Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

Summarizing sections

Looking at the article there are several sections that have their own articles but are still rather long here or have their own articles but do not actually summarize them. Some examples would be the Economy, Environment and energy, Health care, and Immigration. Each of those have their own dedicated Trump article but end up being a dumping ground for recent information without even updating the base articles. Should we clear up the article here and just summarize the lead of each sub article here? PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The sections in this article already summarize the actions of the Trump administration within those fields in a short and sweet fashion. Content can of course always be trimmed and summarized more concisely. But it's refreshing to see that you now have a rediscovered interest in trimming the article by way of scrubbing all content after opposing virtually every change that was made to trim the article ten days ago. I definitely encourage editors to update the individual Economy, Environment and energy, Health care, and Immigration articles, but it's understandable that people don't do it given that the articles are forks that no one reads and are primarily about political positions taken by Trump during the 2016 campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just full of surprises huh? PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference here vs above that you are referring to is fairly big. What I am suggesting here is the information that is in this article but not in the proper sub article be added to the sub and just use the lead summary from the sub here. So no actual information is lost, and meets everyone's favorite WP:PRESERVE. Up above that was just straight up removal of RS and information as well as move arounds that I had issues with. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes PLEASE in general to trimming and/or setting the bar for inclusion well above "trivia". The length of Economy (3 screens), environment (5 screens), and Immigration (4 screens) in particular are too long by going into reciting every single tiny event and using quote phrases when it should be identifying the MAJOR events and making a summary. I'll also suggest reducing the number of sections there by eliminating the ones with no major content. For example, Science is just 3 lines -- one news story of not particularly much coverage so is WP:UNDUE proportion here, and Abortion is just one line of routine Republican move with not much coverage compared to the other topics here so again should go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose attempts to redact sourced valid content Andrevan@ 00:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — It's a natural consequence of writing about an evolving topic, such as a current president, that sections will initially appear as dumping grounds. Later we will be in a better position to discern patterns so we can organize these events better. But if we don't document the events here as they occur, reconstructing them later would be much more difficult and valuable information would invariably be missed. soibangla (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as close to a necessity as it can get. WP:Page size states that when readable prose size exceeds 100 kB - Almost certainly should be divided. The current prose size (text only) of this article now is 109 kB (17519 words) "readable prose size". We still have years to go so rest assured, some of it is going to be deleted eventually. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Atsme removed sourced material about Trump being the most polarizing president. This material appeared to be sourced to Brookings Institution. I believe as long as it is credited properly it is valid material for this article. Andrevan@ 01:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just a point of reference, this exact material was discussed on the main Trump article here under "Why was this edit removed?". PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a good removal. That should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the editor violated DS consensus - and a standing consensus by restoring it - but I'm not one to run to AE unless it becomes a serious behavioral issue. Pack - I may have asked before but why don't we have a Consensus - survey section at the top of these highly controversial Trump articles? Wasn't it Coffee who did the one at Trump's bio? Now that would be truly helpful if you would take on that project, Andrevan - and it will also help familiarize you with some of the past discussions/consensus/surveys. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s a darn good thing you struck that false accusation. Really. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Threat noted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You really need to drop this vendetta of yours. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you're casting aspersions. I suggest you move along and collaborate in a productive manner. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not troll me or I will seek administrative remedies. All you gotta do is drop it. Easy! soibangla (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Consensus was at Donald Trump over this removal which was the same edit that was attempted here. I guess editors can refer to the standing consensus, or get one for this article now that the material has been challenged. The article names are a bit confusing because we're adding material at his BLP that belongs in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC) PS: And I'll add that the survey itself states ...our survey sample featured many more Democrats than Republicans. ^{02:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)}

To what extent is it relevant that the consensus was at a BLP article? Is this considered a BLP article? I recommend adding contrary sourced material, rather than removing sourced material. SMP0328. (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is not a BLP as I understand it. Furthermore the discussion at Donald Trump suggested that the material made more sense at Presidency of Donald Trump. Also, I don't agree that we should have a survey section. Consensus is not a vote and not a survey. It's a discussion, with occasionally straw polling as a tool to gauge consensus. !votes, which I've noticed you call iVotes, are not votes (! is old computer programmer shorthand for "not"). Not policy-based arguments do not get weight in consensus determination. In this case, you need another reason to challenge this material other than that you don't like it because it is critical of Trump, and it was discussed at the BLP article. Andrevan@ 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The material was challenged for good cause; see the discussions at Donald Trump that I linked to in my comments above. Also see WP:PUBLICFIGURE and keep in mind that BLP policy applies everywhere on WP. DS restrictions apply to this article (see top of page) so consensus is needed to restore the material. Call an RfC if you think a poll that compares a 1st year president to full term presidents is encyclopedic and compliant with NPOV considering (per their blog site) the "survey sample featured many more Democrats than Republicans". ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey samples are inequal all the time, for example, Rasmussen tends to give more weight to Republicans. We don't need to take sides, both are acceptable reliable sources, and the correct path forward is to balance them. Andrevan@ 03:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The way I see it there are a few problems with the material that was removed here. First it is a ranking meant to cover the whole presidency and he still has several more years to go. Second it's sources are an blog article and primary source which is never a good combination. Also the poll looks heavily biased to Democrats, with 81 Democrats, 36 Republicans, and 17 independents. A minor thing here it was not 170 respondents for the specific question we cite, it was 134. Finally it does not seem to be covered in the body so why is it in the lead? I would say we do not include the material. PackMecEng (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

None of these "problems" (sic) are actually problems, nor do they have any basis in Wikipedia policy. "He still has several more years to go". So what??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

First, it is not intended to cover the entire presidency, it follows a sentence about first-year polling (which has not been removed, BTW), we can explicitly note the survey date to clarify, if desired. Second, Brookings is a RS that accurately summarizes the primary source, which is provided if readers want to verify for themselves. Third, regardless of the composition of survey respondents, the edit specifically refers to views of self-described Republican respondents, and reading the study shows the conclusions are shared broadly across the political spectrum; we can change 170 to 134, easy. Finally, the article needs a significant public/expert opinion section. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_75#Ranking_Trump_in_relation_to_other_presidents for the prevailing arguments to delete. Polls relating to Trump have consistently been proven wrong, so why do we keep including them? As far as his approval ratings, using a specific poll is noncompliant with NOTNEWS, but I see no compliance issue if we include summaries with intext attribution as in the following example:

Trump's approval ratings leading into the second year of his presidency have increased for "specific issues like the economy, foreign trade and immigration", whereas they have been "relatively poor overall compared to former presidents, at times reaching similar lows to President Barack Obama's lowest approval (after a near-shutdown in 2011 and an actual shutdown in 2013) and President George Bush's (after Hurricane Katrina)."

That should be the extent of how we use polling and approval ratings - it is compliant with DUE, WEIGHT, and NPOV in general. It also allows us to provide updates without having to delete the material later. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because a piece of text may not be appropriate in one article, does not mean it's not appropriate in another. So your comment is completely irrelevant. And that's not even considering that the discussion you link to is ABOUT A DIFFERENT text! As an aside, your cherry picked sentence completely misrepresents the nature of these polls. Oh and also, it's absurd to try and bring WP:NOTNEWS into this, another ridiculous and incoherent argument. Oh and another thing, blanket statements such as "polls relating to Trump consistently been proven wrong" are... well, wrong (which polls? are you sure?) and to the extent there's something to it, it refers to polls about ... how people will vote! not polls about... opinions of political scientists! Two different kettles of fish. Jesus, how much wrong can someone pack into a paragraph???Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Jesus, how much wrong can someone pack into a paragraph???" Not sure but you seemed to do a pretty good job PackMecEng (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, see, here's the difference. I went through and explained exactly why it was wrong. You just jumped in to make a baseless, unnecessary and gratuitous snarky remark. This is why other users get sanctioned and I usually don't. Might wanna heed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh gzz calm down, I was just having a little fun. You don't have to be a butt about it, you know very well that last sentence of yours was completely unnecessary and almost a civil violation. PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, this is a very typical and classic case of Atsme using WP:DS to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy just to remove text per their own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Restore it already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again with the same ole PAs and classic casting aspersions by Volunteer Marek against editors who disagree with his POV. My argument is well-supported by consensus in Donald Trump whereas PAs comprise the argument Volunteer Marek has brought forth. Please restrict your comments to content and the PAs against other editors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not being "bludgeoned" nor are you being personally attacked. You are simply being criticized. Because you deserve it. The entirety of my comment was about content. Just because some content doesn't belong somewhere else, doesn't mean the content doesn't belong here. The discussion you link to is about different content than the content being discussed here. The cherry picked sentence misrepresents the content. WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant to this content. Polls - content - about voting, are different animal than polls - content - about opinions of political scientists. Your whole comment then was full of completely wrong assertions... about content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And one more time just to be clear - whatever consensus exists at Donald Trump is irrelevant to consensus here. This. Is. A. Different. Article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, and my reasons are valid. You accused me of both gaming the system and IDONTLIKEIT in addition to your criticism of my proposal. Your spurious allegations are unequivocally PAs, and that's all I'm going to say about your behavior. Focus on content, not editors. What I removed from this article began with:

• A survey of 170 political scientists of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section found Trump to be the most polarizing president in American history,

The content that was removed and later rejected by consensus at Donald Trump began with:

• A survey of 170 members of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents and Executive Politics section published in February 2018 ranked Trump the worst president in American history.

The material is basically the same. Your specious argument to restore noncompliant material is what deserves criticism, not the removal of it. Stop wasting our time. If you want the material restored, then follow protocol and call an RfC. In the interim, stop the PAs and unwarranted criticism that you've based on a fallacious premise which I've already demonstrated. Happy editing - I'm done here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You can disagree, of course, but your reasons are not valid. In fact, you really need to keep in mind that falsely accusing others of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack. You asserted, falsely, that I attacked ("bludgeoned") you and that my comment failed to address content. As I emphasized above, every single sentence of my comment addressed content. And of course, that was sort of obvious even before you forced me to emphasize it. So... this is the part where you apologize and retract, not double down.

And let's do this for the third (or is it fourth?) time: whatever consensus was achieved at the Donald Trump article is irrelevant here. Different article, different topic. Hell, different text even. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's break it up, this argument is getting contentious, and not in a content way. Atsme, the APSA and Brookings content is clearly reliable and worthy of inclusion in this article (which is distinct from the main Donald Trump BLP), but we can balance it by including some counterpoints and other examples of similar, contrasting info. Andrevan@ 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue to modify it or exclude any longer - as I said below, call an RfC and get consensus to restore per DS restrictions. I'll respond in the RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

An RFC is not the only way to obtain consensus. For example, if the majority of editors agree your arguments are not-policy-based, we don't need an RFC at all. Andrevan@ 22:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Reflexively calling for an RFC is a form of WP:GAME to exasperate and exhaust editors into giving up, or the issue stalemates and fades from attention, so the original challenge/reversion by a single editor prevails by default. It's a akin to a filibuster. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem. Atsme (and a couple others) reflexively make blind-reverts of any content which does not fit their POV per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, no matter how well sourced (freakin' Brookings!), how relevant and how encyclopedic, then invoke the "discretionary sanctions shield" to protect their disruptive edits. It's transparently WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just crap trivia from a bias opinion survey (not study, and not RS at that point) that was jammed into the lead with no support in the body. It has no business in the article let alone the lead (ie undue). PackMecEng (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"crap trivia from a bias opinion survey" — In reality, a survey of highly-educated professionals who have devoted their lives to studying presidential politics, including Republicans who say Trump is the worst president since the 1860s. As opposed, say, to a Drudge online "poll" that some would prefer. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you would use Drudge, they are not a RS for anything as far as I know. Other than for the opinions of Matt Drudge. You shouldn't cite sources like that. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Pehaps some might prefer this language: A survey of 170 political scientists found Trump had the most opportunity for improvement among all American presidents. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Andrevan - miscite ?? Seems a bad cite and wrong to call this 'Brookings'. The cite URL is brookings.edu/blog ... and the content 'survey of 170 APSA' attributed to it being there] seems factually untrue. It seems the same group, but about a different part of the survey. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Restore the edit.

