Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

Does Notable Departures Table Warrant a Sub-Page of its Own

Rather than continuing to grow the table on the existing Presidency of Donald Trump page, is there a consensus if this table should be moved to its own sub-page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librariansomeday (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Librariansomeday TALK for the Donald Trump article just proposed something like this as a related article here -- and found there were already two lists: List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments and List of Donald Trump dismissals and resignations. (There may be more among the so much Trump coverage.) I'm thinking that the section is not an independent topic suitable to be an article page, but might make for a third list page in order to shorten this one up. More than that pruning would seem necessary for covering his second year in office but this seems a helpful idea. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would favor deleting the table from this page and just linking to List of Donald Trump dismissals and resignations. This article is getting too long already. Orser67 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump and truth

I'm requesting that you restore this content. There are many types of untrue statements he utters, and including criticism of Obama and Hillary while doing so is one of them. This is a good example that should be kept. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer I've moved your comment to the article talk page. I agree that there are many types of untrue statements. My point is why is this one special enough to be called out. It does not seem particularly noteworthy (as compared to all of the other statements). I almost feel that listing such a minor statement actually weakens the strength of the prior statements which describe an overall pattern. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

When seen in light of other, much more notable false statements, often referred to by RS as lies, this one is indeed a relatively minor one:

In October 2017, Trump falsely claimed that President Obama and other past presidents had failed to write or call the families of U.S. troops who were killed in the line of duty during their tenures.

Now we have only ONE example.

The solution is to include several very notable examples. 3-5 should be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Considering the pitifully small size of this section, rather than just listing more examples, it would be better to add more varied content, such as reports from social scientists and their research on the subject of lying (yes, it's a real branch of research, with Trump forcing them to create new categories of lies), reports from major fact checkers, and journalistic investigations (David Fahrenthold won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Trump). Better coverage is the solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Better coverage is the solution, so I've done it. I just added a fully prepared and well-sourced authoritative improvement of this section. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. All the existing content is preserved. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your large addition as undue and a issues with the wording in areas and a couple sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to follow what RS say, but since you object to following the precedent in the sources being quoted, I'll put their words in quotes (I apparently missed five instances), and use synonyms a few other places, as needed. Here is the revised version. Although it is also our job to document opinions, I have not used a few hundred very notable ones because they do use plain language, the type that Wikipedia allows for anyone but Trump, whose content is controlled by editors who follow their own non-policy, policy-violating, Trump Exemption. To completely avoid entanglement in that trap, I have only used documented factual content, using statements from fact checkers and researchers, whose statements are based on actual numbers. This is a far higher bar than what our policies require for all other BLPs, especially for public figures, where the bar for inclusion of controversial content is much lower than for private persons.

The sources are impeccable and the subject is obviously not undue. It's only a tiny bit larger than the next section. The only serious difference of opinion would be which is his most notable character trait: his untruthfulness, his narcissism, or his bullying, and we're not going there. The research shows that they are intertwined, especially in what researchers call "cruel lies" and "self-serving lies".

The content is also varied and interesting. Rather than just making a long list of notable falsehoods, I placed a few of them in one sentence at the end. The rest is much more informative, as a mere listing doesn't give much information beyond what we already know.

Now I hope that we don't see a bunch of "I DON'T LIKE IT" obstructionist wikilawyering used to censor this content, in violation of NPOV. For once it would be nice if ONLY policy ruled here. (It would be a first on a Trump article.)

That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but keeping it out completely is uncalled for. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

False and misleading statements

Bolded content is already in the article.

As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

In a Scientific American article about "How the Science of 'Blue Lies' May Explain Trump's Support", Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Sources

Discussion

It comes down to way to much content coming off as POV and undue. I would like to get some input from others as well on this. Not a fan of the opinion pieces either. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, which opinion pieces?

