked" by the President’s demeanor.
"He is not in control of himself. It is all yelling and screaming."
Q: "is it getting worse?"
A: "100 percent"
Q: "are you worried about his stability?"
A: "yes"
https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1184953968364908545
soibangla ( talk) 00:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand these consensus do not stand forever.You understand correctly. The relevant policy is at WP:CCC. Consensuses do not stand forever, but a consensus that required this much editor time investment usually stands for considerably longer than two months. That's 18,000 words, if you're keeping score. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
We have a very firm consensus that discussions of Trump's mental health are essentially off the table, but I agree that this could be considered a separate issue that would need a corresponding change to the heading of this discussion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Lighten up you editors. MrX's distinction makes sense and anyone should feel free to add well-sourced content that describes significant, unusual, or alarming behaviors. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps fork off these parts with prominent instructions or invitation to click on the fork. Oldperson ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
there is so much room for cutting present text that I am not very concerned about that.Right, editors have been making that argument for around two years, and precious little cutting has occurred, this being the result. I'm far more impressed by results than words. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Instead of pointless talk page chat, somebody with an overview of the matter should add appropriate article text -- avoiding all the pseudo-psychiatric terms and conditions. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a graph of the article's file size over time, starting May 2014. It shows file size at the beginning of each month. This should be useful in any discussions of file size here. Horizontal grid lines are at intervals of 100,000 bytes.
Many thanks to User:Cobaltcigs for creating this graphing script in response to my WP:VPT inquiry asking whether such a script existed. And fast! ― Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh gawd. So I had no idea this is the article you meant. But yes, I'd agree that its size is way out of control. ― cobaltcigs 02:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
So you want a massive change, but you don't want it to happen.I want it to happen at a reasonable pace. This is a simple enough concept that I must assume you are deliberately not hearing me. Further, I have not suggested
an academic conference about every punctuation mark. Hyperbolic language suggests hyperbolic thinking, and neither is helpful. ― Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 23 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 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | → | Archive 110 |
Earlier today I replaced the lead's last sentence that said:
In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives.
with the clearer:
In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump abused his power to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry.
My edit summary was: "Rephrase impeachment sentence; active voice; mention Ukraine and Biden so that readers get a clue of what the alleged abuse of power is about." SPECIFICO later reverted to the original text, stating: "Restore text to clear statement. Newer version refers to abuse of non-existent Presidential "power to pressure"." In response to the possible confusing grammar around the passage "abused his power to pressure Ukrainian President", I would suggest simplifying the proposal with:
In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry for abuse of power.
Contrary to my learned colleague's assertion, I do believe stating what the controversy is about is much clearer than letting the reader guess what "widespread abuse of power" we are talking about. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 21:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, following allegations that Trump abused his power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to investigate the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry.
In addition to using active voice, why not put the independent clause at the beginning of the sentence?
In September 2019, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured a foreign government to investigate a political rival.
This also excludes all names. While "a political rival" could be replaced with "Joe Biden and his son Hunter" I think the former might be more informative to the casual reader. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
In September 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.
A formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives in September 2019 after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.
In September 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump. According to the complaint and a transcript of a call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump attempted to offer Ukraine missile launchers in exchange for a "favor" in which Zelensky's government would investigate Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential candidate, and his son.
"a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order", but we can just shorten it to "abuse of power" which is widely reported. Perhaps something along these lines:
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after a whistleblower complaint alleged abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.
In September 2019, shortly after it learned of a whistleblower complaint that detailed widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives launched a formal impeachment investigation .
― Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, after a whistleblower alleged Trump sought to trade military aid with Ukraine for political dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry.
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after a whistleblower alleged Trump abused his power by seeking to trade military aid with Ukraine for political dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden, and then tried to cover it up.