• SUPPORT — soibangla (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ridiculous - Jamming a tiny survey into the lead is horribly wrong -- Atsme did well to remove and politely redirect to consensus here. Get some perspective. This article is for major presidential actions and events of his term. Russia gets headlines and substantial content, as does China, Tax bill, Charlottesville, and a bunch of other things. Not some teeny little survey. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: undue for the lead; fails MOS:LEADREL. – Lionel^(talk) 06:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove sentence

Remove this sentence please

Opinion polls have shown Trump to be the least popular President in the history of modern American presidential opinion polling, as of the end of his first year in office.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A000:9E20:7DA9:AB53:B46:B805 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Andrevan@ 18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Modify it for accuracy and compliance with NPOV - according to Time (citing Gallup): President Donald Trump’s approval rating has ping-ponged between a low of 35% and a high of 45% during his first year in office — the worst record of any of the most recent seven presidents, according to Gallup. They also have a graph which is quite useful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• 538, which aggregates polling, has consistently shown many polls with historic lows. Original text is valid. Andrevan@ 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - call an RfC and get consensus per DS restrictions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's already a standing consensus for the stable version of the article. Andrevan@ 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Not really disputed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you know better, VM, but Andrevan not so much. Please understand that consensus is required to restore challenged material per DS. This material was added (less the sources which followed), and that is the material I challenged. If you don't fully understand the protocol, please familiarize yourself because this article is subject to DS-1RR-Consensus required. Have you been notified of DS on your TP? Please scroll up and read the explanation in the TP header so you'll know what is required when material is challenged via revert. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're referring to different material in a different discussion thread than the material being discussed. Andrevan@ 23:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You may well be correct, Andrevans, and I hereby extend my apologies for the confusion. I cannot find where/when that material was added to the lede, and I should not have assumed it was related to the other material under discussion in the section above. I did find this diff wherein MelanieN removed material per TP discussions, and it was similar to what I recently removed. I will humbly concede if the material under discussion here is long standing, and in no way related to prior discussions that consensus determined to remove. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopaedia. Any statement about Trump's popularity should be based on global figures, not just American ones. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a basis stated for removal other than 'Please'. Factually it seems correct, and there was no stating it as an issue over something else like WP:WEIGHT or WP:OFFTOPIC. Seems just a troll. Markbassett (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

NY Times "criticism"

A number of sources have noted that Trump has bypassed traditional procedures on pardons (this is a noncontroversial observation). An editor now twists this noncontroversial observation into a "criticism" by the NY Times.[1] The sources note that the cases Trump is pardoning relate to grievances into "various investigations into his campaign, his personal lawyer and his own actions that may have been aimed at obstructing the inquiry of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. This was a straightforward statement in a news article written by a Times reporter. There is no basis for the suggestion that this is opinion, commentary or POV that needs to be attributed. It should be reverted and should not be restored without prior confirmed consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - Please give cites to the said "number of sources". The pardoning was widely covered and can be stated to have happened non-controversially. But not any soapboxing about it. The NYTimes views and speculations of it is hardly neutral or noncontroversial, so should not have been stated in wikivoice as if a fact or widely held opinion, and JFG improved it to shift it to an attributed 'NYT says'. But I'm dubious that every NYT criticism deserves a place. If you can show more WP:WEIGHT of coverage about it then it might be deserving a position. If not -- then reduce it to simply a note the pardoning happened. I'm simply dubious skeptical that there is wide agreement that pardoning Martha Stewart is an imminent threat to Mueller. Markbassett (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty that every single source that covered Trump's pardons noted the erratic process and the bypassing of DOJ procedures. So, I googled the first three news outlets that came to mind: (1) Site:WSJ.com trump + pardon + process[2], (2) Site:POLITICO.COM trump + pardon + process, (3) site:WASHINGTONPOST.COM trump + pardon + process.[3] And you know, all three sources confirmed exactly what I said.

• WSJ: "the day’s events presented the clearest picture to date of Mr. Trump’s approach to presidential-pardon powers, one focused on high-profile cases, drawing on instinct and bypassing traditional Justice Department processes. In all three instances, Mr. Trump also would be reversing headline-making verdicts won by prosecutors who now count among his critics. The moves also come as associates of Mr. Trump are being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice, leading to questions about whether Mr. Trump could potentially consider clemency in that matter. Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and Russia has denied meddling." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• WaPo: "Trump’s pardon of D’Souza was his sixth act of clemency as president. Each was issued unilaterally, subverting the traditional Justice Department process of reviewing thousands of pardon requests. Traditionally, people seeking pardons apply through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which reviews thousands of cases and advances some to the White House for the president’s consideration. But Trump has used his clemency powers in a more haphazard way, spurred by personal connections or political calculations."
• Politico: "To get a pardon from President Donald Trump, it clearly helps to be famous. As conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D'Souza received clemency Thursday for a felony conviction for making campaign contributions through straw donors, Trump seemed to confirm that D'Souza's high-public profile — primarily in right-leaning media outlets — contributed to his case.While Trump hasn't approved any pardons or commutations through the normal process, he did deny a batch last month."

These are not critiques. They are observations by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - those prove my point -- they say things that do not match the NYT language proposed for the article "used the pardon power on public figures whose cases resonated with the kinds of grievances that Trump levied at investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election". The WaPO quote is just saying it did not go thru channels; the Politico article is only noting he favored famous cases. The WSJ article is giving primacy to their being famous cases (e.g. Martha Stewart), and secondly being his critics, and a remark at the end that occurring at this time leads to wondering if ther might be further use. So - outside the usual channels yes, the rest of it no. Also -- I tried google elsewhere and get different results so there may be WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV issues.

• No results found for site:bbc.com trump +pardon +process
• No results found for site:theindependent.co.uk trump +pardon +process
• No results found for site:latimes.com trump +pardon +process

I suggest the 'NYT says' version is inappropriate as NYT is not noted or echoed elsewhere, but that 'outside normal channels' might be said in minor amount since it appears in a subset of common channels. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. How deceptive and shameless can you be? Did you seriously not expect me to look this up?:

• BBC News[4]: "Over the years the presidential pardon authority has been governed by an extended (some would say overly bureaucratic) process of review and approval by Department of Justice lawyers. Breaks from those traditions, such as with George HW Bush's pardoning of Reagan-era Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger and Bill Clinton's of financier and deep-pocketed political donor Marc Rich, came in the final days of a presidency and were met with controversy and outcry. Mr Trump, with his pardons over his first 16 months in office, is eroding another political norm and flexing political power the scope of which, in the US Constitution, is largely undefined."
• The Independent makes no mention of the process. And who in their right goes first to the Independent for detailed takes on anything?
• LA Times: "President Trump’s announcement on Thursday that he is giving a full pardon to conservative provocateur Dinesh D'Souza and considering clemency for Martha Stewart and imprisoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has underscored the relish he takes in that power — in ways that break norms dating to the nation’s founding. The D’Souza pardon would be Trump’s fifth, and the latest in a pattern of using the president’s near-absolute authority to benefit individuals in legal trouble based on his political whim or convenience... Since George Washington, however, presidents have, for the most part, voluntarily accepted restraints on their ability to pardon. Starting in 1789, government lawyers have been designated to review pardon applications. And since 1865, presidents have typically relied on a review by the Justice Department before granting clemency. Trump, so far, has sidestepped that process... Trump has seemed to act on impulse or at the urgings of friends and celebrities in making his clemency decisions. Three of his pardons have gone to people backed by his conservative political allies... Another pattern is that Trump has seemed to favor clemency for people prosecuted by his nemeses."[5]

Are you unable to operate Google or did you simply not bother to read the first result that popped up? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans 'Load of' would be codswallop -- unless you're complimenting my manhood. Thanks for the google check, my copying the plus signs from your work made it malf. Those ALSO prove my point -- they ALSO say things that do not match the NYT language. Since the NYT story is not widely echoed, and is not widely noted by others, then that phrasing would at least need to be narrowly attributed 'NYT says'. And it still has WEIGHT an NPOV issues of there is no reason to give this particular NYT article any placement at all. One might give a generic paraphrase of the response from many -- outside normal channels seems commonly said -- but the wilder and speculative bits are not common. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Should not be described as "criticism" - this is clear from the NYT source + additional sources that it's a non-controversial statement, so couching in editorial language is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but the bit about "Trump only pardons people based on his own grievances" is still opinion, and must be attributed. Besides, the edit I reverted also falsely asserted in wikivoice that Trump's pardons were related to Russian interference, a claim that the cited source absolutely did not make. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To take into account remarks from various editors above, I suggest changing the text from:

The New York Times criticized Trump for taking no action on more than 10,000 pending applications, but rather using the pardon power on "public figures whose cases resonated with him given his own grievances with investigators."

to:

The New York Times remarked that Trump took no action on more than 10,000 pending applications and that he solely used his pardon power on "public figures whose cases resonated with him given his own grievances with investigators."

I believe this correctly represents the source's reporting. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been quoted in this talk which, along with the NY Times source, demonstrate that Trump also bypassed the traditional process by which pardons are granted, so that should be added. Also, in regards to "Russian interference", the investigations in question obviously relate to the probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election (the WSJ source above makes that explicit), but it's of course more precise to speak of investigations more generally (given that not all investigations that Trump has grievances with relate directly to the Russia probe, such as Cohen's SDNY case). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I could get behind JFG's purposed version. Cuts down on the editorializing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Times-reported facts should not be described as criticism, as explained by SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, and K.e.coffman.- MrX 🖋 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose that we add the following sentence:

Trump bypassed the traditional process for presidential pardons, taking no action on more than 10,000 pending applications, and opting instead to pardon or commute high-profile figures or in the words of The New York Times, "public figures whose cases resonated with him given his own grievances with investigators."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree that the "bypassing of traditional process" merits mention. We don't know for sure how the process is handled by this administration. Hard data suggests that other presidents also used their pardon power rather sparingly; nobody ever addressed "10,000 cases". How each president selects the cases to address is ultimately left to their own discretion. — JFG ^talk 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No. As the RS states, the Dept. of Justice has processes to support the Presidential pardon power. These are the traditional processes that Trump bypassed. No "hard data" contradicts the involvement of the DOJ in the process that the Times RS calls the traditional process. Everything is not just a matter of personal style. There are governmental and civic processes from which RS say the current Administration has significantly deviated. Please read about the established institutional processes here [6] [7] SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The bypassing of the traditional DOJ process is not the same thing as granting a pardon to every applicant (which you seem to suggest).

• WSJ: "the day’s events presented the clearest picture to date of Mr. Trump’s approach to presidential-pardon powers, one focused on high-profile cases, drawing on instinct and bypassing traditional Justice Department processes."[8]
• WaPo: "Trump’s pardon of D’Souza was his sixth act of clemency as president. Each was issued unilaterally, subverting the traditional Justice Department process of reviewing thousands of pardon requests. Traditionally, people seeking pardons apply through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which reviews thousands of cases and advances some to the White House for the president’s consideration."[9]
• BBC: "Over the years the presidential pardon authority has been governed by an extended (some would say overly bureaucratic) process of review and approval by Department of Justice lawyers. Breaks from those traditions, such as with George HW Bush's pardoning of Reagan-era Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger and Bill Clinton's of financier and deep-pocketed political donor Marc Rich, came in the final days of a presidency and were met with controversy and outcry. Mr Trump, with his pardons over his first 16 months in office, is eroding another political norm and flexing political power the scope of which, in the US Constitution, is largely undefined."[10]
• LA Times: "in ways that break norms dating to the nation’s founding... Since George Washington, however, presidents have, for the most part, voluntarily accepted restraints on their ability to pardon. Starting in 1789, government lawyers have been designated to review pardon applications. And since 1865, presidents have typically relied on a review by the Justice Department before granting clemency. Trump, so far, has sidestepped that process..."[11]
• AP: "Trump’s predecessors largely relied on a formal, Department of Justice process to identify those deserving of clemency. None of the clemencies that Trump has granted have come through the front door of the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which typically assists the president in exercising his pardon power."[12]
• Bloomberg: "The president has charted new ground in issuing pardons outside of the traditional vetting process."[13]
• USA Today: "A pardon for Johnson would continue a Trump pattern of granting pardons outside the regular process at the Justice Department for vetting pardon applications."[14]

It's clear according to reliable sources that Trump has with his pardons bypassed the traditional process for presidential pardons. If he begins using the traditional process, then we can update the article. Just as we could update the article if Trump at some point becomes an open borders advocate and recants his past views and policies on immigration. Nothing's set in stone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text seems to suggest that "bypassing the process" is akin to "taking no action on 10,000+ applications". While the first part may be notable, the second is not, because no president ever took action on thousands of cases. I could get behind a version that talks about the unusual process but that does not unduly emphasize the "lack of action". What do you think? — JFG ^talk 22:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a straw man and it does not justify removing important well-cited RS information and context from this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG - drop the NYT theories and go with an overall paraphrase -- "outside the formal DOJ process" might do. In looking, a google count shows me about 66M hits for Trump and Pardon -- and about 11 Million when Process is added -- so I suppose about a sixth of whatever pardon material might go to mentioning "process". Since the NYT theories are not echoed or cited widely, I think it would be NPOV or WEIGHT issue to give them even if carefully attributed -- there are a number of theories of mind on how or why President Trump made the pardons he has. (And I'm not ruling out that there is no method and it's all just ad hoc or as the mood struck him.) But they're all speculations and fragments of POV so I suggest sticking to objective facts or widely reported items, and skip trying to describe what is not known and is not widely said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO we absolutely should say that he is bypassing the traditional process; that is factually accurate and reported by everybody. I think we should not add the comment that his choice of people to pardon seems to parallel his own grievances or possibly future liabilities; that seems to be a bit of synthesis on the part of the Times. Some commentators have noted that many of his pardons seem to be deliberately aimed at overturning actions by James Comey or the Southern District of New York, but IMO that is also synthesis and should not be included. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