Also, other angles can certainly be added to this while keeping in mind the actual subject of the section. By all means suggest some actual improvements. Such are always welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

For opinion sources, they are #7, #13, #18, #19, #20, #22, and #29. Oh and #28 is a primary source. That's just a quick look though reading the URLs, I wouldn't be surprised if there was more if I clicked though the sources. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... You do realize that we document opinions here, and that such are totally fair game, especially under WP:Publicfigure? I say that to make it clear that this is a matter of principle and policy here. Your argument on the basis of "it's opinion" is not policy-based.

In spite of the legitimacy of including opinions, in these cases I have not chosen willy nilly personal opinions, but expressions of the state of statistics and research on lying and Trump's untruths. These things have been measured. They aren't just a matter of opinion. I have studiously avoided "mere opinion" sources here. These aren't even controversial, except in some post-truth politics alternative facts universe where all mainstream media is considered fake news on the sole basis that it reflects poorly on Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well since you are clearly a gentleman of policy, then you would agree per WP:NEWSBLOG "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" that all of those opinion sources listed above should be to the writer and not in Wikipedia's voice. Which I will note you did with #7, #19, #20, and #22 but failed to do so with #13, #18, and #29.

I also disagree with the premiss that the opinions of all those listed are indeed noteworthy and thus the opinions of several are well and truly undue. WP:PUBLICFIGURE documents that we can and how it should be done with negative information about a high profile BLP, but does so under the premiss there is enough weight to do so. With that in mind the long standing material in the article was sufficient weight for the importance to his presidency, to add more is to run afoul of WP:NPOV as I am sure you know very well. Finally while this is just an essay, it does contain some useful insight into gossip and news of undue weight WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the clear and specific reply. I can work with that. I have to leave now, but will get to your points later, especially #13, #18, and #29. Thanks for pointing that out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, now I'm able to deal with this: "#13, #18, and #29". I have looked at them and attribution is not necessary for the way they are used. #13 and #18 are totally uncontroversial straight reporting of facts, not for interpretation or commentary. If we used them for their commentary, then of course we'd attribute them. #29 is exactly as it already is in the article. I copied it from there, and would just be keeping it, as is. I don't see any needed to attribute it either, as it too is straight reporting, without any interpretation. If there is still doubt about that, it can be attributed. It is in the article, and no one has objected. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I'm waiting for a response. It has been three days since the content was removed from the article and I have responded to your concerns. Let's move things along here. If there are no substantive policy-based objections, then we should be able to restore this.

The only policy-based objection I can see is a judgment call, and that is the size, but it's perfectly appropriate in an article of this size. Rather than an argument for deletion, it points toward the need to create a spin off subarticle.