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding abuse of office for political gain in the Trump–Ukraine controversy. Trump in July 2019 requested Ukraine investigate rival 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, while a whistleblower alleged that this was part of a wider pressure campaign on Ukraine, and that the White House had tried to cover up Trump's request.
starship .paint ( talk) 02:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
. Just identify the topic, put details below or in linked articles. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, following a whistleblower allegation that Trump had pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.
Thanks everybody. I have amended the wording and added relevant wikilinks. Here's my version:
Separately, in September 2019, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry alleging abuse of office for political gain. In July 2019, Trump had asked Ukraine to investigate the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival presidential candidate for 2020, and a whistleblower alleged that the White House had tried to cover up Trump's request.
Keep tweaking as this develops… — JFG talk 13:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|PunxtawneyPickle|Atsme))WP acknownledges reality by acknowledging that editors have, in some instances, POV's. However they are suppose to edit in a neutral fashion. Claiming that Schiff lied, when there is absolutely no evidence or RS to support such a statement is demonstrable proof that said editor has stepped over the bounds and undeniably demonstrated his POV and bias. It would be different if there was a RS to support the statement. Oldperson ( talk) 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I object to this reversion by Mandruss This is not world history but important information as a counterpoise to Trumps justification for betraying the Kurds. I wish this to be reinserted.Other aspects of this event are included in the article. I will not get into revert wars. Please discuss: "Trump justified his action by saying that they didn't help us in WWII [1] The Iraq Levies provided Kurds, Yazidis, Iraqi's, Syrians, Christians that served under French and British command during WWII, whereas Turkey was, until 1944, allied with Germany [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Since there is "Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" referencing twelve articles, maybe we should have a "Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" article. Yes, yet another Trump article!
I believe it is warranted by Trump's known affinity for conspiracy theories, including recent ones that are of significant consequence and deserve to be expounded upon at length, such as:
Beginning in 2017, President Donald Trump and his allies — based largely on speculation on internet message boards and repeated across conservative media — promoted multiple threads of unfounded allegations that by 2019 had merged into a sprawling conspiracy theory centered on Ukraine. Trump had long felt that the findings of the American intelligence community and the Mueller Report that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 election to benefit him had undermined the legitimacy of his election as president. He and his allies — most notably his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — promoted an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government had interfered to benefit Hillary Clinton, in coordination with Democrats, the digital forensics company CrowdStrike and the FBI, alleging the Russian government had been framed. Trump falsely asserted that CrowdStrike, an American company, was actually owned by a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch, and the conspiracy theory claimed the company had planted evidence on the Democratic National Committee server to implicate Russia, while asserting the FBI had failed to take possession of the server to verify that claim. Although the FBI did not take possession of the server, CrowdStrike had provided the FBI with an image of the server to conduct its own analysis, which led the Mueller Report to concur with the intelligence community that the server had been hacked by Russian intelligence. Trump also asserted without evidence that Ukraine was in possession of the DNC server, as well as Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. The conspiracy theory later evolved to include baseless allegations of corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in their activities in Ukraine. This led Trump to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into the matters, which triggered the Trump-Ukraine controversy, which in turn led to the opening of an impeachment inquiry into Trump. His staff had repeatedly attempted to persuade Trump that the conspiracy theory had no merit, including his former homeland security advisor Tom Bossert, who later remarked, "the DNC server and that conspiracy theory has got to go. If he continues to focus on that white whale, it’s going to bring him down."