While it is synth, in my experience it was not "some" outlets that mentioned the connection but most if not all news outlets. I get my daily news from PBS and they immediately discussed the connection in length. IMO we should include it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer - I'm finding many alternative speculations. Other explanations out there included that he's pardoning celebrity & conservatives ; or that he is being as idiosyncratic as other aspects of his presidency (unusual and impulsive); or ap that he is trying to right a perceived wrong where prosecutions were politically motivated. There was a comparison/contrast made to Obama gave pardons to promote policy goals while this seems not systematic. Individual cases were examined and things like undoing what Obama did was mentioned as a motive, or simply showing he can break out from the 'deep state' bureaucracy or PC channels. Half dozen odd pardons is a tiny amount, hard to draw any conclusions from them and nothing says it eliminates the other venues. In any case, all of these are just guessing or WP:SPECULATION, so look undeserving of space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Characterization of Breitbart and other news sources retweeted by Trump

Following this edit, there seems to have been a small revert war over the characterization of Breitbart's politics (and whether it should be characterized at all.) I reverted back to Zukorrom's version, but in retrospect it might have been more circumspect to revert to back before it (and I'd have no objections if anyone wants to do so until we get this settled.) Either way, I feel that we do have to include some sort of ideological descriptor, since that's what all the sources in this section are about - it's that paragraph's entire story; removing it entirely makes it nonsensical. I think "far right" is probably the better choice, but I don't feel terribly strongly as long as we have some sort of descriptor. Reducing it to "Trump sometimes tweets the news", though, completely fails to summarize the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the Breitbart News article, Breitbart News has been referred to as "far right" by some, but as "a traditional conservative-leaning news outlet". The source is The New York Times. If this article is to include a reference to Breitbart's political leanings, it should include both descriptions. SMP0328. (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at that source, it does not use the word "traditional" (which is obviously central in this context.) And it even implicitly says that it is not mainstream, stating "During the 2016 presidential campaign, including the Republican primaries, the site has offered exceedingly favorable coverage to the campaign of Donald J. Trump, often to the dismay of mainstream conservatives and the Republican Party establishment." This is why it is important to use WP:RSes themselves and not other Wikipedia articles. Additionally, our article uses "far right" in article-text as a statement of fact, but "conservative" as something some sources have also used. Beyond that, given that the "traditional" was editorializing by an editor and not something we have a source for, there's no contradiction between the two terms; a far-right group is axiomatically conservative. If you want to argue that it is not far right, you must find a source that says so specifically, since we have numerous reputable sources saying that it is. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is routinely described as far-right by many mainstream sources. That's how it should be described here as well.- MrX 🖋 00:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Use far-right for Breibart, but perhaps swap FN and Breibart so it does not look like FN is being described as "far-right", i.e.: ...including television shows such as Fox & Friends and far-right news websites such as Breitbart... --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Good points. Trump has clear favorite sources, as well as those he labels "enemies", in the media. Those he supports and which support him (...is there any other reason he'd support them?) are invariably very fringe, right-wing, and alt-right, which shows the logical placement of Fox News. It's just a bit less fringe, with a lot more money and influence, with a direct line to creating his policies, with the ideas and talking points often voiced first on Fox and Friends, and then he parrots them and makes them his policies. Fox News seems to often be driving government policy, rather than experienced diplomats, reliable sources, and U.S. intelligence, and these are observations a number of RS have made.

My point? There is no point in mentioning which sources he uses without mentioning their bias and placement on the political spectrum, because they are anything but neutral sources, with some only 1-3 links away from their direct source in the Moscow propaganda machine. The exact links in the chain of this "three-headed operation" are described here by a subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Skip the characterization. It’s unnecessary to the thread, has been objected to so BRD says listen to that. I will add WP:LABEL and WP:V too. It seems just name-calling editorializing here, not something in the LA Times cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we add the famous G7 photo to the foreign policy section?

Or is it copyrighted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans- Where ? If you are getting it from white house website, the site creative commons license applies. If you are getting it from media, then commercial rules and copyright are to be presumed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Public health analysis by Harvard University scholars

An analysis by two Harvard University scholars of the impact of Trump's proposed and implemented EPA rollbacks which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's forum section was removed with the assertion that the text was "UNDUE".[15] This is precisely the kind of content that this Wikipedia article needs more of: expert analysis. The analysis relied on regulatory impact analyses published by the EPA itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a post from "The JAMA Forum" which is an opinion section. It is not a Harvard University analysis as represented by the text added. I agree that it is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

What precisely do you think a "School X analysis" entails if not an analysis by scholars at school X? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well Harvard is not actually mentioned in the article at all... The article is written by someone from Harvard, but if you look at the bottom of the article it makes it clear "Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." This is NOT a Harvard analysis. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why should the authors mention Harvard in the text? It's the affiliation of the authors and can be seen in the "Author Affiliations" box at the top. Secondary RS on the other hand do describe the authors' affiliation when reporting on their analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Because he is writing on his own opinions independent of Harvard. More along the lines of a paper written by someone who happens to work for Harvard vs a paper written by someone for or under the authority of Harvard. It is basically a blog post that is not a RS for anything besides the authors opinions. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the only mistake here is that mention of Harvard was made. The analysis was written by David Cutler and Francesca Dominici and it appeared in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association (and the 3rd leading medical journal). Their opinions are certainly scholarly enough to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not "opinion" such as when a politician or think tank pundit uses a forum for promotional purposes. These are notable scholars and as such their work is fair game on WP, even if it were self-published in their blogs or Op-Ed columns. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer:The bottom of the article states "Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." It is their personal opinion with no editorial overcite. It is essentially a blog post. Only reliable for the opinions of the authors, which is the same disclaimer at the bottom of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's right, JAMA is not responsible for the conclusions of any study/analysis/or anything else that they publish. However the fact that it was published in JAMA and not some journal that does not have the reputation of JAMA is significant. JAMA would publish only articles that they believe to be suited to meet their reputation as a first class journal. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe? We don't really know since they have a whole section saying how they have nothing to do with the content. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an odd come-back that does not really address my point in the least. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well no, JAMA is not responsible for anything in that article. Them deciding to include it in their blog section means nothing as far as our RS standards go. The argument that just because they printed it gives it credit is incorrect and against policy. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct. RS can include blogs. Per WP: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. 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.[8] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). In this case the author is extremely competent. Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct they are RS for opinions by the author. Which is what I said a few times above. They should not be used for unattributed statements of fact since there is no editorial overcite. Which goes with what I said about "It is their personal opinion with no editorial overcite. It is essentially a blog post. Only reliable for the opinions of the authors, which is the same disclaimer at the bottom of the article." PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, opinions, as I said in my first post, "Their opinions are certainly scholarly enough to be included." I've never argued that their opinions were something we'd report as facts. I am done here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please send me a journal article written by an academic "for or under the authority" of the school that they're affiliated with? Also, it's not a blog post. It's in the "forum" section of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association. It's authored by two recognized experts who are relying on regulatory impact analyses published by the EPA itself. It's a RS and authored by recognized experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Pack, the "opinion" of the AMA is worthless. The "opinion" of notable Harvard researchers is worth quite a bit, especially when it's backed by scholarly analysis of stipulated data. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: As you noticed, this opinion piece was published in the forum section of the journal: it is absolutely not a "study" that would have been peer-reviewed and subject to some editorial oversight by the Journal (per our definition of WP:RS). Indeed, not worth more than a blog post, notwithstanding the academic status of the writers. Name-dropping Harvard or JAMA doesn't change the facts. — JFG ^talk 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG, you are just ignoring all the points in this thread to the contrary. Respond to the central points instead of restating what's already known. We regularly use blog and self-published views of notable academics. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, opinions of notable academics are worthwhile, but they are not RS. And dressing them up as a "Harvard study" is just dishonest. That being said, this particular opinion is rife with speculation and sounds like an all-out political attack piece, that makes it even less credible than it should be. — JFG ^talk 20:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"but they are not RS" - of course they are, where do you get the idea that they're not? Now, on the other hand, your ... opinion, that "this particular opinion is rife with speculation etc. etc. etc.", now, THAT is WP:OR and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No straw man arguments here please. Nobody is proposing this study as a statement of fact in WP's voice. Your comment is irrelevant to the this thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a strawman. The text I reverted said According to a 2018 Harvard University analysis, which was clearly a misrepresentation of the source. — JFG ^talk 04:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So if the part about "Harvard University analysis" is excluded from the text, you're fine with it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously that would be even worse. The only neutral and sane attitude is to refrain from mentioning this non-notable opinion. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be included, but attributed to the authors rather than the university: "In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people." Neutrality^talk 17:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE still applies. It’s not in a commonly accepted reference, not naming notable adherents, so is at “does not belong in Wikipedia” (except perhaps in some ancillary article). Not-very-noted pieces get no mention. Markbassett (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I confess I find this a very strange analysis. David Cutler and Francesca Dominici are notable scholars. JAMA Forum features "expert commentary and insight into news that involves the intersection of health policy and politics, economics, and the law" (cite). The proposed text features in-text attribution. And contrary to being "not very-noted," their analysis has been repeatedly noted:

• Bloomberg News ("Researchers Argue Proposed EPA Changes Could Cause 80,000 More Deaths a Decade") (and this piece was republished elsewhere)
• Washington Post ("Two Harvard social scientists say 80,000 Americans could die each decade if the EPA goes forward with proposed regulatory changes"),
• The Hill ("Harvard scientists: Trump environmental policies could result in 80,000 more deaths per decade")
• The Verge ("Trump’s environmental policies could lead to an extra 80,000 deaths per decade, say Harvard scientists"); Newsweek ("More Than 88,000 People Could Die if EPA Rolls Back Regulations, Scientists Say")
• Engadget ("Trump's gutted EPA might lead to 80,000 more deaths per decade: Two Harvard scientists estimate that relaxed protections will be lethal for some")
• Inside Climate News (a Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet) ("Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Put Thousands of Lives at Risk, Harvard Analysis Finds")
• The Republican/MassLive.com ("Harvard study warns environmental changes could kill thousands").

Is it your position that you oppose mention or citation of the Cutler/Dominici piece in this article in any form? Neutrality^talk 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Neutrality - you should ping if you want a reply, and you are kind of proving this is UNDUE at this time. It was my position that the deletion was about WP:UNDUE, so the discussion on attribution did nothing to resolve that. Thank you for googling to show that now Posting something when it is less than 3 days old is likely to show UNDUE, and to bring the discussion back to being about UNDUE. So here goes.

• The problem here is the lack of prominence -- what DUE and UNDUE are about. And the ones Google managed to find for you are illustrative, since sites like 'masslive.com', and 'insideclimatenews.org' are showing it as something where coverage is by fairly small publications, and the one prominent site washingtonpost.com was giving it only a small passing mention in a larger article list of many items. Mostly the situation seems few hits and smaller publications, with minimal content about the article in them. They mention Harvard, 80000 deaths, about half or less snip a table or have more than a paragraph or three. When I google the title's "Cost of the Trump Environmental Agenda May Lead to" I see 1,850 hits -- not nothing, decent academic notice but fairly trivial prominence as coverage for this article goes. A nothing compared to the overall google counts for Donald Trump (254 million), where LEAD items are inauguration (21.4 million), Comey dismissal (8 million), TPP (1.34 million), and so on. The smaller realm of "Trump" and "environmental policy" (397,000) is easier, but the number is not on par with "climate change" (193,000) or "clean power plan" (27,900).
• Just wait; Prominence might increase - the story is less than a week old, and TheHill coverage was a day after the removal so prominence did increase a bit after UNDUE was cited. Whether it increases much will be shown in a week or two.
• p.s. Is UNDUE or story-du-jour a general issue for the Environment/Energy section ? In looking at this section ... it looks like it is a running list of whatever was new each month rather than covering things by importance or prominence. That really is infeasible to continue for 3 more years -- and you might read this deletion as some editor not wanting every paper of the month to be listed.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This makes little sense. The "undue weight" policy is explicitly about according weight according to prominent about reliable sources — and we have always given more weight to scholars and experts (like those here). "Undue weight" has nothing to do with Google hits, which are a crude measurement at best.