Since this is a very small portion of this very notable and extremely well-covered subject, we can also move in that direction, but that normally requires that we literally bloat this section until everyone is screaming that it's far too large. Then we create a separate article and leave a summary here with a "main" hatlink. That's how it works. I don't think we're there yet. We need to return this first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, been kind of bananas here lately. But I still say it gives undue weight to the subject. For reference it balloons the section to larger than the cabinet section, media section, twitter, and most of the policy sections (some of the most important parts of any presidency). All that on added to an article that is already over the recommended WP:SIZE which before the edit is at 105kB, so adding another 14.5kB would be excessive to say the least. Heck it's recommended to split at 50kB. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand the delay. The sections you mention are the summaries for spin off subarticles, except for "Relationship with the media". This is only a little bit larger. The media section could easily become larger and its own article, as could this, but we usually start with a section which balloons and then spins off. This subject is extremely notable and worthy of a fairly large section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable, which is why it already has it's own section of a fair size while being one of the early sections. If you feel that it is important enough to grow to section to a spin off perhaps that would be the way to go instead of just growing this section to dominate the article. On a side note, what is with the domestic economy and environment sections? Those things are gigantic! PackMecEng (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• General support per WP:DUE. A remarkable amount of consistent, widespread, and long-term coverage of the topic. Minor details can be worked out as part of the normal editing process. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have added bolding to the content which is already in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• General fluff as Yes, POV section of Opinion pieces - yes, this is unilateral POV section as shown by lack of space given to contrasting or opposing views, and yes opinion columns as shown by lack of retractions or variation in editor or evidentiary trail of journalism norms, and yes they are pretty much just creative writing some writers choosing to criticise for their market without individual notability, significance, or effect. Nothing wrong with them selling to the audience as Rush Limbaugh does to his and Rachel Maddow does to hers -- but it's a bit WP:OFFTOPIC as not an action of the Presidency nor an event that the powers of the President bear upon. I think it really should not be stated in wiki-voice as objective fact when the 'fact' is voiced opinion in media. Actually, the whole whole "Leadership style and philosophy" section it is in seems misnamed as it is all "Relationship with media" -- it's not expressing Leadership style items such as 'rallies of hyperbolic sound bites and gesturing', or 'transactional relationship to staff' or 'chaotic relationship with Congress'... this is just what the media says about him, he says about media, and what they say about him twittering around them with nothing about how he handles the office and powers of the Presidency. I don't think the material should be spun off into an article -- the topics of facts, truth, Truth, falsity, hyperbole, misleading, deceptive, misinformation, disinformation, dismediation, yellow journalism, fake news, etcetera have been educational since Swift Boat Veterans or 'depends on what your definition of is, is' -- but it's just a bit too fuzzy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• General support per K.e. Coffman - coverage is widespread, long-term, significant. I've seen no reasoned policy-based arguments against this content. Tweaks (such as in-text attribution where necessary or desirable) can be made as part of ordinary course of editing. Neutrality^talk 03:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality: The "reasoned policy-based arguments" listed above amount to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV especially when in relation to a BLP article care must be taken to adhere to police for obvious reasons. The only argument for inclusion, policy wise, given so far is WP:PUBLICFIGURE which this text does not even follow given there is no counter argument from anyone or the BLP in question. Markbassett also makes a strong point just above that a good portion of these sources are just POV opinion pieces, most from non-notable people just giving their thoughts. Which of course would not have enough weight for an encyclopedia. The undue comes into it from not needing to over double the size of the existing section with a bunch of opinion pieces, and ballon it larger than most sections (even ones that do not have their own sub article). I hope you will reconsider your vote. PackMecEng (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Neutrality and K.e.coffman are correct. I have also replied below. Few of the arguments above are actually true or accurate.

"POV opinion pieces"? Descriptions of measurable research by subject experts is not an "opinion". I studiously avoided such content, and even if I had included the myriad very notable persons who have straight out called Trump a "liar", which is their opinion, that would still be allowed under our policies, but I haven't even gone there.

"Counterargument"? Feel free to add it. That type of content would be most relevant for specific allegations of lying. I think that would only apply to paragraph five and the last sentence. With the content here, which is largely based on very notable fact checked false statements, this would mean using sources which claim their opinion trumps professional fact checkers, IOW very fringe sources with little or no weight, and I know that many fringe sources do that. In the face of incontrovertible evidence, they still defend Trump. Including them would be embarrassing, but go ahead and try. I suspect it would be reject on "fringe" and undue weight grounds, but you can always surprise me. Go for it.

The size argument is fatuous. This content is very due, largely because it is very notable and widely covered (I have over 300 VERY RS, and I gave up a year ago), and we're being very restrained with this amount. If it grows larger, then we can start talking about splitting off into a SPINOFF subarticle. We aren't there yet.