In a parallel effort, Trump directed attorney general Bill Barr to "investigate the investigators" who supposedly opened the FBI investigation into Russian interference for partisan political motives to harm Trump, including with alleged assistance from allied intelligence services. That investigation led to the Mueller investigation, resulting in convictions of some Trump campaign associates. In September 2019 it was reported that Barr has been contacting foreign governments to ask for help in this inquiry. He personally traveled to the United Kingdom and Italy to seek information, and at Barr's request Trump phoned the prime minister of Australia to request his cooperation. Barr sought information related to a conspiracy theory that had circulated among Trump allies in conservative media claiming that Joseph Mifsud was a Western intelligence operative who was allegedly directed to entrap Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in order to establish a false predicate for the FBI to open its investigation. That investigation was initiated after the Australian government notified American authorities that its diplomat Alexander Downer had a chance encounter with Papadopoulos, who boasted about possible access to Hillary Clinton emails supposedly held by the Russian government. On October 2, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump supporter and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the leaders of Britain, Australia and Italy, asserting as fact that both Mifsud and Downer had been directed to contact Papadopoulos. Joe Hockey, the Australian ambassador to the United States, sharply rejected Graham's characterization of Downer. [1] [2] [3] A former Italian government official told The Washington Post in October 2019 that during a meeting the previous month, Italian intelligence services told Barr they had "no connections, no activities, no interference" in the matter. American law enforcement believes Mifsud is connected to Russian intelligence.
Sources
|
---|
|
Also see:
soibangla ( talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
collusion delusionand
debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theoryon this very page. starship .paint ( talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
.I was thinking more conspiracy theory as small items of Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief like ‘Trump is a time traveller’ or such.- ??? Trump is a time traveler??????? You've got to be joking me. By the way, you need the User: in the link to ping. starship .paint ( talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
And where did you (Mark) come up with whacko "Time Traveller". I've never heard such a thing, or any such. Then again I don't do Twitter, Facebook or any social media as those are not RS,and (especially not is GOP TV aka Fox News and Fox and Friends or Fox lite (CNN), in fact most of the MSM is not a RS in as much as they are owned by a handful of corporations whose motive is profit, as Thom Hartmann calls it "Infotainment", you see only the news that they want you to see,and nothing that could cause damage to their profitability or existence. Best I can do is pull facts and ignore the pundits and talkers Oldperson ( talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
werewolf love-childwith
climate-change website purgesmacks of massive ignorance. Here are the sources on the purge Guardian, NYT, and Time. Where are your sources stating that the reports of the purge as
bizarre tabloid bits? If you can't provide these, I must really question your judgment on what constitutes
bizarre tabloid bits. starship .paint ( talk) 03:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA Administrator under George W. Bush, says the overhaul is “to such an extreme degree that [it] undermines the credibility of the site”.You essentially continue to defend your grouping of fantasies regarding time-traveller Trump, werewolf-child Trump with climate change website purge - to which, I can only remind you that Wikipedia:Competence is required, especially in controversial topics such as this. starship .paint ( talk) 01:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Trump is reported to have stopped supporting Kurdish insurgents because it was wasting money. Saying he did it to allow Turkey to kill them is lying. An anonymous source told Fox Pentagon officials were "blindsided". Pretending it came from those officials, somehow in unison, is a lie. America paid, fed, trained, equipped and directed these Kurds. Saying these Kurds supported American action is a lie.
SPECIFICO thinks differently, so let's learn why. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
[2] Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area. The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.
Hulk, the White House statement does not mention money at all. It mentions that Turkey is planning an attack. starship .paint ( talk) 03:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
In October 2019, after Trump spoke to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House acknowledged that Turkey would be carrying out a planned military offensive into northern Syria; as such, U.S. troops in northern Syria were withdrawn from the area to avoid interference with that operation. The statement also passed responsibility for the area's captured ISIS fighters to Turkey.[550] Congress members of both parties denounced the move, including Republican allies of Trump like Senator Lindsey Graham. They argued that the move betrayed the American-allied Kurds, and would benefit ISIS, Russia, Iran and Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime.[551] Trump defended the move, citing the high cost of supporting the Kurds, and the lack of support from the Kurds in past U.S. wars.[552][553] After the U.S. pullout, Turkey proceeded to attack Kurdish-controlled areas in northeast Syria.[554]
- what I wrote.
