Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies

• Does this section abide by WP:NPOV and WP:BLP?
• Are the tags {{POV section}} and {{Criticism}} justified?

Please review comments at above 2 discussions, especially Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#New section on authoritarian tendencies.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• NPOV concerns are justified - After glancing at this section, I think the content may be OK, but the way the content is presented is probably not. I don't think this should be its own section, and the section title is not appropriate. Ideally this section would be moved to a subsection called "Presidential authority" under the Domestic Policy subsection. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Concerns NOT justified - There is frequent and persistent use of the term "Authoritarian" to describe Trump: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. I have also renamed the section Accusations of authoritarianism  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Janweh64 for that change to the title, the orignial was mine and I was not happy with it, but that is certainly an improvement.Mozzie (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

* Support – Trump is literally Hitler reincarnate. Ever compared his birth date with Hitler's suicide? — JFG ^talk 03:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Was I being sarcastic or dead serious? Dear reader, you be the judge. — JFG ^talk 03:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• May I remind you that Trump is a BLP. To liken him to a foul, racist, murderous dictator who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, is pretty disgusting. Your unfunny view has the potential to upset a large amount of people who are still affected by the aftermath of what Hitler did, but who also support Trump. What could be conceived from this is that you also believe that those who support him also support the idea of mass genocide and hate. I'll give you a chance to alter your comment first before I do. Cassianto^Talk 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I was obviously making fun of the constant smearing of Donald Trump, who happens to be the legitimately elected president of the USA. Those who call him authoritarian inform their readers and listeners more about their own state of mind than about his. Comment stricken. — JFG ^talk 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but that kind of irony isn't conveyed as well over text and could violate our BLP policy, whether it was a joke or otherwise. Thanks for the strike and for you're explanation here. Cassianto^Talk 08:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I managed to trigger Poe's law and the Godwin point simultaneously; where's my barnstar? — JFG ^talk 08:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – This section is a highly POV collection of innuendo and overblown fearmongering. Sources calling Trump authoritarian are just opinions, and a lot of them are speculative to boot ("what might go wrong if he turns authoritarian"), hence not encyclopedic. Not everything the press prints is fit for Wikipedia. We have core policies against this: NPOV, BLP, UNDUE, INDISCRIMINATE, et al. Or how about basic decency and respect for the office? — JFG ^talk 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wasn't aware that "respect for the office" is a Wikipedia policy. Anyway, have you considered that it is precisely "basic decency and respect for the office" (as opposed the person in it) that motivates the scholars and analysts to write these analyses? Unlike... nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• POV and criticism - and really WP:OFFTOPIC because the section is not describing his presidential actions and policies, it's just giving a WP:SOAPBOX space to outside opinions or criticism or politically-motivated posturing WP:POV. I'll point out the precedent in describing all other presidencies (see Category:United States presidential administrations) is about factually describing the domestic and foreign policies and major events. Delete the section. Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the section is not describing his presidential actions and policies", no that's actually precisely what the section does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Obviously not -- the topic is the acts and policies of the administration, so a generic collection of statements randomly asserting something not involving such is clearly WP:OFFTOPIC. These do not even identify ANY actions or policies involved or even say whether it is actual or just notional concern, it's just a vague collection of statements with no basis. Markbassett (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • These statements, which are actually NOT "generic" if you bother to read the sources, nor are they "random", nor "vague", actually DO "identify" actions and policies of the administration. You are critiquing (and basing your !vote on) something you IMAGINE, not what what actually IS. Adjust accordingly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The text presented in the article was generic, and is the only topic of discussion here. In particular it was not naming any executive order, appointment, treaty, policy statement, military action, or anything else that is an part of a Presidency and so nothing applicable to the topic 'Presidency of'. This article is not for remarks about the person and personality, as imagined by various professors, it is for the office and conduct of that Presidency in actual reality, with any comments to those things in their section -- strucured by the aspects of the office, and not by the caegories of opiions about the man. A generic collection of views thinking "Authoritarian" with not even a connection shown to reality simply does not suit. Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Undue. The language isn't terrible, but this is terribly undue emphasis. There are so, so many heavily covered aspects to the Trump presidency and so, so many different heavily covered criticisms. Why does this one get a top-level section while other aspects (say, his dishonesty, his divisiveness, his temperament) don't their own sections anywhere? This content belongs in Public image of Donald Trump, similar to Public image of Barack Obama. Limited bits and pieces of this content might belong in Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign Policy as well. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman I agree that this doesn't deserve its own top level section, how can we remedy that. Should the other criticisms get coverage as well? How can we cover these criticisms in an NPOV way? Are they more notable than criticisms of other presidents?Mozzie (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: you are needed. Alt3no: Discuss — 13:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I answered that question. The section should go into Public image of Donald Trump. For how to handle criticisms generally, see WP:CRITICISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Undue, WP:Synth, and the tags are justified. Per my previous comment under "new section on authoritarian tendencies." Orser67 (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Section is fine. It's well sourced, the sources are reliable, the sources are notable and not a single person has been able to articulate what exactly is "POV" or "SYNTH" about it. An assertion is not an argument. Neither is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Back up your statements or stop wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• NPOV concerns are justified — As becoming obvious after consideration this section is not appropriate in this way. It is based mostly on opinions and or outlooks. Content of such kind, in case there is a need for it, should be included as suggested by Dr. Fleischman. Keeping a system in the editing of articles of the same kind is key. --Joobo (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• The section is perfectly neutral and given due weight (in fact it should probably be given even more weight). This is an extremely important aspect of Trump's rule, closely related to all the other scandals that have engulfed the US government in chaos since he assumed the office, and it is extensively covered in reliable sources. The complaining about it from certain editors here is just about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, NPOV concerns are justified. I looked at articles about other US Presidents, ones who could reasonably be assessed with