The delete arguments don't hold any weight. They are fatuous. The content should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As undue POV edits that fail weight, NPOV, and even RS given low value of most of the opinion sources. As for the "very due" and such yes 300 sources are a lot. But on his presidency? A drop in the bucket, given the hundreds of sources per day. If it took over a year to reach the 300 point you know it is largely undue, especially if you have to scrape the barrel with blogs of people that are dubious on their best day as experts. Also WP:SIZE is a concern seeing as the article if over that limit already. Doubling the size of a section would basically eclipse the rest of the article and give way to much weight to something that by your own admission does not get a lot of coverage. So far the only argument for inclusion boils down to "look I found some sources" which of course is not the only requirement for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support--see argument in section below. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump has been president for less than 18 months and this article is already too long. Though there are a couple sections I favor outright removing, the primary issue is that people aren't using summary style and are instead loading the article down with extraneous details and (cited afaik) opinions. The section as it stands now is much closer to the appropriate level of detail than it would be with the proposed additions. To be clear, I have no opposition to a spin-off article on the topic. Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose stuff that predates Trump presidency – per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I have not seen any compelling policy-based arguments for including material that is not directly related to Trump presidency. Additional comments below. Politrukki (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The only part which predates his presidency is this part: "David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support section (or at least a paragraph) in some form, although I would avoid the laundry-list of opinion-pieces - go for something that condenses these views and ideally finds reliable, non-opinion secondary sources reporting on them to summarize and establish relevance. I would also want to dig for more sources, as I suspect better ones exist. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Aquillion, "opinion pieces"? Where are we using mere opinions? A description of the factual numbers from research and fact checking is not "opinion", regardless of where it's found. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here, here, here, those are all opinion pieces. Beyond that, too much of the proposed section is structured as a bunch of disconnected statements, X said Y, etc. We have better sources that can be used to write a more in-depth section - see the sources I dug up below. "Here's a bunch of examples of Trump lying" isn't the way to go about something like this. Some of the sources up top are good, but we need to rely mainly on secondary sources that take a step back and discuss lies and the Trump administration from a broader scope. --Aquillion (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• There have been some edit conflicts here, so you may not have read my comments. I largely agree with you, but a larger and more in-depth section would not be allowed here. This whole section is about dealing with an attempt to squash this subject and reduce it to a couple paragraphs, if not get rid of it altogether. I suggest you read the comments by Drmies in this whole thread. They are good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

No policy-based arguments have been presented for excluding this material, so I suggest it be added to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Several have been given above on why to exclude the new content. So given the DS on this article I would advice against that. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the ones given do not apply to this content. The content and sources comply with all of them. Flag waving of policy acronyms is not evidence that those policies are violated. When a policy violation is alleged, a specific example must be provided as evidence. That has not happened. If the evidence shows there is a legitimate concern, we can work on bringing the content into compliance. Complete deletion or keeping it all out is not proper.

General allegations of NPOV violations are pretty much worse than useless here, as the way they have been raised amounts to poorly disguised I DON'T LIKE IT. Neutrality's comment above reveals they also do not see any violations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately you are mistaken. Undue and NPOV certainly do apply to this content and your defense of public figure are at best cherry picked and wrong. Also running around waving WP:IDONTLIKEIT can easily be applied to WP:ILIKEIT if your corner, please keep that in mind for the future, just trying to help you there. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Then provide specific evidence. Barring that you're just making accusations. They have no weight without evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is of course subjective, as with all Undue and NPOV as you know, what type of evidence would be acceptable to you? Rather odd request. PackMecEng (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the evidence should not be subjective. There is a limited amount of material. Pick a specific statement and show why it's improper to include it. Vague and subjective accusations are the refuge of those who have no case. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain it to you. For WP:UNDUE from the policy page "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." and "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Which is what I have been saying, on the second quote there you will find reference to what I said above. That yes 300+ sources over a year is a lot for a average article, this is the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Hundreds of quality RS come out daily on this man with his perceived relationship with the truth being a small fraction of the over all coverage of his presidency. Given that is the case it leads to quote one here, since the addition is not in line with the prevalence in RS adding all that would violate the depth of detail and quantity of text listed. Now undue falls under the pillar policy of WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to something that in the grand scheme of things not that big is a violation of neutrality.

Next lets look at the objections to the opinion sources, we will say most fall under the higher bar of WP:NEWSBLOG just for this example, though some are of lower quality than even that. " These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." News blogs as a general rule are not subject to oversight or fact-checking, which makes them dubious for statements of facts and requires in text attribution to the author rather than the site that published them. But even then higher quality sources are required for BLP accusations. Now all of that falls under the umbrella policy WP:V. With that it could also fall under WP:BLPREMOVE, specifically item #4 "relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Which news blogs and other non-notable opinion columns certainly could.