starship
.paint (
talk) 03:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's recently been reported that the whistleblower form was rewritten mere days or at most weeks before the current controversy to allow hearsay complaints. Given said complaint is exclusively hearsay material shouldn't this be noteworthy? Who authorised the change and when it was finalised is still TBD but we're dealing with a very short timeframe. The current text treats the complaint allegation of a pressure campaign as gospel, and yet we don't even know if we can trust the document! 人族 ( talk) 05:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Three points: 1) The last paragraph in the lead, "In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging..." gives undue weight to a recent event. There should be very little if anything about impeachment in the lead (and that probably in a context of continuing efforts to impeach) until/unless he's actually impeached. 2) The section on impeachment is too long and too detailed for what is supposed to be a biographic encyclopedia article. 3) It seems to me that the last couple of years have shown that it's better to give things some time to develop rather than jump on the current Trump crisis of the day. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
That story came out yesterday. Others have not yet had a chance to dispute it, except on twitter. And it wouldn't belong here anyway. soibangla ( talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
人族, see: https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888 soibangla ( talk) 00:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Fox falls close to the middle. starship .paint ( talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Please re-add the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award that was removed in edit 919723450. I have located a better reference that I believe meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES, and it is the Haaretz newspaper at https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-inside-donald-trump-s-history-of-donations-in-israel-1.5469673 . To wit, "In March 1983, Trump, then a relatively young real estate mogul, was the recipient of the prestigious Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, which honors individuals and families for their dedication to promoting U.S.-Israel ties and outstanding community work." -- Ingyhere ( talk) 08:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That sensational news is most likely not essential to his overall life and shouldn't be in the introduction segment. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I don't think it's appropriate to bring up this topic with the alleged Russian interference in the elections. It just sounds like someone wants to focus on his shady actions. I'm not American, so I'm not a Trump supporter, but this is not neutral writing. -- 94.222.21.41 ( talk) 00:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
someone wants to focus on his shady actionscomment doesn't hold water. As for
this is not neutral writing, see Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and don't miss the word "proportionately" in the first sentence. "Neutral" doesn't mean whatever we think it should mean; it is defined with some precision on that page. As for
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I agree that the lead of this article should contain quite a bit less detail about his presidency, but I keep getting outvoted. It certainly should say something about the impeachment potential – that would be historical even if there is no conviction, and it shouldn't wait until we know the ultimate outcome. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Articles related to impeachment efforts and Ukraine/Biden controversy. - Mr X 🖋 10:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: [7]
My edit was in fact a copy edit, since the meaning was not changed. It's redundant to say that 42% is two points below 44%, assuming that the reader knows what a point is and can handle 42+2. So I removed the redundancy, and I added 's following Reagan to maintain the pattern established by "Obama's". That's all. A simple, everyday, innocuous copy edit. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Mandruss, JFG, and Starship.paint: Please justify this edit where Mandruss trimmed a current and important edit justifying it with appeal to consensus 37. I don't see it, as it meets none of the requirements established. Oldperson ( talk) 17:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I won’t justify it because I am not involved. starship .paint ( talk) 00:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ MrX, Mandruss, SPECIFICO, JFG, and Starship.paint: MrX Reverted my edit about Trump being involved in three soft core porn films.Stating that Daily News was not a RS. I erroneously reverted his revert when I should have taken it to the talk page. so I am here now. Following are two reliable sources.From CNN When Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that Stormy Daniels has no credibility because she is is a porn star, he neglected to mention that his client, President Donald Trump, has appeared in three Playboy videos that feature nudity and softcore pornographic content. and Cite news|url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-porn-softcore-playboy-movie-a7340376.html%7Ctitle=Donald Trump once appeared in a softcore porn movie|last=Walker|first=Tim|date=1 October 2016|work=Independent.UK|access-date=13 October 2019. Question: Are these legitimate citations and is my revert of MrX's revert legitimate. Oldperson ( talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If the following meets WP:WEIGHT requirements sufficient to merit inclusion then so does his participation in softcore porn films. "n 1983, Trump received the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, after he helped fund the building of two playgrounds, a park, and a reservoir in Israel.[749][750][751] In 1986, he received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in recognition of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity",[752] and in 1995 was awarded the President's Medal from the Freedoms Foundation for his support of youth programs.[753] He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2007,[754] and was inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013.Let's not have double standards please. BTW the Freedoms Foundation funded in part by the Charles Koch Foundation and is aggressive in tactics to dismantle unions. So freedom from representation in the workplace Oldperson ( talk) 02:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Seems like all this would be WP being tabloid, instead of serious topics and reputable coverage. Markbassett ( talk) 12:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @ Markbassett, Starship.pant, Mandruss, and Atsme:There are no claims being made.The fact is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL but factual there are multiple reliable sources. The fact that he has starred in soft core porn films is relevant, especially for that portion of his following that describe themselves a evangelical Christians and defenders of family values. But I consider Starships suggestion viable, to include it in filmography, as a matter of fact that is where it was before being reverted. I will reinstate as it is as valid an entry as any other mentions.Objections to it fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT Oldperson ( talk) 17:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss Who then does get to pass judgement on arguments? Consensus? Who evaluates consensus. BTW your statement was a red herring. I did not declare any argument invalid. Oldperson ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not declare any argument invalid.I beg to differ. You declared all opposing arguments IDONTLIKEIT, hence invalid.
