Talk:Donald Trump
![]() |
Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
|
Article policies
|
||
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 | |||
|
![]() |
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Donald Trump, along with other highly visible articles relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). The current restrictions are:
An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorized discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "This is the President of the United States". |
![]() |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned peer reviews: Pstein92. |
![]() |
This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird. |
![]() |
This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 7 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
![]() |
This was the most viewed article on Wikipedia for the week of December 612, 2015; January 31February 6, February 2127, February 28March 5, March 612, March 1319, October 915, October 1622, November 612, and November 1319, 2016; January 1521 and January 2228, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report. |
![]() |
Daily page views |
![]() |
Contents
- 1 Open RfCs and surveys
- 2 Current consensus
- 3 Image discussions rendered moot
- 4 Suggestion: Remove Trump's twitter comment concerning his support for protests against Obama.
- 5 Cropping the Picture
- 6 I don't think Gorsuch belongs in the lead
- 7 Manafort indictment in lead
- 8 Mueller investigation
- 9 "called for" vs "asked"
- 10 Is it really necessary to stick to the official portrait?
Open RfCs and surveys[edit]
- None
Current consensus[edit]
NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n]
.
1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2, link 3) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)
2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)
3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)
4. Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)
5. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation ($3.5 billion), and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2017 edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)
6. Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn. (link)
7. Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3)
8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (link)
9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)
10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)
11. The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)
12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)
13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)
14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (link)
15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, "). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
17. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (See link 1, link 2, link 3 and link 4 for substance; link 5 and link 6 for minor changes. Amended by lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017.)
18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "The Wharton School (B.S.inEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2)
19. Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)
20. Mention protests in the lede section with this exact wording: His election and policies sparked numerous protests. (link)
21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2)
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (link)
23. The lead includes the following sentence: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after legal challenges. Wikilinks in the sentence are not covered by this consensus. (link 1, link 2)
Image discussions rendered moot[edit]
Looks like the image discussions have been rendered moot by the release of the actual official portraits. Atleast it is way better than the previous one. Galobtter (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Truly the end of an era. Looks like my DM to Doug Coulter is useless now. PhilrocMy contribs 00:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- true but the line "and made available for sale to the public" is a red-flag, looks like Dumbo's staff are making their own legislation as they go along ..--Stemoc 16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It says "Produced by the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO)", so PD US GOV. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- What do you think they're "making up" ? Could be mistaken, but I do not think that the GPO prints materials for the pubic for free. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing is free, Stemoc. Even Obama's 2009 portrait is $18.00 (and has been since 2009). It has nothing to do with Trump and his decisions. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Public, even. To my knowledge the GPO doesn't print materials for the pubic, period. Perhaps they should. Mandruss 20:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- "For sale" likely means prints; they wouldn't be releasing high-definition images like that to the public if you have to pay to look at them. Codyorb (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed! Finally the Trump admin has released free portraits. Glad we won't need endless image discussions here anymore. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-
- The whole saga quite honestly struck me as petty and unnecessary. I might have believed the admins that wanted it taken down had they not felt compelled to call the President silly names like children in their arguments. IMHO that kind of immaturity, as reflected in a comment above, is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia even on the talk pages. If you wanna make a swipe at POTUS at least use some wit and subtlety. But, I am glad this yearlong fight is over. It is kind of ridiculous the Administration took this long to put out a basic portrait. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @JFG: I agree this looks like case closed. Care to take a shot at change to The List? I wouldn't know what to link. Mandruss 20:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