authoritarian tendencies and I found no other sections titled like this. Maybe, if other articles about presidents had similar sections, this might be justified with Trump. Even so, I believe that is a stretch at this point, as I too see this section as inappropriate as aptly described by others.Horst59 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Other presidents have similar sections when there is a (relatively) common opinion on them that rose to the level of being worth covering. For instance, John Adams has an [of Monarchism] section. --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I did see that section on Adams. I do not think it reads as authoritarian tendencies as much as a comment about his possible philosophical positions. Authoritarian tendencies are not expressed and only lightly implied. At least that is my reading. FDR does have a brief mention of such implied tendencies in a section under criticism. Jackson has no such language such as authoritarian tendencies expressed while there are criticisms integrated into related sections such as the nullification crisis or Indian removal policies. There they are referred to as a source of controversy. That is why I see a dedicated section on Trump -- or any president -- as biased when labeled authoritarian tendencies. Perhaps, this type of section could be edited into other presidents, but I don't think that would be helpful, either. They seem appropriate as is, and the Trump article needs this type of editing. Horst59 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I have requested an early close because of possible BLP implications of the disputed section. — JFG ^talk 15:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This section needs a rewrite. It appears to be a violation of many of the policies and guidelines listed previously, but also WP:SPECULATION. I would also qualify it as WP:PROPAGANDA, in the sense that is biased, unbalanced towards the negative, and largely subjective. Still, 'authoritarian' is not just an opinion such as 'good' or 'bad'; it is wholly suitable for the article if it is presented in an encyclopædic manner. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 18:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Unsure This article certainly reads as NPOV, but is it? I am sincerely unsure. WP:NPOV says neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Can we find a variety of reliable sources on this issue that would make it non biased, or does this generally fairly represent reliable sources? Regarding WP:BLP Trump is a public figure. The policy states that In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This content is noteworthy, relevant and well documented. The policy is clear. It belongs in the article.Mozzie (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Section unquestionably abides by NPOV and BLP. The content is well-cited and (given the high profile and quality of many of the sources, and the fact that they discuss it directly and in depth) clearly worth covering. There is some room to argue over how best to portray them or the precise tone that ought to be used, but BLP allows for well-cited, high-profile criticism, which this indisputably is; and NPOV requires it. In particular, the chief objection seems to be that "these are opinions" (with some smattering of "these are just political opinions!"); however, that is irrelevant. Opinions, when they are well-cited, widely-held, and held by relevant people, absolutely do belong in an article - in particular, the opinions of historians and scholars are important to summarize when discussing political topics. There is some room to discuss exactly how to summarize or weight them, but the implicit argument that they could be omitted entirely (or that NPOV would allow such a thing, let alone encourage it) is baseless. --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Section is a negative editorial against Trump and coatrack. The section is just an excuse to quote as many liberal college professors as possible to make the argument that Trump is the next Hitler. It is undue weight. The whole topic could be covered in one or two sentence, tops, and incorporated into another topic. It is full of speculation and propaganda and the-sky-is-falling comments from professors from places like Berkeley and Harvard. Trim it down and incorporate it into another area.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's law again. (Don't worry, Mr. Trump will have his own law by the end of the decade! Maybe he already does…) Alt. Eno 14:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WRONG! On May 15th, one of supporters of the biased section cited an article from the Independent (See the Trump is Hitler article here!) that called Trump Hitler and a Fascist. The editor that cited that article is (Janweh64). The article literally starts with the premise that a Yale professor is saying that Trump is Hitler. The first sentence of the article used to support this ludicrous section is: "Donald Trump has been compared to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin by a professor at America's distinguished Yale University." So, you are wrong, of course. But please note Alt. Eno your off topic comment did prove the point that the article is full of references to college professors that are one fry short of a happy meal. Do we really need an section that all it does is collect the deranged thoughts of Trump is Hitler college professors? We have other places for the speculation and the conspiracy BS. Trim it down and move it to those areas.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's Law The Alteno-Delphi Yale Professor Law, then…? A little humor never hurts. Alt. Eno 15:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. But editor JFG beat you to the Godwin punch on May 16th. Please see above. Finally, the section is Essay-like and a coatrack.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, as a section title, it makes Wikipedia look not NPOV. However, strongly recommend working relevant material into other sections, as events and facts, rather than this section cobbled together of commentary. Sagecandor (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• RfC is procedurally invalid - an RfC is supposed to make a specific proposal (i.e., "add/delete X" or "change X to Y"), not ask a generic question ("Does this abide by X?"). In other words, if there is a problem, the we need a remedy, not just a diagnosis. If the question is "should this entire section be deleted?" then I would certainly oppose that. However, I am open to reworking the content and perhaps disbursing it to other parts of the article. The closing administrator should direct editors to make a specific proposal, and take no further particular action at this time. As to BLP, I see no meaningful BLP issues here since the material is cited and attributed to academics, and the person concerned is the world's most public figure. (Discussions can be had about wording and weight, but these are editorial and style issues, not BLP concerns). Neutrality^talk 20:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. I agree with Neutrality above that this RfC is problematic as insufficiently specific. Also the section in question does not exist at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The section in question was renamed and moved to Political ideology. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Tag is justified, and the section should be removed as WP:POV and WP:COATRACK. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Remove all maintenance tags from section.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the offending section. Just junk. The bulk here seems to feel both POV and Criticism tags are appropriate, plus Synth and some elements of OFFTOPIC or BALANCE and SOAPBOX and one of invalid RFC. p.s. Much the same content is now with the title changed to "Political Ideology". Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Leave the NPOV tag as the section needs work. I changed the heading to political ideology because I think it gives a better focus for the article. However I have not changed the content due to lack of time. Previous discussions of NPOV, coatrack, synth, offtopic, soapbox and essay are claimed repeatedly, but have not been demonstrated against the actual content of the policies. Also, this is not a vote (WP:DEMOCRACY). Several commentors have noted that this content has is relevant to the topic and well referenced using reliable sources, although all note that it needs improvement.203.219.159.201 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