Objections to it fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.― Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
While it is amazing that the President of the United States has personally been involved in porn videos, it is not at all amazing for Donald Trump. Leave it out per WP:UNDUE. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The image used here has a wrong caption. Erdoğan was prime minister in 2012. He became president in 2014. It should be corrected.-- BSRF ( talk) 19:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: Thanks for editing the caption. But with this edit, you removed Erdoğan's middle name. He is known as "Tayyip Erdoğan", rather than "Recep Erdoğan". For clarification, you can read the last sentence of the last paragraph of this section.-- BSRF ( talk) 08:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Without prejudice, I believe that all fair-minded people who know anything about it will acknowledge that Trump has made a large number of untrue assertions. This significantly distinguishes him from other presidents. Is that not worth a mention in the article? 50.203.182.230 ( talk) 20:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I find parts of the lead to be conflicting and inaccurate:
"According to the testimony of multiple White House officials, this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. On October 3, 2019, Trump then openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, after he previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want.""
As the lead reads currently: " this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. "
From the Trump–Ukraine controversy: "The whistleblower also alleged that the call was part of a wider campaign by Trump, his administration and Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, which may have included Trump cancelling a scheduled trip to Ukraine by Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump withholding financial aid to Ukraine." [1] [2] [3]
This is an allegation, yet on the lead, it reads off as if this is confirmed. This is inconsistent.
On China, this is how the lead currently reads: "On October 3, 2019, Trump then openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, after he previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want.""
Trump did not "press" China into investigating Biden. "Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." - Verbatim what Trump stated. [1] [2] [3] This is not a "push" for China to investigate Biden; moreso of a general comment. The ""tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want."" is fine. As it stands, I find the lead to not be following WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
Sources
|
---|
|
Any suggestions/comments to improve the lead? Aviartm ( talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The lede is expanding because significant stuff is happening... let’s exercise patience with editors on this, alright? I may try trimming it though later today. starship .paint ( talk) 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes, including if Trump conducted a pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate fellow 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. In October 2019, right after discussing that the U.S. has "tremendous power" in the trade war with China "if they don't do what we want", Trump publicly urged Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.
starship .paint ( talk) 00:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
More detail below the lead in this article, and in the lead of the Presidency article. Yet more detail below the lead of the Presidency article. Not to mention the multiple other sub-articles. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.
That's even clearer. Agree about the details going in the body and the links. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives launched a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after he revealed that he had abused his presidential power for personal political purposes.
At this point,
Mandruss's version (reminder: In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.