Finally lets look at the only reason given for inclusion besides "hey here are sources" WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the issue I have with this is the last part which has not been satisfied even by the current existing text "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Besides the last part being covered the purposed addition adds nothing new to the existing allegations. So exclusion, does not violate public figure since the accusations are already prominently in the article.

I hope that clearly illustrates the policy based reasons for exclusion and why they apply. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Get specific. For example, what "blogs" are used, and if used, are they used improperly? Keep in mind that the word "blog" on the page or in the URL doesn't always mean it's a blog in the disparaged sense. Just sayin'... So, provide example(s). Then we can actually improve the content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTGETTINGIT, specifically the second paragraph. PackMecEng (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? Disruptive editor? Really? Please AGF.

Now what's wrong with the second paragraph? Glenn Kessler is the lead fact checker at The Washington Post. Which policy forbids including his summary of the actual statistics from what are arguably the most RS we ever use? (BTW, other fact checkers get similar results, so his observations are not an outlier.) Fact checkers are extremely valuable resources. Of all things to object to, why this? Even if it were a mere opinion from him, it would be notable, allowed, and attributed, but this is a summary of actual fact checking results. Me thinks you're really grabbing at straws to block this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference I made to the second paragraph is the second paragraph of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Specifically "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." PackMecEng (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to me the content is concise and properly verified; some vetting by editors here is appreciated and does not take away from the validity of the content as a whole. In other words, I don't think the objections are valid and policy-based, nor do I think that the proposer is incompetent or wasting time. Reliable sources (and there's tons more beyond the ones cited) do think that this is a big deal, and adding 15k to a 345k article makes this not undue (and if size is a concern, find some other place to trim the article, lest you want a spinoff called "Falsehoods uttered by Trump" or something like that). Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:Just for clarification on size the article as it sits is 106 kB readable prose, so adding over 10% more to the article. Also a section on it currently exists which is appropriate weight, adding to it is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, et al, the bolded portion is already used, so we're not adding all that much, so I agree that size is not an issue here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you say "which is appropriate weight [sic]", but that's just like your opinion dude, and I beg to differ. Given the plethora of sources that argue that Trump and the truth have irreconcilable differences, given the frequency of the tweets that according to reliable sources are full of lies and half-truths, and given the importance formerly attached to truth by all kinds of humans (including those who read encyclopedias...), I think that the current six sentences are not sufficient. And BTW, that last sentence, which simply drops in one specific example, is evidence of poor organization, and the proposed version is much better. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:Well bro I respectfully disagree with your assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and Drmies, two of our most experienced admins, and K.e.coffman, are all correct, and the only one dragging this out is PackMecEng. I have patiently and civilly explained, discussed, and requested specific examples of policy violations, but not gotten anything but a spurious accusation of "not getting the point".

Accusations accompanied by policy acronyms, especially what are often the most vague, such as NPOV (as important as it is), are worthless without evidence. Accusations are not evidence, and, as noted by others, these accusations are not valid. No policy is being violated.

The content is soberly written, well-sourced, precisely on-topic for that section, and is a quality improvement to the pitifully small entry there now. It's also definitely very due weight, considering the subject is so notable and worthy of much more coverage. This is a very modest addition.

This obstruction by one editor needs to be broken. When DS restrictions are being used by one editor to prevent proper editing and article improvement, then, deliberately or not, they are being used to game the system, and that's not right. Since DS restrictions are in place, I don't want to be the one to boldly restore this improved content. The proposed content would replace what's there now, as the existing content is included in the addition. We've given this more than enough time, and continued resistance really is tendentious. It's time for PackMecEng to drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Then start an RFC if you want a clear view of consensus. Because the way I see it, right now it is 4 agree and 3 disagree. Far from condenses, especially since none of the concerns listed above have been addressed. Also as a side note, I like how you ping the people that agree with you and not the people that disagree. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"None of the concerns listed above" can be "addressed" without the requested evidence. They just stand there as spurious accusations. They have rightly been rejected by others. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