So, somebody update the "current consensus" list at the top of the page! --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: See my comment immediately above. I don't trust myself to do this one right, which is why I called on JFG. Sure, "somebody" can do it, provided they don't make a fuss if JFG then does it right. My inclination is to wait. Mandruss 22:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just tried but I'll be happy to let JFG clean up after me. For one thing, the link will have to be changed when this is archived. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- My concern was whether this little thread was sufficient support for the consensus, and, if not, what else needs to be linked. Mandruss 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- All previous decisions about an image have been expressly temporary; the consensus was always "use this until the official portrait is released". There has been consensus to use this picture (no matter what it looked like) since January - actually well before. I suppose we could link to all those "...until the official portrait is released" discussions for added weight but I don't think it's necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN and Mandruss: Thanks for the ping. Melanie's item #24 looks good to me. One more thing settled... JFG talk 09:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have updated item #1 with the latest discussion; item #24 is unnecessary. Per RfC outcome of 12 December 2016: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. We have finally reached that point. JFG talk 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN and Mandruss: Thanks for the ping. Melanie's item #24 looks good to me. One more thing settled... JFG talk 09:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- All previous decisions about an image have been expressly temporary; the consensus was always "use this until the official portrait is released". There has been consensus to use this picture (no matter what it looked like) since January - actually well before. I suppose we could link to all those "...until the official portrait is released" discussions for added weight but I don't think it's necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- My concern was whether this little thread was sufficient support for the consensus, and, if not, what else needs to be linked. Mandruss 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just tried but I'll be happy to let JFG clean up after me. For one thing, the link will have to be changed when this is archived. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If a consensus is needed, then I'd like to voice my full support for this Godsend of a portrait. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Amen to that. It only took them ten months. And people complained when Clinton's portrait wasn't released until June of his first year in office! --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's easier to get a decent photo of Clinton. About four months easier, apparently. Mandruss 23:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- And as for whether this one is a "decent photo" ... no comment. At least it's better than the scowling one they offered us at first. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's as good as Donald will ever look short of a face transplant. Mandruss 23:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Discussions like this really remind us how biased Wikipedia can get. None of these comments are even relevant. President Trump looks fantastic in the photo, and it should be displayed since it is his official portraiture. Try to stay WP:Cool when editing, no one needs to read your hate-filled remarks. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- @AlaskanNativeRU: Hateful political remarks in these dicusssions were inevitable; he's Trump, possibly one of the most hated presidents in history. PhilrocMy contribs 01:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to reveal their bias on an article talk page, provided they don't overdo it and cross the line into WP:NOTFORUM territory or violate WP:BLP (it is not a BLP violation to let loose a rare comment about Donald Trump's appearance, and your dissenting opinion is noted). I've probably done that three or four times in the past year, with very brief comments. And I stay cool as a cucumber when editing the article, thanks, and I don't allow my bias to affect my editing of the article or discussion of same on this page. And nobody is disputing that it should be displayed since it is his official portraiture. Mandruss 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Discussions like this really remind us how biased Wikipedia can get. None of these comments are even relevant. President Trump looks fantastic in the photo, and it should be displayed since it is his official portraiture. Try to stay WP:Cool when editing, no one needs to read your hate-filled remarks. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's as good as Donald will ever look short of a face transplant. Mandruss 23:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- And as for whether this one is a "decent photo" ... no comment. At least it's better than the scowling one they offered us at first. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's easier to get a decent photo of Clinton. About four months easier, apparently. Mandruss 23:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Remove Trump's twitter comment concerning his support for protests against Obama.[edit]
The first paragraph in the "Protests" section states:
" Trump's election victory sparked protests across the United States. His opponents took to the streets to amplify their opposition to Trump's views and denounce his inflammatory statements. Trump initially said on Twitter that the protests consisted of "professional protesters, incited by the media", and were "unfair", but he later stated that he loves their passion for the country.[431][432] After Obama's re-election in 2012, Trump had tweeted "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" "
I think the last sentence is out of place and should be removed, since this section is supposed to describe the protests against Trump, not how Trump viewed Obama's presidency or whether he supported protests at that time. The only reason I can imagine for including what seems like a non-sequitur, is that the author wanted to try to demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of the president (as I recall this was the same thing mainstream news networks were trying to point out at the time). Thus as it likely exists solely to try to put the president in a bad light, I think it quite conceivably breaks Wikipedia's neutrality policies. In any case it serves no purpose in this section. Thank you!