Here, we have a rare analysis from prominent scholars that gives broad-sweep view of the effects of a major policy area. I simply cannot see how this is "undue." Neutrality^talk 02:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

DUE means same as always -- prominence. This is just one article -- and mentioning every single anti-Trump article is not the goal. This article has had minor note taken of it but is not at this time prominent, commonly cited, famous, or widely accepted -- so the article itself is not DUE coverage. As to the content or thrust of the analysis, look for similar items -- you can use Amazon or Google scholar if you prefer -- and one finds climate change or health care commonly said, but the premise and approach of this article looks new. Good for them. So come back in a while and see if others do similar stuff or start pointing at this brand-new item, or independently start arriving at the same conclusions. Right now it's just one small academic article with a little respectable mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Agree with your analysis, except that this piece is not even an "academic article", because it has not been peer-reviewed before publication; its presence in JAMA as an opinion post should not be misinterpreted, and that is exactly the issue that several editors have raised. — JFG ^talk 03:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The text does not purport that this is an peer-reviewed article, nor is that a requirement for either RS or NPOV purposes. Neutrality^talk 03:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer-review is not a WP:RS requirement. It's an analysis by recognized experts in a high-quality outlet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Absurd comment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Russia

One editor keeps adding text that misleadingly suggests that Trump has been staunchly anti-Putin and anti-Russia while in office, leaving out comments that suggest a more nuanced and complicated stance on Russia and Putin.[16] For example, just on the substance of the edit, Trump has (1) made both pro- and anti-Russia statements regarding Russian action in Syria, (2) Trump has both made pro- and anti-Russia statements on Crimea, (3) WaPo reported shortly after the diplomat expulsion that Trump had been misled by staff and was furious about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah only shows one side of the situation, there has been much criticism of Trump having a seemingly friendly relationship with Russia. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng might “criticismpartisan claims”, be a closer portrayal or more common case? I am semi-seriously wondering if the RS are more often voicing a claim that it exists or are more often a criticism of having a relationship. Seems frequent partisan pitching would perhaps distort the frequency, but whatever the case, WP NPOV requires we present all significant POVs in DUE weight, so both and more might go there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, over time a more clear picture will come out. But in the meantime a neutral wording addition of the other POV should be there. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What significant credible commentary denies that Trump's policies, actions, and public statements have not promoted Russian interests? Let's survey the RS for credible commentary and figure out what weight to give an opposing interpretation. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO ??? CNN and NY Times would be my first guess, but I think the combination ‘denial of have-not’ is rare and you meant the double negative as emphasis instead of reversal. But my question was semi-seriously whether ‘claims by a Democrat’ or even ‘assertions it exists’ are more frequently how RS portray statements about the relationship seeming close. Rather than ‘criticisms of’ having such a relationship. I find some commentators saying a better relationship is desirable, some that it is too close, some that it is undesirable — but numerically it seems more portrayed as something in partisan arguing debate and accusation rather than the number saying it is something critical of it. I did find theperspective.com “is trump too friendly” poll of interest or “soft on Russia” opinion pieces, but those were relatively few and not citeable. The PackMecEng line just had too many things in it to be other than one view of one subset of it all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Pack thanks for catching the double-negative. Entirely unintended. I am going to correct it now. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The current Russia section is completely inadequate. All it says is that they spoke during the transition. And it cites Dana Rohrabacher - the congressman of whom it was joked that he is in Putin’s pay! I will work on a section that details his meetings with Putin and what actions he has taken with regard to Russia, both favorable and unfavorable. Because this is possibly contentious I will post a draft here for discussion and editing before I add anything to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's very valuable, thanks Melania. I think the secret meeting in the Oval Office with Lavrov and Kislyac where excluded US press and official White House staff, then gloated about firing Comey and, gave away top Israeli Intelligence secrets, and posed for smileys with the Russians was a decisive public display and remains a key event in his Presidency. As you know, that information was purged from the article some time ago. See Revealing classified information to Russia Prepare yourself for an adventure trying to reinstate that. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on this for several hours. I took a lot of the information from the article Russia–United States relations. It's all just a list of individual comments and actions; there's no attempt to summarize or conclude if he is pro- or anti-Russia and I don't think there should be. I did notice the omission of the Kislyak meeting and included it; I didn't know it had been controversial in the past. Anyhow, I have a fairly complete section now and I'm going to go ahead and put it in the article. If people want to challenge or edit particular items, go ahead and we can discuss them here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I know it seems long. It's comparable to the North Korea section, and those two countries probably do deserve the most in-depth coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - I'm sorry, I'm going to revert that edit. I recognize it as substantial effort and it's not bad writing, but an undiscussed 10K chunk is too much/too fast with the real killer being that it is going into too much detail and the wrong approach of turning this into a diary. That is making the section TLDR just 18 months in with items that are relatively low coverage so by UNDUE should exclude except in an ancillary article like you just elevated them back out of. The article seems generally struggling with WP:UNDUE should cut in at some level above trivial and restraint on WP:RECENTISM. Generally, contrast to the amount/level shown at Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Russia or Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#End_of_the_Cold_War - less than one screen of high-level summation. Regrets, Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Revealing classified information was not omitted -- after a relatively routine discussion in Archive 3, it bounced about as section 7, section 4.2, or section 5, and wound up as 10 lines under Ethics / Russia versus 4 lines in Foreign policy / Europe / Russia. Actually, it seems the Donald Trump Talk page had more chats about it in Archive 60, Archive 61, rementioned later in Archive 61, an Archive 67. Seems more a case of lots of flux. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mark, I admit it was quite a data dump, and your reaction was reasonable. But please don't stop there. I'm sure you didn't think ALL of it was undue or trivial. Now could you please take a look at the items that you removed, figure out what you think does belong in an article about Donald Trump's presidency, and restore those items? For starters, my revision of the first (and now only) paragraph was a significant improvement over what was there; would you consider restoring it? And then please give a little thought to what are the really significant issues of his presidency, things that ought to be there - maybe the additional sanctions, or the incident where our missile attacks killed Russian nationals? I can't believe you think the Russia section about his presidency should consist of one uninformative paragraph about a phone call - plus the fairly trivial note about G7 which you left in. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of TMI, that ethics/Russia section needs a severe haircut. Why is there a paragraph about his attempts to do a real estate deal in Russia prior to becoming president, in an article about his presidency? Why is there a full paragraph about Sessions and another about Papadopoulos? For that matter, there is a lot more detail about the "classified information" incident than there needs to be. --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - Yes, I will do as you request and put back your revision of the first para for now. (I think does not have me violating 1RR.) I think it's better and we'll see if others accept it. For the rest and for the Ethics haircut, that would seem like more discussion needed on approach and goal, perhaps two different new threads. I don't remember any since archive 1 #20, and the examples of others such as Obama and Reagan to compare to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Done. And thank you for using BBC.com Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off on the Ethics section until we can discuss it. As for 1RR, not a concern. If you restore that paragraph, or for that matter anything else from my addition, you would be partially self-reverting your own edit. AFAIK self-reverting your own edit does not count as a reversion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - I'll start a thread for the Russian section to get wider judgement on my revert and the broader topic of pathway/goal. You can start another thread for the Ethics haircut if you wish -- I agree it could use a shave, but felt just one discussion at a time would be enough.

Melanie's recent addition was fine. If something in particular was undue or trivial, then MarkBassett should identify it. I think for example that the mention of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Danang was undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tariffs

Should be mentioned in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, not when there is no major content in the article about it. Content below should come first. See WP:LEAD. The Foreign policy section on Trade might have some POV or WEIGHT issues in its content and gaps, but it would be wrong to put stuff in at the top without content being in the article or not being close in amount to the amount it is within the article. Markbassett (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have revised the Trade section to mention the tariffs. In answer to the question here, I don't think Trump's various trade actions (withdrawing from agreements, imposing tariffs) are sufficiently impactful on his presidency to go in the lede at this time, but that could change if a full blown trade war develops. In the meantime, I have revised the paragraph about the G7 summit; the big issue was the looming trade war, not Trump’s offhand comment about wanting to eliminating all tariffs. Just to document what I did: I added material about Trump’s tariffs and allies' threatened retaliation. I added his call to add Russia to the G7. I removed “At the time of Trump's remarks, tariffs among the US, Canada, and the EU were on the order of 3%” because I couldn’t find a good source for that figure. I removed “The decision not to sign the communique was criticized by senators from both parties,” because the sources did not support it. I removed Navarro’s insult to Trudeau as out of place in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - thanks for putting something in. Some mention on Tarrifs was DUE, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support this is more important than While Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, he won the Electoral College vote by a tally of 304 to 227, with faithless electors splitting the seven remaining electoral votes among five other candidates here, and the lead isn't too long in any case. It's been a big story for a few months and I expect it to get bigger. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki - I agree tariffs is DUE more than popular vote as I get Google count of 45 million on Donald Trump and tariffs versus 1.68 on him and 'popular vote'. (About 27 times as much.) Or I'd be happy enough to see the popular vote mention also gone and the lead made closer to the shortness at the start of the year. It's got to follow putting more content in the article ... LEAD can then follow the rule to be a summary of article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time that you've brought up Google hits. What exactly do you believe the number of results a particular search on Google demonstrates? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans It indicates a VERY rough idea of how commonly a topic is mentioned alongside Donald Trump, and when it is in the many millions I tend to think it is common enough to get more content into the article. I can also select with site:BBC.com and other major media entities to look at what the more prominent publications greater circulations are saying. With some searches there may be more false hits of unrelated material than in other searches -- visible in the snippet displayed -- but it gives a quick check and an objective basis for saying it seems DUE more (or less) content in the article body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a completely meaningless measure. You'd be well-advised to stop relying on it, as it doesn't tell you anything in the way that you're using it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek - I just deleted your insert related to this from the Lead. It's still in discussion, with some not wanting it as just not having the prominence to justify that, so please await further consensus before moving. Actually, seeing as how this is a bit WP:RECENTISM, just wait a couple weeks and let the prominence (or not) and article content (or not) develop and it may become more clearly resolved on its own. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• This obviously belongs in the lead. Not only has it attracted significant coverage, it has been a prominent aspect of coverage of the Trump administration (and the campaign) since, I think, even before the election. I'm surprised it wasn't there already, since it's always been presented as one of the administration's most significant policy pushes. --Aquillion (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of Hispanics

The atrocities at the border camps have been reverted with a snide comment about "controversy of the day". Please be aware that this personalized disparagement has no meaning to the community of editors here and cannot be a valid reason for an edit. A clear explanation that is intelligible based on a the community's common understanding of PAG is what gives us a helpful edit summary.

It seems to me the article needs a section about the Administrations actions toward Hispanics, including the neglect of Puerto Rico after the hurricane, stereotyping and false statements about Hispanic gang violence, and the treatment of refugee children at the Southern border, including the Administration's insistent misstatements as to fact and law. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The full comment whichUser:JFG reverted was "No indication that controversy of the day is significant enough for the lede section" You were trying to jump Volunter Marek tried to start into the lead and this says (a) It is not prominent enough in the article and/or (b) not prominent enough in external sources. Otherwise, this is a WP:RECENTISM - the story is only about 2 weeks old. That's not literally controversy-of-the-day, but the expression fits and is the one that used in "Should we mention migrant family separations in the lede?" below, where the discussion seems widely against an insertion like this one. Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mark, I wasn't trying to jump anywhere. I haven't edited the article on this subject. I was just trying to start discussion after seeing this revert. Of course, JFG should have done that instead of just leaving a childish and dismissive edit summary before moving on to his next revert. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please do not personalize content disputes. I won't take kindly to having my comments called "childish", "snide" or "dismissive". Do remember you are under civility watch. — JFG ^talk 02:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO sorry, its Volunteer Marek ... I'll strike-revise my error above. By WP:BRD it would be VM to start the next step, but anyone can of course. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention migrant family separations in the lede?