) is superior in every respect. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Consequently, all we need to say is that a formal impeachment inquiry has been started because Trump has abused his position. The detail of those abuses (including the "doubling down") should be left to the body of the article. --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
just to continue portraying such as normalimplies that what Trump doing is abnormal, yet you also write that it is
just talking to reporters, as if it was normal. That doesn't make sense, unless talking to reporters turn abnormal things into normal things. starship .paint ( talk) 06:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
"Trump publicly speaking to reporters wishing China to investigate is just talking to reporters."What the hell does this even mean? The primary way an administration communicates with the world is through the White House press corps and anything said to reporters is an official statement. Trump threatened China with "tremendous power" and then suggested the Chinese should investigate the Bidens immediately afterward, implying the two things were related. It defies logic that you should think these China comments were trivial. These comments alone would bring down any other presidency. I can't even. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Markbassett:The man is POTUS, the most powerful man, so they say, in the world.There is no such thing as "just talking to reporters", not when such "talk" can affect the stockmarket, the world economy, world piece, start wars, cause consternation by world leaders, and heads of government. etc. Oldperson ( talk)
sockpuppet for Trumpis a personal attack. Please strike your statement and be more respectful in the future. — JFG talk 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Time to make a decision and not get sidetracked by all this noise and bullshit.
Mandruss's version (In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.
) seems like the way to go. Let the body of the article get into specifics, but this is better than the version that is currently in the lead. Are we all agreed? --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Detail should be in the body text. Who knows, maybe it will blow over? SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate Trump's alleged abuses of power and obstruction of justice.
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.
What is everyone's preferred description of the Mueller report in the lead? I personally believe that choice one conveys in a much more accurate manner what the Mueller Report says. But a few editors have suggested that it would be too long to include within the lead, so I wanted to come here and establish consensus on the matter. I personally don't see how it could be labeled as such. Thoughts? ZiplineWhy ( talk) 00:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Choice 1: (Suggested Version) A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.
Choice 2: (Current version) Trump and members of his 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored him, 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.".- Mr X 🖋 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
"which contradicts the very conclusions of the Mueller Report."No. It's a literal quote from the contents of the Mueller Report.
"sounds like an incriminating statement,."Why does that prevent it from being included in the lead? Wikipedia isn't either a promotion or attack page. ZiplineWhy ( talk) 23:23, 14 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.
Mueller Report quotes
|
---|
|
Added I added the revised version to the lead, although I corrected a minor typo within the original version I submitted. (Mueller said "Trump and his campaign" instead of "campaign", etc.) Feel free to include suggested revisions to mine below. ZiplineWhy ( talk) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
What you put in the lead:A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.
Sheesh! You can't do that. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia.
@ JFG: This seems worthy of a consensus #41. Care to create it to make this a "bipartisan" effort? ZiplineWhy said they "might" follow with discussion about a possible revision to the revision, but I don't see much benefit in waiting to see how that plays out; i.e. #41 would be revisable as always. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Trumps Chief of Staff announces here that the next G-7 summit will be held at Doral golf course/resort. This is not only a clear violation of the emoluments clause, The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.. Where and how do we handle this? Oldperson ( talk) 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
ZiplineWhyPlease clarify why you removed so much RS material from this . Your edit summary is non descriptive and inaccurate. Oldperson ( talk) 22:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Please DO NOT comment in this section. This is a test of auto-archival. See this UTP thread for more information.
Left them in place pending discussion in case this is contentious. But: "downplaying his concern about Russian interference in US elections" ???? Makes it sound like he was concerned but chose to be tactful, whereas he in fact said he really did not care. [1]
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The businessman was disconcerted when his train arrived late. Mgasparin ( talk) 01:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should have an agreement not to include lawsuits against Trump unless and until they are successful.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This line is OPINION and NOT fact!! It should be removed!! "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. This next line SHOULD read as follows: "Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as allegedly racially charged or racist." 72.95.147.133 ( talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 72.95.147.133 ( talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The lead section's third paragraph was written to summarize policy actions undertaken under Trump's presidency. It has been stable for a long time, and I'd like to open a conversation to discuss whether it needs any updates. Here is the current version:
During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, which also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate and allowed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and started negotiations with North Korea towards their denuclearization.