192.0.162.183 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thus as it likely exists solely to try to put the president in a bad light, I think it quite conceivably breaks Wikipedia's neutrality policies. WP:NPOV means that we should represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If numerous RS reports all prominently point out the hypocrisy, then we can put it whether it puts the president in a bad light. However in this case, judging by the article on the protests, I think we should simply cut Trump's reaction and instead describe more of the protests and their purpose in more detail (that first sentence is pretty bad) which are much more prominent than his reaction. Or at least the quotes should be cut and his response (and perhaps hypocrisy) quickly summarized. Galobtter (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Remove It's incredibly trivial. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Cropping the Picture[edit]
I think that someone should slightly crop the top of the official portrait for the infobox. It seems that there is slightly to much space above his head. Could someone with the proper credentials on here do that? --2600:8803:4000:3:2137:6F49:9BE5:C7E7 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I certainly see your point, but bear in mind that the same image is already used on 33 pages at English Wikipedia, not to mention 15 other Wikipedias. What if those editors disagree? We could create a separate cropped version, but is it worth it to trim ~10-15 pixels off the top? There is a little to be said for keeping the "official" portrait pure and unaltered. Mandruss 01:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think the photo should remain in the same format as it was released by the White House, at least for this and the Trump Presidency articles. Aesthetically, I don't believe it would benefit from cropping.- MrX 02:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Photographer and White House chose this framing; leave it be. JFG talk 02:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- No no nooooooo! I think we should focus more on improving the article than starting another image discussion. Anyhow, removing those pixels would change the aspect ratio to not be that off a portrait and make it too squarish. It looks fine currently. Galobtter (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, reducing the height of the full-size image by 37 pixels would give it a 0.8:1 aspect ratio, which is fairly standard for a formal portrait, at least where I come from. That's the aspect ratio for both Barack and Hillary. I don't propose that we crop it for that reason, the arguments against are weightier and we're already close enough at 0.789:1. Just sayin'. Mandruss 02:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think it might be from Trump taking up more of the image and being lower in the picture than Obama in his picture but personally I thought this picture was more squarish than Obama's. Galobtter (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. When we start letting visual perception into it, it becomes completely subjective. But the numbers don't lie: Barack is 0.801:1; since 1:1 is square, that's a little closer to square than 0.789:1. Mandruss 02:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think it might be from Trump taking up more of the image and being lower in the picture than Obama in his picture but personally I thought this picture was more squarish than Obama's. Galobtter (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, reducing the height of the full-size image by 37 pixels would give it a 0.8:1 aspect ratio, which is fairly standard for a formal portrait, at least where I come from. That's the aspect ratio for both Barack and Hillary. I don't propose that we crop it for that reason, the arguments against are weightier and we're already close enough at 0.789:1. Just sayin'. Mandruss 02:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- "It seems that there is slightly to much space above his head." there wouldn't be too much difference, though I'm prefering the previous pic, on the current one he looks like a monkey. 213.197.75.54 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Gorsuch belongs in the lead[edit]
It seems very odd to mention Gorsuch by name in the lead section. The President appoints scores of people, his cabinet to start with, and many other influential civil servants such as Directors of the FBI, the CIA and so on and so forth. No cabinet member, not even the most senior such as Rex Tillerson, and no other appointees either, are mentioned by name in the lead section. In the entire world the position of judge, even on the country's supreme court, would be seen as junior to the entire cabinet and 99% of the world would regard it as a routine appointment of a civil servant. I don't think Gorsuch is regarded as more influential in the US than other Trump appointees such as Tillerson and other cabinet members either. --Tataral (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be better to leave Neil Gorsuch out of the lead, but still say he successfully nominated a Supreme Court Justice. Its a life position, and the Court now occupies a bigger role in American life than courts do in the vast majority of other countries (e.g. the people of Ireland legalized gay marriage by voting on it whereas it was done by judicial decision in the U.S.). But we neednt name Gorsuch in the lead, because its too much detail, and anyway the whole reason they wear black robes is to symbolize that individual personalities arent supposed to matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The judgement of whether to include it should not be based upon the the role being bigger compared to other countries but the notability of Trump in appointing him. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. In an administration bereft of achievements, the appointment is quite important. Trump himself has touted it as being one of great accomplishments. You can see this CNN article where it is talked about as possibly greatest achievment till april, and nothing much has happened since. Galobtter (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The judgement of whether to include it should not be based upon the the role being bigger compared to other countries but the notability of Trump in appointing him. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The nomination of Neil Gorsuch was a particularly controversial and widely-covered story, which has lasting impact on the balance of the US Supreme Court; this is why it belongs in the lead section. However we should certainly review the contents of this paragraph, which is meant to summarize the key issues of Trump's presidency so far. The one-off missile strike in Syria in response to a chemical attack did not develop into a bigger story, and should imho be removed. JFG talk 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Lasting impact"? We don't know that yet, that's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. He has served for a couple of months, less than most of Trump's cabinet members who have far more power (e.g. Tillerson who directs US foreign policy and has some 70,000 people working directly for him, compared to the handful of assistants a judge gets), and hasn't done anything noteworthy. The appointment of a judge is not, in itself, an "achievement" any more than the appointment of his cabinet, or his other statutory duties. The fact that he would even see this as an "achievement" merely demonstrates his lack of actual achievements, but still, Gorsuch doesn't deserve to be the only appointee mentioned in the lead (among many who are far more influential and whose appointments were also widely discussed in RS). --Tataral (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tataral: Please note that I did not call the Gorsuch appointment an "achievement", either in the article or in this discussion. We certainly cannot guess what his lasting impact will be, if any; however most sources reporting on this appointment did mention that it would surely have an impact, especially as the last Obama Supreme Court nominee had been filibusted by the GOP-controlled Senate, paving the way for a more conservative Justice. We go by sources JFG talk 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Lasting impact"? We don't know that yet, that's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. He has served for a couple of months, less than most of Trump's cabinet members who have far more power (e.g. Tillerson who directs US foreign policy and has some 70,000 people working directly for him, compared to the handful of assistants a judge gets), and hasn't done anything noteworthy. The appointment of a judge is not, in itself, an "achievement" any more than the appointment of his cabinet, or his other statutory duties. The fact that he would even see this as an "achievement" merely demonstrates his lack of actual achievements, but still, Gorsuch doesn't deserve to be the only appointee mentioned in the lead (among many who are far more influential and whose appointments were also widely discussed in RS). --Tataral (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal of Gorsuch from the lede. In a biography of Trump's entire life, the appointment isn't especially noteworthy. We do not mention the two justices appointed by Obama in the lede of Barack Obama. The noteworthy aspect of Gorsuch's appointment came prior to Trump's election, when Republicans employed extraordinary measures to prevent Obama from appointing Garland - nothing to do with Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
- Just to clarify, the proposal above (at the start of this thread) is that we stop mentioning Gorsuch by name in the lead, and I support that. But I also support mentioning in the lead that he successfully nominated an (unnamed) Supreme Court Justice, for the reasons I already gave. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
-
- Oppose removing it, or removing Gorsuch's name (what does that accomplish?). Leave it in the lede, as is. This is his only major legislative accomplishment, and possibly the single most lasting effect of his presidency. It's an eight-word sentence, there's room for it. We manage to find room for 20 words about his travel ban, which is nowhere near as significant or long-lasting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. Personally, I dont think appointing a justice is an accomplishment since a president is handed the opportunity and such appointments have an 80% approval rate. But, what I personally think is irrelevant. If RS say its an accomplishment, and there are so few accomplishments, it belongs in the lead. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Manafort indictment in lead[edit]
As for User:Tatarals insertion into the lead (subsequently the special counsel indicted Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort for conspiracy against the United States), I disagree with that because the behavior for which Manafort was indicted had nothing to do with Trump, nor anything to do with his campaign or his administration; its mainly a way for Mueller to pressure Manafort into cooperation and/or spilling beans, and/or turning on Trump, none of which has happened (yet). Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
-