I think we should. This is something that this administration and the people in it will be renowned for in the long-term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, in the second paragraph.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Family separation is not limited to Trump. As "evil" as these separations may be made out to be by the press, that wants to manufacture anything to take away the mojo from the President after the first ever meeting between a US President and a leader of North Korea, there are actually compassionate reasons why the separations are done, not to mention legal reasons.MONGO 11:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

" there are actually compassionate reasons why the separations are done" <-- only a certain kind of person could say something like that with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. The press is the problem here.- MrX 🖋 11:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Partly yes they are. They seem to want to report the sensationalism about this affair without being explanatory. For the record I would prefer there be another way the incidence of child protection were handled, but if a person previously deported returns they are subject to felony prosecution by laws enacted prior to Trump's administration. The difference is the zero tolerance now employed which contrasts to the completely ineffective catch and release policy of the prior administration. Even then, children were detained separately for short periods from their adult parents since they were minors.MONGO 12:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't entertain a discussion about the faults and failing of the press. You can take that to WP:RSN if you like. Yes, the zero tolerance policy is the policy. Did anyone claim that this was a new law?- MrX 🖋 13:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Give it some time to see if it is just another flavor of the week as so many past controversies have been. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if the Republican party sees this as affecting the outcome of the midterms, and the policy is suddenly reversed, then we can write it off as 'berry berry strawberry'. Until then, this is a significant controversy for the Trump administration.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere. "Controversy of the week" dismissal is not a useful statement when we're discussing article sourcing and content, so repeating that whenever new content is proposed is contributing exactly nothing to constructive discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What it means with controversy of the week is undue and notnews. Sorry if that was not clear to you. Give it time to actually become something since this is basically a new 3 day old controversy at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

But it's not a new controversy. The policy has been in place for six weeks and the number of separated children are now at 2,000. I first added text on this to the article on 14 May[17]. It's blowing up right now because fantastic journalists and advocacy organizations are exposing what has precisely been going on for these six weeks, with pictures and first-hand stories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I saw when you added that, there was almost no coverage. Then around a month later it explodes on several RS all at one. I still say we should wait and see if it has anything lasting from it otherwise it should not be in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's first get some solid and complete article content about this and other mistreatment and derogation of Hispanic people, and the appropriate lead text, if any, will reflect the article. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That goes without saying. We have an full article and plenty of sources to draw from.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now -- recentism flavor of the month, and since the story hasn't been headlining for longer than a month it just does not show as DUE much by relatively low Google prominence due to the short timeframe -- certainly not LEAD second paragraph level. Also it's just not got content in the article to support it being LEAD, again because it basically started a couple weeks ago and seems just a partisan claim is all we have so far. As a partisan framing, the coverage by NPOV would only be another he-said-she-said level until perhaps more studies show up or events happen. Work on the article body first, and next month whether the content and prominence has become enough to be LEAD material can be working from actuals and not speculation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:RECENTISM. Once Congress passes immigration reform and builds the wall we'll have to rewrite this anyway. – Lionel^(talk) 10:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh this is ridiculous. It's the biggest story of the past two weeks, it's reported on everywhere, internationally, domestically, in conservative and liberal outlets, and yet... Wikipedia is not suppose to mention it because... a couple users realize that it's making the president look bad so they start with the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-policy based arguments can safely be discounted, or ignored entirely. Consensus is not a vote and WP:RECENTISM is not policy, nor is it reflective of our actual content practices. Claims of this being too new are contradicted by more than two months of sustained news coverage. I don't even know what to say about arguments like "hearsay" or "he-said/she-said". They are so bizarre as to not even merit a response.- MrX 🖋 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

'he-said/she-said' would be me -- referring to there not being much in the article and potential for it winding up a lot of not-much if forced by NPOV to a lot of both sides opposing quotes of vagueness and spin and posturing. Two spins are not necessarily better than one nor is truth in the middle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose putting it in the lede at this point. Let's see if it becomes a significant issue in the overall thrust of his presidency. In the meantime, somebody needs to clean up the "Immigration" section in the article. It mentions the separation of families in two places, October 2017 and May 2018, with duplication of material. I would like to eliminate the comment from an unnamed White House official, and add more reactions from actual Congresspeople, since the opposition is bipartisan and bills are being introduced to end the practice. Also, the coordinated response from the former first ladies might be worth a mention; that's unique in my experience. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lede. I expect that something will change by the end of next week, and even if nothing changes by then, that will also be noteworthy. Let's wait for that information before adding it to the lede. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This should be in the lede of the sub-page (sub-sub-page?) Immigration policy of Donald Trump. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support in the lead. This is major international news. Trump's nasty comments about Mexicans et al have been part of what made him unorthodox from the start. The rest of the world noticed this stuff, rather than more internal US matters. Now that world is seeing imagery of kids crying, kids in cages. It's big. It's part of a long term image thing for Trump and the USA. It's already long term. Leaving it out of the lead would like like whitewashing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 Actually not the BBC headline. A related story is on page 2 after the one about Canadian cannabis. Sonot a big thing as yet, and not a long image as yet, that would be speculation. For long term, well which of the stories for which president ? Who remembers the tens of thousands of children that Obama's administration put into shelters ? Who will note the law requires separating children since their parents are being prosecuted for illegal entry or confuse that with thinking Trump made a law ? Putting it into the lead without support is just creative writing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

" Who remembers the tens of thousands of children that Obama's administration put into shelters" <-- No one. Because it didn't happen.

" Who will note the law requires separating children" <-- No one. Because no such law exists.

" Who will confuse that with thinking Trump made a law" <-- Not a "confusion". This is Trump's policy, plain and simple.

"Putting it into the lead without support is just creative writing" <-- There's literally dozens of sources that give it "support", so no, it's not.

I'm going to say it again. It's simply impossible to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS with people who live in an alternative delusional reality and refuse to even agree on some basic facts, or who refuse to respect the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources. It's simply idiotic to give such individuals veto power over any edit made to the article in the way that the "consensus required to restore" provision does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek - actually, tone aside, thank you for that. The mis-reading and mis-quotes are illustrative and I see a couple good links in the cites you used. User:HiLo48 note - see, long-term memory is poor -- here's someone who forgot the larger item of 2014. Then did not read the full line, and .. well, no he's right that its rare anyone confused policy to be law or think Trump wrote law, the phrase "Trump law" seen is just a far-left sarcasm (e.g. PoliticalJack).

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what that post is saying. Please try plain English. And leave out sarcasm, if that's what it was. It doesn't work well on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• " Who remembers the tens of thousands of children that Obama's administration put into shelters" - shutting them down was mentioned in the Reality Check that my sentence ended with, and is slightly mentioned in the current article you linked to, showing it fades from discussions so much folks deny it ever existed or misread what I typed. Here's another link from June 2014 Mother Jones that gives some idea of the numbers and drug smuggling and other tidbits from a leftist source you may be open to.
• "Who will note the law requires separating children" you have to include the rest of it "since their parents are being prosecuted for illegal entry". I think I got that one from factchecker.com, but am pleasantly surprised to see there is a Dallas factchecker opinion-ater, and note your cite here mention the same point.
• Bonus was the editorials ("factcheckers") put in a couple interesting information items and source cites otherwise hard to find in all the tumult -- Politifact at "By law, when adults are detained and criminally prosecuted, their children cannot be housed with them in jail." links to the Flores case. The Washington Post at "This “zero-tolerance policy” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children." links to a DOJ announcement.

So thanks for the illustration of POV- or anger- blindness, the correction on nobody being confused, and for the few bonus sites. No sweat over thethe ranting -- it was much nastier when I psted at the gaming side about somebody's faovorite game, and the Evolution folks are almost as religious/scatalogical. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Or abuse? Or insults? Or what? Please just discuss the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Absurd comment from start to finish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

BBC content is tailored to you "personally". I would get a different view. This is not an isolated event in which Trump has played no part. I say again "Trump's nasty comments about Mexicans et al have been part of what made him unorthodox from the start." And it appealed to the racists and ignorant. And he got elected. Now the news is telling me his wishes are coming to pass. And you really have to stop blaming everyone else for what he has created. It's not a good look. As for Obama, that's another flaw in the behaviour of Trump lovers. I have news. He has retired. This article is about Trump. Trump used being nasty to immigrants as a major policy platform. It's happening. And you want it to be someone else's fault? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 I was also not seeing it as the lead for Times, or Daily Mail, or Independent, or Telegraph... Just saying that the UK leads with UK stories - Brexit, a footballer, whatever -- and then things like Melania's dress or Canadian Cannabis or Tarriffs may come in coverage before some article related to this. It is present so perhaps "internationally noted", rather than "major international news", and "long-term" is subject to folks have very weak memory out 5 or 10 yes from now. No idea what you mean about blaming others, the Obama example was in a discussion of "leng-term" memorable, to show the shortness of folks memory. For the rest of it -- The tradition of blaming the prior administration might be in there too as pretty much all opposing parties do that, LOL back that you said it as if that's new or was said by me. But you'd have to look at foxnews.com or hannity show to get perspective on that, I would have guessed 'enforcing the law' and 'good of the nation' as being mentioned. I recommend flop the channels back and forth sometimes and see the POV differences are amazing, plus each side says things the other does not even acknowledge exists and uses their own dog-whistle terms. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of other views. I am also aware of my own biases. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support; a sentence or so in the lead seems WP:DUE given the breadth and level of sustained coverage. At this point it's reasonable to call it one of the administration's most prominent actions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that CIS is not a reliable source, and incarceration rates aren't the only source supporting the fact that illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at much much lower rates than natives [18].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Russia part 2

Looking for comments on the direction for Foreign Policy / Russia section.

To the current small section, User:MelanieN added a number of items in this edit] and looked like this.

I and am thinking this diary-style is a poor direction and too long -- and will get much longer in the next 2 1/2 years. I was thinking which approach to take and what to include really needs a wider discussion with the others here. I think this section should be more a summary where only the largest areas of the Presidency get a section, and the largest items in the section only get named in a list, any details they have are in a lower article. I'm thinking to aim for a style and length more like what was done with at Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Russia or Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#End_of_the_Cold_War - less than one screen of high-level summation.

The prior discussions about approach and scope were vague and way back in archive 1. So please comment below -- what style of structure should this section have, and what should be the amount conveyed. Thanks.

Markbassett (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So, I take you're not going to identify the actual content of Melanie's edit that you specifically have a problem with (see discussion above)? You're just going to mass-remove all of it without elaborating further (in the same way that you advocate mass-removals all across Wikipedia for similar flimsy reasons)? This Wikipedia article is going to be held hostage until you yourself come up with a comprehensive text on Trump-Russia relations? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict - and Snoogans, I'm OK with that. I think we should use some of the material I had but not in the format I had it.) Thanks for starting this discussion. What we have right now is awful: a paragraph about a couple of phone calls, and a trivial item about the G-7. (BTW the Germany section is even worse; let’s tackle it next.) I put in everything I felt might be relevant, but I quite agree with your plan of choosing just the most important incidents and issues, and organizing it by issues or incidents rather than a timeline. When we have agreed on what to include, we can use the paragraphs and references I used if that’s OK with people. I would suggest:

• Trim the paragraph about the phone calls. We could add that he has spoken to Putin by phone 8 times as of June 2018.[19]
• I’d like to mention his two meetings with Putin but I don’t feel strongly about it.
• Include the cruise-missile strikes in Syria that killed Russians - in February 2018 and April 2018
• Include that we imposed new sanctions against Russia in March 2017 and March 2018.

What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I would agree to your suggestions. The problem we have with a Russia section is that once the diplomatic tit-for-tat is covered, there is virtually nothing of substance that happened in terms of foreign policy. Hopefully this will change if/when direct talks eventually happen. — JFG ^talk 03:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mainly because Trump was stymied in the things he wanted to do for Russia. Like lifting the sanctions as soon as he took office,[20] or getting them back into the G-7.[21] Our report has to deal with the things that actually happened. Thanks, I'll condense and rework the material tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• MelanieN - (I did not mean to exclude your prior edits from consideration, sorry if you or Snoo read it as a disrespect, I just thought links above were better to show than full-length text.) In general, I'm still looking for something of the style of Obama or Reagan of less than one screen of high-level summation. In terms of content, I did Google-count Trump - Russia for the various topics and wind up thinking the section should mention the strains over Syria (58.8 Million hits, multiple events); discuss sanctions (29 Million, generally opposed but ...), and the return to G7 (15Million) at least in part because it continues the narrative of the Obama article. Possibly mention the indictments (7 Million) from continuing Russiagate tensions, or the expulsions (892,000) as more directly a diplomatic relations event. I'd exclude the APEC (381,000) from here because that is Asian relations, and exclude classified-information (775K) because that's under Ethics. The other events you listed (Missles, G20, CAATSA, Kasham) were all far less covered and seem not mentioned in overviews. I don't have a full narrative for here, but to give some initial idea I'm thinking a narrative form that might run something like this...

'Early in the Trump administration the US-Russia relations remained strained, a disappointment CNN as hard-line actions continued between the nations despite friendly words between Trump and Putin.[22]. In 2017 the US followed the EU in expulsions over the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, but in 2018 recommended made a surprise call for Russia to be readmitted G7 after its expulsion for annexing Crimea. bbc ... Sanctions were repeatedly bbc2 bbc3 ' I know that's a dogs breakfast, but I'm just trying to convey the alternative concept of narrative of a few topics for here rather than a section of 3 or 4 major individual events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, good, now we understand where we are coming from. I don't think we necessarily need to keep it to “less than one screen of high-level summation”. I agree with a narrative approach rather than a timeline, but we don't want it to be so general as to be uninformative, or so heavily summarized as to approach WP:OR. Maybe a general review would be appropriate after a president leaves office, but not during his active presidency IMO. I think we need enough detail that readers don’t have to click on the “main article” link to know what we are talking about. And it should be clearly organized by topic. This article is about his presidency; relations with Russia are possibly the most important aspect of his foreign policy; we need to have real and current information in this section. What I have in mind is something this:

During the campaign and continuing during his presidency, Trump repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin and expressed his desire for better relations with Russia. As of June 2018 the two have spoken by phone eight times, and they have briefly met in person on two occasions.