And supported by others, the crux of the argument is such a large addition would upset the balance and create a NPOV situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

But you're not even correct in your assertion that the sourcing is invalid. "Opinion pieces"--well, first of all there's a TON of obvious non-opinion pieces. Second, take a look at this "opinion"--trigger warning: it contains factual statements about the president of the United States lying (he lied about a phone call with the Boy Scouts???). You could argue easily that part of the title ("Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication") is opinion, but any careful reader will see that the article as a whole is really quite rigorously organized and presents well-documented facts (about Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, etc.) in order to conclude--well, it doesn't actually draw some high-falutin' opinionated conclusion. And given that it is NOT "such a large addition", and given that, ahem, one of your motives here seems to be to whitewash the prez and his reputation, I'm just not impressed. BullRangifer, maybe start an RfC; your sourcing, those 30+ articles, is fine, it will pass the test. And maybe consider putting a separate spin-off in a sandbox. After all, Lies told by President Trump and the Trump government can be voluminous with rigorous sourcing without much of a problem. And yeah, we could have one for Obama too--but there, after "you can keep your doctor" (I kept mine, BTW), there isn't that much to put in there, so SIZE does apply for him. Haha, Trump's is bigger: size matters! :) Drmies (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you are agreeing with my earlier suggestions about an RFC or spin off article. Leaving aside the bad faith accusation of white washing I am personally glad you were able to keep your doctor, good to hear. So I guess we are good here until one of those two things happens. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A spinoff article requires we first include the content here, and then, as the section balloons too much, resolve the undue weight problem by creating a spinoff. That's the normal procedure. Starting with the spinoff article risks running into accusations of an improper POV fork.

Drmies, we may have to start an RfC, but, as you may have noticed by the cheerful agreement to that suggestion, this just plays into the refusal to do the right thing by simply adding the content. An RfC would be part of the gaming the system and obstruction going on here. It would be a step worse than mere wikilawyering. Should this disruptive behavior be rewarded? From experience on Trump articles, we know that a ton of Trump defenders will descend here and do all they can to buy time to prevent inclusion of this properly sourced content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The proposal includes some good content, but some does not belong to this article.

Material that predates Trump presidency has been struck

Bolded content is already in the article. As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. In a Scientific American article about "How the Science of 'Blue Lies' May Explain Trump's Support", Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

1. The paragraph about Trump foundation is mostly about campaign statements that predate presidency. I don't think a Pulitzer Prize awarded during the presidency justifies including the paragraph here. Donald J. Trump Foundation seems to cover the controversy thoroughly.
2. The paragraphs about alternative facts and the one attributed to DePaulo seem solid and appears to adhere to neutral point of view.
3. The paragraph attributed to Smith is probably okay, but as Smith is writing a guest blog, everything before Jeremy Adam Smith seems superfluous.
4. Whether claims about "landslide" or illegal votes are relevant to presidency is debatable, but the "Here are a few of Trump's notable claims" construct looks rather awkward, and hence I would perhaps also leave those two out.

After the cuts I have proposed, length should not be an issue no more. Politrukki (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the only part that predates the presidency is the David Fahrenthold part, and maybe we could leave out Dara Lind, but for no good reason, as size really isn't an issue with this content, as noted by Drmies. Fact checkers should not be cut. Likewise there is no good reason to shorten the last sentence. Those are very notable falsehoods, and by listing them in one sentence, the size has already been reduced to a minimum.

We should do the right thing here and resist this obvious attempt to whitewash Trump of what is arguably his most notable character flaw, after his narcissism and bullying. This subject is extremely notable and should not be diminished. We base our content on RS, and this is an extremely well-covered subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources

Since I objected to using too many opinion pieces, here's some additional sources that could be substituted for them. Not all of these are necessarily usable here (I collected them pretty quickly, just as a starting point), but they seem worth sifting through. Notably, a lot of the academic papers on the topic go into more detail on why he lies, what political purpose it serves, why it works, etc, which seems like it'd be more useful to putting together a coherent section rather than just a laundry-list of accusations from op-eds. Two of them also draw a distinction between "lying" and "bullshitting", which might be worth discussing. -Aquillion (talk) 18:34, April 22, 2018‎ (UTC)

Sources

I totally agree that there is much more to this subject, but it's much more than a short section (not short enough for some) can contain here. Trump and his falsehoods have been examined and researched from every conceivable angle. It's a very interesting, and frightening, subject.