Stats:
Conspicuously absent topics: immigration policy, Trump wall, NATO stance, Middle-East policy beyond Israel support, deregulation efforts, trade deals ( Canada/Mexico, Japan, China), what else? Comments and suggestions welcome. — JFG talk 06:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of editor OR as to what's most significant. We now have extensive tertiary sources -- summary articles in academic media, non-daily periodicals, and books -- that should be used for perspective. Those sources prioritize the deprecation of post WW2 world order (NATO, Free Trade, etc.), Deconstruction of the US Federal Government, Politicization of the US Judiciary, the southern border atrocities, and the focus on reality-TV style show communication to replace historical and conventional modes of US presidential speech. These are the items RS tell us are of lasting significance. So, just for one example: The "Wall" is an instance of the last, not per se a significant policy or event. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
He embraced Twitter as a communication toolis possible. starship .paint ( talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in migrant detentions, family separations, and a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, while rescinding the individual health insurance mandate. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.
During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies included migrant detentions, family separations, and a travel ban. He enacted tax-cuts for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump's America First agenda included withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Iran nuclear deal. He triggered a trade war with China and Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.
I'm very encouraged with the discussion here. It looks like we are all on board the trimming train, but there's just a little bit of disagreement as to which track it should take. Let's see more examples of text, please. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
off-topic RE: Trump University trim SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Putting this in a green box for consideration. Lead should be summary not detail.
He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, other regional alliances, and the partnerships underlying the TPP talks and the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Short and sweet simple and descriptive, not narrative. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, other regional alliances, and the partnerships underlying the Paris Climate Accords, TPP talks and the Iran Nuclear Deal. He appointed scores of Conservative and Originalist Federal judges, rolled back environmental and consumer protection regulations. and forged personal relationships with various autocratic leaders around the world.
SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The signature image is quite out-of-date (from at least as far back as 2009); Donald Trump has changed the average look of his signature to look significantly different. Erik Humphrey ( talk) 23:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A Republican source inside the Trump-Pelosi meeting described attendees as "alarmed," "shaken" and "shell-shocked" by the President’s demeanor.
"He is not in control of himself. It is all yelling and screaming."
Q: "is it getting worse?"
A: "100 percent"
Q: "are you worried about his stability?"
A: "yes"
https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1184953968364908545
soibangla ( talk) 00:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand these consensus do not stand forever.You understand correctly. The relevant policy is at WP:CCC. Consensuses do not stand forever, but a consensus that required this much editor time investment usually stands for considerably longer than two months. That's 18,000 words, if you're keeping score. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
We have a very firm consensus that discussions of Trump's mental health are essentially off the table, but I agree that this could be considered a separate issue that would need a corresponding change to the heading of this discussion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Lighten up you editors. MrX's distinction makes sense and anyone should feel free to add well-sourced content that describes significant, unusual, or alarming behaviors. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps fork off these parts with prominent instructions or invitation to click on the fork. Oldperson ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
there is so much room for cutting present text that I am not very concerned about that.Right, editors have been making that argument for around two years, and precious little cutting has occurred, this being the result. I'm far more impressed by results than words. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Instead of pointless talk page chat, somebody with an overview of the matter should add appropriate article text -- avoiding all the pseudo-psychiatric terms and conditions. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a graph of the article's file size over time, starting May 2014. It shows file size at the beginning of each month. This should be useful in any discussions of file size here. Horizontal grid lines are at intervals of 100,000 bytes.
Many thanks to User:Cobaltcigs for creating this graphing script in response to my WP:VPT inquiry asking whether such a script existed. And fast! ― Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh gawd. So I had no idea this is the article you meant. But yes, I'd agree that its size is way out of control. ― cobaltcigs 02:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
So you want a massive change, but you don't want it to happen.I want it to happen at a reasonable pace. This is a simple enough concept that I must assume you are deliberately not hearing me. Further, I have not suggested
an academic conference about every punctuation mark. Hyperbolic language suggests hyperbolic thinking, and neither is helpful. ― Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)