On taking office Trump indicated he would be open to lifting existing sanctions on Russia, and he reportedly ordered the State Department to look into doing so, but no sanctions were actually lifted. On March 25, 2017, his administration imposed new sanctions against eight Russian companies in connection with the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act. In July 2017 Congress passed a bill imposing new sanctions and giving Congress the power to block any effort by the White House to weaken sanctions on Russia. Trump opposed the bill but signed it because it had passed both houses by a veto-proof majority. In a signing statement he indicated that he might choose not to enforce certain provisions of the legislation that he deemed unconstitutional. On March 26, 2018, as part of international support for the UK's reaction to the poisoning in Britain of a Russian expatriate and his daughter, the U.S. ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats and the closure of a Russian consulate in Seattle. After the expulsions were announced, Trump reportedly complained that the number 60 was too high. In April 2018 U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced that the administration would impose new sanctions against Russia, targeted at Russian support for Syria's chemical weapons program. However, the next day the threat of sanctions was withdrawn, reportedly because Trump was "not yet comfortable executing them."

The U.S. and Russia clashed repeatedly over the civil war in Syria, in which Russia actively supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while a U.S.-led coalition has conducted air strikes against Syrian government forces as well as ISIL-linked groups. On February 7, 2018, a U.S. air and artillery strike on a pro-government formation in eastern Syria killed multiple Russian mercenary troops. The incident was described as "the first deadly clash between citizens of Russia and the United States since the Cold War" and an ″an episode that threatens to deepen tensions with Moscow″. On April 7, 2017, the U.S. conducted cruise-missile strikes on the Syrian Shayrat Airbase as a response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. The strikes were condemned by Russia as an "act of aggression".

Sources

What do you and the others think about this approach? --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine. I would add that Trump reportedly complained that he had been misled by staff into expelling so many diplomats. And editors should of course be free to add content to the article on this topic as more notable events stack up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN looks good and about ready to go in. I'd say drop the two "reportedly" clauses from their sentences as not appropriate -- if they're not acknowledged and were not public or presidential actions. I also do not see a relevance to the phone number count line 2 but if the number is official and known then meh on whether that is in or not. See if you get another editor input for here or two then give it another BRD try. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That's a very good summary, and you have my blessing to insert it. I would however remove the sentence about Nikki Haley's statement and next-day retraction, because it lacks weight. I also corrected a typo in your prose ("passed passed"). I would add a sentence about Trump suggesting that Russia rejoin the G8; that is well-sourced and significant. — JFG ^talk 08:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with most of these suggestions, but I would like to include the Nikki Haley announcement and withdrawal, and the report that he complained about the number 60. I will leave out the word "reportedly" if that makes it seem weak; the Washington Post seems like a sufficiently good source to include it. The reason is that I think we need to get across the fact that he personally opposed several of the actions his administration took. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I still feel that the Haley part was too short-lived and inconsequential to mention. In favor of keeping the "60 is too many" story and the 8 phone calls; he needs to report to his master, right? Not sure we should convey the idea that he opposed his administration: in the context of relations with Russia, he rather opposed demands from Congress. — JFG ^talk 18:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN The word ‘reportedly’ is accurate portrayal, my objection is to including hearsay not very DUE and not part of the Presidency. Allegations about feelings or of something where nothing happened, nothing announced.... just an a portrayal of some anonymous sources said is something the Washington Post can convey and it’s market interested in. But for this article, the cocktail party Telephone game story is not part of Presidential actions, and will not have many sources available so would drop those bits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Family separation in the body

Can we at least put info on this in the body (above discussion is about the lede)? I mean, seriously folks, it's sort of ridiculous that the biggest story of the Presidency right now which keeps getting bigger and bigger cannot even be mentioned in a Wikipedia article ... on the presidency.

And yes, omission of this info is a very clear case of failing to adhere to POV. The tag was not spurious in anyway and absent fixing of this problem should be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The final paragraph in the 'immigration' section covers it. The text in that paragraph can certainly be worded more concisely, clarified or expanded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

VM, what are you talking about, "cannot be mentioned" and "omission"? There is a large paragraph about it, as you know very well since you moved that pre-existing material when you tried to create a separate section heading for it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies, I'm starting to get my articles confused. Still, I think the position of major religious organizations should be mentioned in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Seems appropriate - There is some there now, which seems enough length but could use some work and fixing. This is not WP:OFFTOPIC and there is an appropriate section that it fit into, and it seems modestly WP:DUE. While it's only gone viral in the last few weeks and doesn't have much events to mention, I do get google 1.92 million hits, which seems well below 'wall' or 'haiti' but well above H1-B visas. The RAISE act and a couple other things are so low I tend to think they should be cut, but that's a different topic. For now I'd say look at the two paragraphs that are there now, merge and correct the content as needed, as mentioned in the MelanieN remark at 'Should we mention migrant family separations in the lede?'. CHeers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to lead

At Donald Trump, MrX proposed adding the following to the lead:

"His administration has been characterized by high turnover of personnel, including two cabinet members. He has frequently disdained the mainstream media, regularly using Twitter to sidestep the press."

There was not consensus to add the material there, but several participants suggested they would support it here. @MrX, Scjessey, PackMecEng, MONGO, SPECIFICO, Mandruss, Volunteer Marek, Atsme, Winkelvi, Sphilbrick, JFG, LM2000, and Emir of Wikipedia: - courtesy ping of commenters there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's fair and accurate. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. One sentence is inaccurate and a judgemental POV editorial ("characterized by" is conclusive and absolute - there are a number of things that have characterized his presidency), the other is a non-sequitur and an attempt at WP:SYNTH with another judgmental POV editorial ("sidestep the press"). As to the above comment by Drmies, I suppose it's "fair and accurate" if it supports your political bias. Which proves my point here that the content as written is judgemental, POV, and editorializing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. Your erroneous supposition proves your point? I thought points were proven by comparison with reality, which for our suggested sentence holds up pretty well. There's plenty of other things that characterize his presidency, to be sure--but this is a relatively friendly one. We could add the telling of lies, the pissing off of longtime allies, a certain callousness, a mingling of business interests with the presidency. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Why so hostile, Drmies? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? I speak of love. It's all love. Like the immigration solution, a bill of love. Just love. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously I support this. These are significant, factual, and widely-covered points about the subject. We could actually add that his administration (not just him) has frequently disdained the media (e.g. Sarah Sanders, Sean Spicer).- MrX 🖋 18:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - to clarify: Ok with media mention in the lede but Oppose saying his administration is "characterized by high turnover of personnel" - that's just business as usual, much of which is attributable to Trump's Chief of Staff. I think what is happening within his DOJ is far more notable and lede worthy, especially considering it involves the top brass of the FBI, and the fact Peter Strzok was stripped of his security clearance and escorted off the grounds of FBI Hdqtrs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Did we not very recently have a discussion where it was made abundantly clear that the turnover was not business as usual?[23] PolitiFact: "the turnover in Trump’s White House is certainly unprecedented."[24] NY Times: "unprecedented"[25]. NPR: "A full 43 percent of top-level positions in the Trump White House have seen turnover. That is not normal."[26] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Atsme: Please provide sources that say that The Trump administration's high turnover is "business as usual". Not, some sideways interpretation of a source that has nothing to do with the administrations staffing, but one that actually says what you're claiming. Then we can compare those sources (Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge, or whatever) to source like these:[27][28][29]. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, Snoogans referenced the prior discussion so you can look there, but for convenience sake, I'll add a few diffs to my relevant comments: diff, diff, and to a few RS: Politifact stated: The speed of Trump’s hires and fires was surprising but not unprecedented, whereas the number of role changes shatters records. Role changes, not hires and fires. NPR quoted Trump "Yeah, there'll be people — I'm not going to be specific — but there'll be people that change," Trump said at a Tuesday afternoon press conference. "They always change. Sometimes they want to go out and do something else." My position hasn't changed from what I said before, "I didn't find anything similar in any of the other "Presidency of..." articles, nor do those articles go into such detail about staff hiring/firing. Were they good decisions? Well, if we take into consideration the unprecedented progress with North Korea and what multiple RS have reported, it appears that it was a good decision I also referred to the following sources: USA Today, WaPo, Telegraph, etc. Let's not conflate his cabinet choices with staff when referring to "personnel" considering Chief of Staff is involved in that regard. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC) See update for Politifact article. Also WaPo says either "left or changed jobs". ^{20:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)}

You're confusing speed with quantity. Politifact states: "Whether chaos or great energy, the turnover in Trump’s White House is certainly unprecedented." End of story. And why the hell are you quoting Trump, a known liar[30]? I'm not going to waste my time pointing out each of various ways in which you fail to understand what sources actual say, because it's evident that most everyone else gets it. You're on your own. - MrX 🖋 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, you are making this personal, and I'm asking you to please stop. I am not confusing anything. I've already explained that "changing roles" is not "turnover", I've provided the RS, and that's all the explaining I'm required to do - it should not have resulted in your PAs against my credibility. You calling Trump a "known liar" serves no good purpose, and neither does your attempt to wrongfully portray me as not being among "most everyone else" who gets it. This discussion just started. And MrX, by what standard are you gaging "known liar"? There is a ubiquitous joke about politicians - How can you tell if a politician is lying? The answer: His lips are moving. Keep in mind that we now know some FBI agents have lied under oath and have demonstrated unacceptable bias resulting in their dismissal and/or demotion. The media occasionally publishes misinformation and when they make a correction, all is forgiven - does that not apply to everyone else? Past presidents have lied relentlessly - they've told BIG LIES - so on what basis are you categorizing Trump as a "known liar" that separates him from other past president or politicians who are "known liars"? Better yet, don't bother to answer - and in the future, when you address me, please just focus on content and stop attacking my comments based on your POV and misinterpretations. The project will be much better off. Thank you in advance for your consideration...^{Atsme📞📧} 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Quit pretending to be a victim. I am not making this personal. I'm criticizing your fallacious arguments, which is well within the boundaries of what is acceptable. If someone misinterprets sources, or frequently digresses into off-topic rambles, it's perfectly reasonable to point that out with the hope that it doesn't keep happening. - MrX 🖋 21:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you linked to? The first sentence says "All presidents lie". You justification is Donald Trump lied about something so its okay to tar and feather him in the lead of the article. The lead is already biased focusing on all negative things. I don't see anything in the lead about him being the first president to meet with the leader of north korea. There's barely a mention of tax cuts which does not mention the fact that marginal rates were lowered for all individual taxpayers. And nothing at all on trade. In fact you have read through half the article before there is even a mention of trade policy. Whether they are good or bad, his trade policies are dramatically different from any president in recent memory. Maybe that should be mentioned in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. We're discussing high turnover of personnel, frequently disdaining the mainstream media, and regularly using Twitter to sidestep the press. Nobody is suggesting putting anything in the lead because Trump lies. Congress passed the tax cut, by the way. Different branch of government. Yes, his trade policies are terrible. Do you want to put that in the lead too?- MrX 🖋 03:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