- It would be better to start a new section for discussion of the wording related to the special counsel investigation, because it isn't related to the issue raised here (which, if any, Trump appointees who should be mentioned by name in the lead section). But I do think the material about Manafort is warranted. The focus of the special counsel's investigation is potential links between Russia and Trump's campaign/possible Russian interference in the election/related matters, so the indictment of Manafort is clearly seen in that context and not as something completely unrelated to Trump, his campaign and the election. Also, Manafort wasn't merely someone who worked on the campaign, but was its head, which underlines the importance of the indictment in the context of this article. RS seem to agree that this is, so far, the most notable result of the special counsel's investigation, and that it is highly significant not only for Manafort, but also for Trump's presidency. The appointment of the special counsel has already been mentioned in the lead for a long time, so I consider this a mere update on how the investigation is proceeding. --Tataral (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ive inserted a header so the Manafort indictment is now a separate section at this talk page, per your suggestion. A mere update on how the investigation is proceeding doesnt need to be in this lead, but is fine for the lead in the investigation article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've reverted to the status quo until this is decided. Considering Mueller's investigation is hardly even talked about in the body (see section I created below), I don't think a mere update is enough to belong in the lead. Galobtter (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- It would be better to start a new section for discussion of the wording related to the special counsel investigation, because it isn't related to the issue raised here (which, if any, Trump appointees who should be mentioned by name in the lead section). But I do think the material about Manafort is warranted. The focus of the special counsel's investigation is potential links between Russia and Trump's campaign/possible Russian interference in the election/related matters, so the indictment of Manafort is clearly seen in that context and not as something completely unrelated to Trump, his campaign and the election. Also, Manafort wasn't merely someone who worked on the campaign, but was its head, which underlines the importance of the indictment in the context of this article. RS seem to agree that this is, so far, the most notable result of the special counsel's investigation, and that it is highly significant not only for Manafort, but also for Trump's presidency. The appointment of the special counsel has already been mentioned in the lead for a long time, so I consider this a mere update on how the investigation is proceeding. --Tataral (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would also assess that Manafort's indictment on prior activities is off-topic and WP:UNDUE for the lead section of Trump's biography. JFG talk 18:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Mueller investigation[edit]
the Justice Department appointed Comey's predecessor Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters. - This sentence on Mueller's investigation is quite long and prominent. Yet this is hardly even mentioned in the body. Mueller's name isn't even mentioned elsewhere! Reckon this should be shortened to the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters. and some more information on the investigation added to the dismissal of Comey section since this is one of the most important matters related to his administration. Galobtter (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I gave a shot at rephrasing the sentence in the lead:[2] not mentioning Mueller by name, but linking to the dedicated article about his investigation. It's still a bit long for the lead, though. JFG talk 18:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The article needs more inputed in the article. We should mention him by name per WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"called for" vs "asked"[edit]
@Mandruss: Regarding your comment that "called for" connotes speaking to them through the media, in the third person - is that not the case here?, thanks for educating me to this subtlety. In the event, the phrase refers to a keynote speech that Trump gave to 50+ leaders of Muslim countries worldwide, as they had been invited to Riyadh for the Arab Islamic American Summit. So he was addressing them directly, not through the media. Not sure whether it makes a difference about which verb to use. JFG talk 22:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- It makes all the difference. I have self-reverted. Thanks for educating ME! Mandruss 22:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to stick to the official portrait?[edit]
- 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 old one seemed way better to me; he looks lunatic (hey, just saying!) with that goofy grin portrait. 2.51.17.85 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's convention to use the free official portrait as the infobox image. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- If hes grinning, people say the grin is goofy. If hes frowning, people say he should be grinning. Its useful to have a standard answer, like we just use the official portrait. Otherwise well still be debating the image when Barron Trump or Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky is president. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Donald Trump articles
- Top-importance Donald Trump articles
- WikiProject Donald Trump articles
- C-Class New York City articles
- High-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- Top-importance United States articles
- C-Class American television articles
- Mid-importance American television articles
- WikiProject American television articles
- C-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- C-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- C-Class U.S. Presidents articles
- High-importance U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Version 1.0 articles
- High-importance Version 1.0 articles
- Social sciences and society Version 1.0 articles
- C-Class Version 0.7 articles
- High-importance Version 0.7 articles
- Wikipedia Version 0.7 selected articles
- Social sciences and society Version 0.7 articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles
- Former good article nominees
- Spoken Wikipedia requests
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press