BTW, there is no "laundry-list of accusations from op-eds" above. Only one sentence has a very short list of his more notable falsehoods, and that's the last sentence. That list is not opinions, but fact checked items. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the "Trump exemption" in practice

....followed by an appeal.

"Do the right thing"? Forget it here. That is not allowed. Practice on Trump articles and talk pages show a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by an editor with this comment, which contains a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. It appears that Trumpipedia is part of Wikipedia, with its own rules.

Drmies recognizes that a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have radically different understandings and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. Whether one agrees with Obama or not, he at least recognizes that truth is important, whereas Trump has never given it the time of day. He is the most extreme example of affluenza.

I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in any Trump article is pretty much forbidden. I have enough (over 300 very RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that such an article would never be allowed. His supporters here would successfully game the system through wikilawyering, exploiting the DS requirement for a consensus to restore contested content, RfCs, and AfDs.

Such an article would be labeled an "attack page", even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here, used successfully to violate numerous policies.

The consensus among RS is that Trump is a "serial liar" in a class by himself, far beyond anything they've ever encountered before. It's a very well-documented character flaw, not just opinions, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. These articles should be monitored by numerous admins who are willing to promptly issue DS warnings and topic bans for such obstruction.

An appeal: Are there any editors here who will prove me wrong and just follow policy? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have recently said the same thing, less eloquently and at not in such gripping detail, on the Trump bio page. We need to stop parroting primary promotion and nonsense where RS identify it as such. And we need to be frank in calling out content and sources that promote this nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What you need is AE. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, they are gun shy at AE. I'm afraid that we need AP3, but nobody wants to do the prep work. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No no, the new arbs are much more, what's the word, ballsy than the old crowd from last year. :) Plus, we got some hardcore admins just waiting to apply policy; I hear GoldenRing is getting tired of the obfuscation and obstruction in the American Politics area. Right on, GR! Drmies (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

God no, that's the last thing we need.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We seem to have a systemic bias that says all opinions are equal, and that fringe editors who are misinformed by unreliable sources (and can't vet sources) deserve just as much rope as mainstream editors who depend on RS and know how to vet sources. We really need to cut them off at the pass and force them to toe the RS line and show a positive learning curve. ) If they still insist on filling talk pages with circular arguments, IDHT behavior, and fringe conspiracy theories which obviously come from places like Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Infowars, they should be given topic bans from political subjects. Let them use their talents on other topics.

I have even written a personal essay for them: A message for fringe political editors. (I'd appreciate comments and suggestions on it.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt the Arbs would sort it out, but nobody will provide them the data because its a lot of work and a nasty ordeal. It's not that any new findings are needed, it's that Admins have not kept things on track over the past 2+ years. Very few enforcement sanctions are being applied, except after a trip to AE. Even there, plenty slipped through the cracks and plenty more wasn't ever reported. Admins are volunteers, so they can do as they please, but way too many of them act like little league coaches who give everyone a A for effort and end up enabling some very bad editing and bad behavior. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the current proposed text? I would be happy to add it to the article, as I'm seeing a rough consensus for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's here: Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements. The bolding would have to be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying you see consensus when the ratio has not change for agree to disagree. I am not sure I understand it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Most Hawkish in history"?

I feel like this is a pretty big stretch. Trump has proven to be surprisingly hawkish but the article cited here is talking about Bolton being hired- that doesn't inherently mean "one of the most hawkish in history". His most "hawkish" actions were two limited bombings in Syria, not exactly in the annals of most 20th century (or heck, many 19th century) presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.242.114 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans already removed it, and I agree. We can't have blanket statements like that based on just one single source. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)