On topic? You're the one who brought it into the discussion. Yes, I am very familiar with how the United States government works, don't patronize me. Congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law. But you cannot ignore the fact the president has some influence over what legislation congress takes up and his administration was involved with creating the bill that was ultimately pass, not to mention that Trump publicly advocated for its passage. And we're not going to put "his trade policies are terrible" in the lead, maybe something neutral like "Trump has advocated for what he calls "America First" trade policies, calling for renegotiating several trade deals and imposing tariffs on certain imports. His policies represent a departure from the policies of recent administrations."--Rusf10 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• High turnover is common in the first year, particularly in a party transition, and I would view Reagan and Carter as the better comparisons rather than say Bush senior. The causes of relying on business sector contacts and of unusual stresses of this first year are also somewhat the ‘why’ explanation to the statistic. But this all seems a side matter - - unless someone says otherwise, turnover being ‘business as normal’ seems to be a context debate and not a core argument to exclude or include?... Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Or we could just follow sources which don't seem to agree with your original research.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. I would however tweak the wording and say "He has disdained the mainstream media, frequently describing it as "fake news"." The "fake news" label is a crucial element to the presidency and the age we are in. I don't think anybody could reasonably dispute that it's a notable part of his presidency and one of long-term encyclopedic value (but I do expect to hear the same editors who frequently characterize RS as "fake news" argue that the "fake news" thing is not a major aspect of this presidency). I would prefer to have the frequent Twitter usage aspect of the presidency put in a different context, e.g. "Trump's Twitter usage stirred controversy with Trump frequently using it to propose policies" or something along those lines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your tweak is noncompliant with NPOV (not to mention bad grammar). If cherrypicked from a RS, then it could be considered for inclusion as in-text attribution in the body, not the lede. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - but I do think it's bad practice to combine the discussion for the two sentences. Some people might be ok with one but not the other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support if "high turnover" is supported by RS. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - see my response with cited source = The speed of Trump’s hires and fires was surprising but not unprecedented, whereas the number of role changes shatters records. I don't think role changes should apply. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support with slight changes - There are plenty of sources to support "high turnover" (NYT says "unprecedented", Fortune has "highest of any Presidency in decades"). I like what Snooganssnoogans said about adding "fake news" (a key phrase). I would also think about saying "The Trump administration" instead of "His administration", and "Trump has frequently..." instead of "He has frequently..." By the way, I am not watchlisting this page, so if you need a response from me please use a ping. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with Snooganssnoogans' WP:NPOV-compliant tweak as well.- MrX 🖋 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- Another attempt to add POV to the lead. The use of the word "characterized" should tell you that this is a WP:NPOV violation. Yes, there has been high-turnover and it can be appropriately mentioned in the article, but not in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  Please cite the policy or guideline that says the lead of any article should not include points of view. In what way does the word "characterized" violate WP:NPOV? Please be specific.- MrX 🖋 21:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I sure can! As per WP:LEAD "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." A characterization is always opinion-based. It also would be correct to say that the Trump administration has been characterized as a departure from control of the federal government by the Washington establishment. But that too doesn't belong in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Which part is "characterization" (sic)? That there's been high turn over? This is more than supported by reliable sources. No idea what "opinion-based" actually means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me if I don't accept some of your bare assertions. Are you able to substantiate your claim that "a characterization is always opinion-based"? I have never heard that before. Please tell me where to find this in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or even in a dictionary.- MrX 🖋 23:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced and extremely important for a reader to understand this administration.Casprings (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support with tweaks by Snooganssnoogans and supported by others. Definitely relevant to the presidency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - WP:UNDUE, a bit WP:POV, and kind of OFFTOPIC synth content. Seems somewhat a morph of a Brookings minor story, not LEAD level even without the issues of the phrasing shown being a mangle of it. The OFFTOPIC and synthetic part of the underlying bit is that this is a side-statistic at some oddly chosen timeframe that focuses on an abstract number unrelated to core Presidency acts, official statements, or major events during his term of office. I am more impressed that the side topic is overdone and could stand a bit of a haircut at the section level. Seriously, that Cabinet takes 1 screen is not too odd, that notable non-cabinet is there seems just a bit off. But that there are 4+ screens of a extra-prominent table going down to aides, speech writers, and sub-agency spokespeople BEFORE 2 paras about Flynn and Comey seems like to need a thread about reordering the section and a haircut. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  There are currently at least 20 paragraphs in the body of the article that back the proposed two sentence in the lead.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Staff turnover does not look exceedingly high when compared with prior administrations, it's just getting more attention because of the drama. For example, Paul H. O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman, Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman Jr. lasted less than 2 years under Bush 43; same for Rahm Emanuel, Peter R. Orszag and Christina Romer under Obama 44. If we go down that path, then we should also mention the exceptional delays in confirming Trump Cabinet members, but again that's not very significant in the long run. However, I would support a mention of Trump's love/hate relationship with the press, but that should be worded differently and included first in the article body. — JFG ^talk 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• it's just getting more attention because of the drama - Equivocation. RS reporting is "drama"? The RS reporting is due to the extraordinary nature of the resignations and dismissals and revolving door senior staff. This is amply described and discussed in RS Flynn, Mooch, Spicer, Cohn, Tillerson and many others - under circumstances that 1. relate to other significant narratives about Trump's conduct in office and 2. Are not in any way similar to the irrelevant fake comparisons to well-documented normal-course departures from the various previous administrations. To argue otherwise is a transparent and vacuous deflection. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Sources disagree with your original research. We have to follow sources. Besides, the proposed text is "characterized by high turnover of personnel" not "characterized by exceedingly high turnover of personnel". I hear the Dorothy is lookin' for someone to while away the hours with.- MrX 🖋 15:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support in some form. The general ideas of both the turnover and media are definitely very notable and distinctive elements of this presidency, but I can't ignore the genuine concerns raised above. If this proposal fails then it might be best to discuss the two issues separately as some may only agree that one of the two elements should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose First question: is this proposed information even in the article? If not, it should not be in the lede. I would say it is not well supported by the article text. The information about turnover is mentioned briefly in the intro to the Personnel section, although it does not say 2 cabinet officials (and isn’t it actually 3?) There is a good sized section called “Relationship with the media”, but it doesn’t say what this proposed sentence says (about his using Twitter to sidestep the press). But aside from that kind of nit-picking, which can be fixed, I oppose putting it in the lede. Everything else in the lede is straightforward reporting of the facts of his presidency, what actions he has taken, plus a paragraph about the investigation. This proposed addition is different; it is commentary or evaluation. I don’t find any comparable material in the lede sections of Presidency of Barack Obama or Presidency of George W. Bush. And I don't think it belongs here either. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• To reiterate the reason why this whataboutism argument falls flat: Only in the case of Trump's resignations and dismissals do RS tell us they arose from misconduct, open disagreements with POTUS, incompetence, and interpersonal failures. RS covers the Trump Administrations as unusual and significant and did not view the other administrations' turnover as evidence of underlying dysfunctions. If it needs to be in the article, that's a reason to write article text, not a reason to dismiss lead text. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "whataboutism". It's not like we're comparing apples to oranges here. I think it would be nice if wikipedia had the same exact standards for all presidential articles, but clearly it does not. There is absolutely not legit reason that the same type of information should be included in the this lead as was included in the leads of articles about previous presidents. You clearly don't like Trump and that's fine, but it doesn't mean you get to trash his article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO you are incorrect. Melanie presents a persuasive and convincing argument for exclusion firmly grounded on MOS:LEADREL (also WP:CREATELEAD#Rule of thumb). After her policy-based argument then she offers a comparison to other articles. This is allowable per WP:OTHERCONTENT "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement." – Lionel^(talk) 06:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A facile comparison of this article and subject to other articles and subjects will all but guarantee that we fail to produce an informative, accurate article that adheres to WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt:Now you can respond to the substantive differentiation I provided as to why this is not similar to your whatabouts. Please respond to the central point. I did not reject your false premise. I accepted your premise for the purpose of showing that... your position is still false and incorrect. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: per MOS:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article. There is little context in the article to support the proposed addition to the lead. Basically, per Melanie.– Lionel^(talk) 06:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  I don't understand your use of the word context in this context. Perhaps you mean content? There is a lot of content on the turnover (seven paragraphs and a large table), the relationship with the press (nine paragraphs), and the Twitter use (four paragraphs). More importantly, these are significant points which have been the subject of extensive reporting, analysis, and opinion around the world.- MrX 🖋 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Including audio file of children crying

I want to discuss this edit [31] by user User:Lionelt . I believe this file should be included. One, it directly relates to the policy. Second, it received a significant amount of WP:RS and likely meets Wikipedia:10YT. It seems like a file someone would want to hear in 100 years if they they are researching Trump's presidency. Finally, it is the rare case where Wikipedia can actually use a file like this without copyright problems. This significantly increases the quality of the article and should be included.Casprings (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It barely belongs in the article on the topic, certainly not in this one without full context. I agree with the removal. PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna crystal ball it here and speculate that at some point that recording will end up in the Smithsonian. Anyway, it does belong in the proper section on Immigration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Guess I can pull mine out too then, looking at news coverage and page view for the article in a month it will be over and forgotten for the most part. Just like all the others. PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pack. Everyday Trump does something impulsive & unconventional (trans. pisses off the Left) that makes international headlines and causes international outrage. And then I come here and editors are saying this is "the worst ever." Trump has been in office for 1 1/2 years. With 6 1/2 years to go does anyone really think this will be his most controversial moment? This doesn't pass 10YT.

What is sorely missing from the "family separation" para is that the motivation behind this is to (1) end catch-and-release where asylum seekers never show up for court and (2) pressure Congress into funding the Wall. Bottom line: this is what he campaigned for, this is why he was elected, he is keeping his promise. Why isn't that in the article? – Lionel^(talk) 10:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include in the immigration section; iconic status at this point & definitely relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not specific to the Trump presidency. No doubt detained illegal immigrant children cried during the Obama presidency, the Bush presidency, the Clinton presidency. Ridiculous addition. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE - sensationalizing sound effect for emotionalism? No no. Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: then you gentlemen should nominate Trump administration family separation policy for deletion. The whole article is sensationalizing word / sound / image effect for emotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Note - anyone know if the audio clip is now part of the congressional record? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Wikipedia is not a tabloid. — JFG ^talk 08:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a... (fill in the blank) does not address the arguments raised for inclusion of this document. If there actually is a theory about tabloids, sound clips and the inclusion of this content in this article, please state it clearly and explicitly. Disparagement of tabloids is not such an argument. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Fails MOS:PERTINENCE. Crying video/audio clip is decoration. The article contains insufficient context for this file. To include actual "crying" the article would have to discuss the hardship of separation in depth. Winkelvi makes an excellent point. This would be the same as adding people wailing in agony after getting bombed during Obama's Libya attack, or showing video of widows crying over their husbands killed after Obama's Syria attack.– Lionel^(talk) 10:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• We don't edit articles based on whataboutism. In fact, such arguments are a reliable indication that opponents have found no plausible argument against inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My position is based on MOS:PERTINENCE. The comparison to Obama is supplemental to my unassailable reasoning. This is proper per WP:OTHERCONTENT "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement." – Lionel^(talk) 06:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is about his entire presidency. Including this highly emotional tape, as an emotion-jerking and one-sided illustration of one aspect of his presidency, would be inappropriate. There's no way to provide enough context, and hence no encyclopedic value to this tape. I agree with JFG that including it would be tabloid stuff, basically POV and inflammatory. There are articles where we could use it, because there is enough context, but this is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  I suppose this would be one-sided. Perhaps we could include Corey Lewandowski's womp womp to represent the other "side".- MrX 🖋 12:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Speaking on Face the Nation, Leslie Sanchez commented on June 24: "I think there are many Republicans who feel it was an unnecessary evil, just to put stark contrast on that. But there's a -- if you back up on this issue a little bit and you look, the president found America's pain point. And it wasn't so much even the pictures as the audio. And a lot of Republicans I talked to, even bundlers, people that put big amounts of money together, said, when they heard the cries of the children, without visual, being separated, that was the moment where America knew this was too far. And that's when the president retreated."[32] None of the other panelists disagreed with her statement. Gandydancer (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the video is icluded as a lead image at Trump administration family separation policy; please see discussion: ProPublica video. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's track record as a dealmaker

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=847247349&oldid=847236262

has been challenged as opinion

I submit that it is objectively evident that Trump has demonstrated inferior dealmaking ability as president, and because his dealmaking prowess lies at the core of his assertions of leadership, the edit should remain. Comments? soibangla (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. Right at the top of the article it says news analysis. The guy who wrote this puts all the blame on Trump, yet I don't see the Democrats reaching out to make any deals with Trump, they're far too busy accusing him of being a Russian puppet. You know, you can't make a deal if the other side's gameplan is obstruction. But I digress, any type of analysis of the news is opinion and putting this quote gives WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of the man who wrote it. Both sides of the issue are not shown. I don't see anything even remotely similar appearing in Presidency of Barack Obama and believe me, deals he's made have also been criticized (Iran immediately comes to mind).--Rusf10 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Then attribute it to Peter Baker. Also please watch WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Attribution does solve the problem of WP:UNDUE--Rusf10 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Rusf10 - no, UNDUE is that it is not prominent so does not deserve being present at all. Attribution only clarifies whose said it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not "an opinion piece" like an op-ed or blog. It's news analysis by a senior news correspondent. Don't bring in WP:OTHERSTUFF about other presidents or any other otherstuff. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think news analysis is? There is no such thing as unbiased news analysis. And forgive me for pointing out the clear double standard wikipedia has when dealing with republicans and democrats.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares to hear your personal disparagement of Wikipedia here. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No other president in recent history has presented himself as a master dealmaker, only Trump. He has asserted he is in a class all his own: “I, alone, can fix it.” So it’s reasonable to assess his track record in making deals. And it’s not good. Quite poor, actually. Baker’s observations are based in fact. soibangla (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Absurd - UNDUE to even include a opinion article of no note, let alone AS LEAD of the section as if it were more prominent than false statements, media, and twitter. The section is OFFTOPIC badly enough, to state 3 media complaints as being his Presidential ‘philosophy’ and ‘leadership style’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb for including an opinion like this is that it has been cited by at least 2-3 good sources. I haven't checked if that's the case, but if anyone finds out that it is, please ping me an I will support this.- MrX 🖋 15:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

For Trump discussions on any topic number in the hundreds of thousands, so to only find 3 sources saying something is just just showing it is UNDUE. Find all the posts and if it is mentioned in 10% of them would be worth considering. Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Public health analysis by Harvard scholars

Should the following text be added to the "Environment and energy" sub-section?:

• In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people."