unspecific opinions and elevated above due weight is self-demonstrated. Professor blah dislike simply is not widely reported so fails BALASP. Lack of any other POV fails NPOV. Just a space to gather such fails COATRACK and just is doing SOAPBOX ranting. These are not from a single source or speaking to a single event so fail SYNTH ... it just looks like a google on authoritarian trump. On top of that it's just got no real content value --a casual reader can gather that some unknowns on .edu dislike him, but this is hardly news or informative. Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony about news article

Footnote 261 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example:

“ Easley, Jonathan. "Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was." ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I watched the Comey testimony. He admitted these things. What did he say was wrong about it? And why have I been banned when I committed no violations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey memos

Wordhewer Thank you for your revision 789225583 but I disagree that your interpretation of "one" was supported but the references.

Comey wrote multiple memos concerning his interactions with President Trump and in one Trump attempted to persuade Comey to abort the investigation into General Flynn.

I think "one" referred to "interactions" not "memos" so I agree with you that it was confusing as originally worded. In FBI jargon as used throughout this section "memo" seems to include the meaning of "formally filed contemporaneous notes" and does not necessarily mean "disseminated intraoffice communication." But I disagree that Trump made "a communication of his own" (to whom?) as documented by the multiple references on the lede sentence. Hopefully, we have made progress towards clarifying the lede sentence of this section. Dakleman (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at this paragraph I see it has problems including redundancy (we don't really need to say twice here, and a third time below, that Comey prepared memos) and a confusing compound sentence. Here's the paragraph as it stands:

Comey wrote multiple memos documenting his meetings and telephone conversations with President Trump and, in one such communication, Trump attempted to persuade Comey to abort the investigation into General Flynn.[46][47][48][49][50][51] Comey prepared a detailed memo after every meeting with President Donald Trump.[52] One memo referred to an February 14, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Comey and Trump, in which, according to the memo, the president stated "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."[48] Comey made no commitments to Trump on the subject.[48]

Here's a proposed modification:

Comey prepared detailed memos documenting most of his meetings and telephone conversations with President Trump.[52] In his memo about a February 14, 2017 Oval Office meeting between Comey and Trump, Comey says Trump attempted to persuade him to abort the investigation into General Flynn.[46][47][48][49][50][51] According to the memo, the president stated, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."[48] Comey made no commitments to Trump on the subject.[48]

I'd also suggest that you don't really need six references for that one sentence and a few could probably be dropped. Thoughts? MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, like most good edits on Wikipedia, I think that's a good start. (also I fixed your missing signature above) Dakleman (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)