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. This is an analysis by recognized experts and published in a highly prestigious outlet. The analysis relies on regulatory impact studies by the EPA. The analysis is not peer-reviewed, but that has never been a requirement for WP:RS. The analysis has been covered by multiple secondary RS[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] This is precisely the kind of content Wikipedia needs more of: expert analyses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per my comments in the section further up this page. This is a noteworthy piece from significant scholars; properly has in-text attribution; one sentence is appropriate weight. This kind of broad-sweep summary perspectives (addressing the effects of a variety of different environmental policies collectively, rather than one or two piecemeal) is especially helpful here. Neutrality^talk 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. The research is from respected scientists and it has been cited by other reliable sources:[42][43][44] - MrX 🖋 15:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- politically motivated analysis, this is an opinion, not a fact. There is no way these things can reliably be predicted. It really is a WP:NPOV problem when we are trying to include every "expert" opinion that can be found that Trump is trying to destroy the world.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Do you want to elaborate on why this is a politically motivated analysis? On what basis are you saying that the impact of a particular regulation cannot be estimated? The authors are citing the EPA's own regulatory impact analyses as well as peer-reviewed research on the impact of specific regulations.[45][46] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious about this as well. Perhaps Rusf10 can cite some sources to support that claim.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek (a reliable source), calls it exactly what it is, an "opinion piece" [47] Also, Bloomberg (another reliable source), correctly points out that it is an "essay, which was not a formal peer-reviewed study" [48] There you have it two different reliable sources pointing out that this is not to be considered reliable, its just an opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't shown that the material is "politically motivated analysis". Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in what Newsweek writes. It used to be a somewhat reputable publication, but not so much now:[49],Newsweek#2018 scandals. I realize that the analysis is not peer-reviewed research, but I don't think we should adopt the EPA's talking points to discredit the conclusions of reputable scholars David Cutler and Francesca Dominici. - MrX 🖋 19:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you do not think Newsweek is a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN and I gave you two reliable sources, the other was Bloomberg. Regardless of whether it is politically-motivated (and I still think it is), it is an opinion piece that should not be given this type of weight. I also don't buy into this elitist attitude that because they are from Harvard that their opinions should be considered superior.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And it is definitely politically-motivated. Daivd Cutler worked in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, so don't try to act like be is some highly-respected non-partisan scholar.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So, Rusf10, a scientist who worked for this or that person isn't an objective scientist anymore? Or respected? Do you not believe in science? Objectivity? That the right would go post-truth, who could have thunk that two decades ago. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but some one who was Obama's Senior Health Care Advisor is probably not objective. And for the record, I don't believe in science, the earth is flat, and gravity doesn't exist. (any more stupid questions?)--Rusf10 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe that. And if the guy had worked for Bush I'd be fine with that too. Because reputable journals don't publish trash. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Rusf - We cover opinions and analysis as well as facts. This is given in-text attribution (as is true of most opinions), so the fact that it can be considered "opinion" is irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Attribution does not solve the problem of WP:UNDUE weight. The claim that 80,000 people are going to die each decade not only sounds ridiculous, but as I pointed out with the reliable sources above, its seriously lacks credibility. It sounds as ridiculous as Al Gore's claim the world would end in 2016 which turned out not to be true.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Sounds ridiculous" and "seriously lacks credibility" -- according to you. Not according to scholars and experts published in highly respected forums. It's the latter, not the former, that are relevant here. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It not even peer reviewed, how can you possibly accept this as true. Just because they are from Harvard does not mean we should automatically accept everything they say as true.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Accept that what is true? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For much the same reasons I mention in the previous discussion above on the talk page here. We have an essay composed by two professors in their free time,ie not related to their work for Harvard, that has gotten some coverage. But it is quite the claim to say Trump's policies are going to be responsible for the deaths of 80,000 people every decade. Such a out there guess, even if by two experts, does not belong in this article. Perhaps in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration a mention could be made somewhere there, but again I suspect the non-peer reviewed guesses of these two would not fit there either. PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "not related to their work for Harvard"--that you say that means you don't understand how academia works. That it's an "out there guess" is your personal, non-expert, unscientific opinion, and is contradicted by your recognition that these are experts. Experts who put their names under something don't go around spouting nonsense, and if it's published in one of the world's most notable medical journals, it's worth mentioning. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: "Not related to their work for Harvard" was in reference that it was not a commissioned study that would be published by Harvard the institution that would go though the peer review process. I would also appreciate your striking the personal comments about me, not helpful. But yes a paper written up by these twos in what is essentially a blog is a joke. A bad one at that and you should know better. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, it is now blatantly obvious you don't understand how this works. I'm reminded of that ad in which an old lady glues pictures to a wall, thinking it's Facebook. "Harvard the institution" doesn't publish. And Harvard is not a peer-reviewer, if that's what you think--that such a thing exists. (Harvard UP may, but that's different. Harvard scholars don't automatically get published by Harvard UP or something like that.) Scholars sometimes get commissioned to do studies, but usually not--and whether they do or not essentially means nothing, but if any studies are likely to be not neutral, it's commissioned studies, so that this wasn't is a good thing for all you folks who don't believe in objectivity. Now, JAMA is a peer-reviewed journal. They don't publish junk. That you would say that "these twos" published something in a blog means--well, it's hard for me to gauge the depths of your ignorance of the academic publication process. Let me just say that getting something published as an opinion piece in JAMA means it's solid, it's peer-reviewed, it's been vetted more than most other pieces of writing, and that because it is an opinion piece a whole bunch of other editors besides the usual reviewers have looked it over. Because this is not a blog, or like a blog. What did you want me to take back? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:Your assertion that this was a peer-reviewed study has already been debunked. It does not matter that it appeared in JAMA, it was not peer-reviewed as per Bloomberg. Just because they work for Harvard (or any other institution for that matter) or it was published in an academic journal does not give their opinions instant credibility. User:PackMecEng is not ignorant, he's using common sense. When someone makes an outrageous claim like 80,000 people are going to die, they don't just get a pass because they are from Harvard.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Drmies: No kidding Harvard does not do the peer review, that is not what I said or implied so no idea where that came from. Also when I said Harvard, the institution I was referring to Harvard as a whole, and yes they publish studies and papers, the peer-review part I mentioned would be done by the community in that area of expertise. Finally yes, the opinion section of JAMA is NOT peer reviewed, even the article itself says they take no responsibility for the article, maybe you missed that in bold type at the bottom of the article. So again we have two guys people making wild claims that Trump will kill 80k people in 10 years because of his environmental policies in a opinion article with no review or even editorial oversight fails the sniff test of RS. I think you also know what I meant with the striking part. Also a side note, I am not old yet dagnabbit! PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:Sorry, I have to correct you, but one of the authors of this piece of garbage was a woman.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, so here we have another editor referring to an article in JAMA as "piece of garbage". You have disqualified yourself for this discussion, and from any future RS discussion you partake in. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, corrected. PackMecEng (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I was trying to make sense of that odd comment, "that would be published by Harvard the institution that would go though the peer review process"--a run-on sentence whose logic is unclear and whose individual elements make little sense. It was not a "formal peer-reviewed study". That doesn't mean it wasn't peer-reviewed. Yet you jump, without any knowledge of the process or of this particular process, to "opinion article with no review or even editorial oversight". There is no way a journal like this will NOT review a highly inflammatory piece like this. Of course opinion pieces are reviewed, of course there is editorial oversight, especially for an article like this. I'm sorry, but you simply lack the knowledge and the understanding to continue this conversation: you are wrong on just about every issue. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you will understand in time, have a good night. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true which is really no more intelligent than saying "I read it on the internet, it must be true". If it were peer-review (which we already know it wasn't), why would JAMA feel it was necessary to add a disclaimer which says "Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." I may not have gone to Harvard or be an overpaid academic, but JAMA isn't the Bible and I have every right to critize an opinion piece that it published. I suggest Drmies strike his comment above about me (and I hope it was not a threat). BTW, I forgot to mention that I believe the guy who wrote this is an economist, not a environmental scientist, which gives him even less creditably.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true " - since Drmies never said anything like that, that sentence right there is a personal attack. I expect that Drmies, like many others but apparently not you, is under the correct impression that academic publications are considered reliable on Wikipedia, unlike "stuff on internet". You're basically rejecting one of Wikipedia's WP:5PILLARS here.

And you also don't appear to realize that the "expresses the opinions of the author" is just standard legal-ass-covering and nothing more. That actually DOES NOT make this "an opinion piece".

Finally, Cutler is an Applied Economist with a specialization in health policy and economics. This is actually exactly his area of expertise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"the guy who wrote this is an economist, not a environmental scientist, which gives him even less creditably" - this only demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. A lot of cutting edge research on environment and health is published by economists. David Cutler has not only published on matters of health and environment in the top econ journals, but has more than two dozen (!) publications in the three best medical journals (the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the wide coverage by secondary sources cited above. Summarizing expert takes on the impact of presidential actions (when widely-reported in reliable sources) is essential for a presidency article. The opposition above mostly seems to be based around second-guessing the sources that covered it, which isn't our place as an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Second-guessing the sources? I just proved the source is not creditable. Our place to not to gather far-out opinions and place them into articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You "proved"? You merely made an ipse dixit assertion. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I proved it's an opinion and not a peer-reviewed study. And I now know that David Cutler worked in the Clinton and Obama administrations, so he clearly has a bias. What other proof do you want? If you have a flux capacitor, I'll gladly take a trip with you into the future, until then the proof I provided should be sufficient.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, you didn't have to prove it was an opinion piece: everyone who understand publishing understands that already. So, because the dude worked for Clinton and Obama he's biased? And "the source" is one of the best-known journals in the fields, so if you want to call that not credible (a ridiculous assertion--please go and tell Jytdog and Doc James that they should go ahead and nominate WP:MEDRS for deletion) you might as well do away with all reliable sources. Can we at least have Breitbart left? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

By "the sources that covered it", I was referring to the heavy coverage in reliable secondary sources. If we had just the original piece, with no secondary coverage, I might agree with you that it's tricky to rely on it (there would be WP:DUE issues, if nothing else.) But, in fact, it has had extensive coverage by a wide range of reliable sources. When you try to discredit the analysis itself, using your own personal reasoning, you are second-guessing those sources, which is not a valid argument. If you think that those sources should not have covered it, you can write letters to them demanding a retraction; and if and when they retract their coverage, we can remove it here. If you feel there's some controversy over it that the provided sources don't convey, you can find other sources disagreeing with them, and we can decide how to weigh each. But your simple bald assertion that the sources were wrong to quote and respect this expert opinion has no weight and is not a valid argument against inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose More ridiculous, POV, unencyclopedic, opinion-based (rather than fact- and/or evidence-based) nonsense. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, this is JAMA (journal). I know Trumpers don't like science, but you're talking about one of the most renowned medical journals in the world. So that may be an opinion piece, but it's opinion based on facts and evidence. Surely at some point you will accept facts and evidence presented by scholars. You know, scholars--people who studied and do science, unlike people who are not scholars. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hey, I guess you forgot that I've told you previously I have similar academic credentials as you. Which makes me a scholar. And I flew jets in the Navy. Which was me doing science. Unlike you, even though you are a scholar. Oh, and don't make the mistake of assuming I'm a "Trumper". You've done it before - will this instance be the last time? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - WP:UNDUE. It is not prominent in coverage, widely cited, famous, or commonly accepted. The goal is not too include every anti-trump article of no note that has made no impact. It seems just a story of the day and too recent to be trying to say it will be recognized longer. Come back when it has had time to get wider prominence and actual effects or to have shown that it was a one-day-wonder. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - high quality academic source. Not an "opinion piece" (???) or whatever else people came up with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – It's an opinion piece, as noted by JAMA themselves. Disingenuous to name-drop Harvard in there. — JFG ^talk 05:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"as noted by JAMA themselves" - where do you see that? (And it's not "disingenuous" seeing as how... it's from Harvard) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

From the source: Disclaimer: Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association. — JFG ^talk 08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This comment falsely suggests that the JAMA is itself in the business of conducting research or presenting opinions. As such, the comment promotes misinformation that would lead uninformed editors to conclude that the JAMA is for some reason rejecting the research as having failed some standard of methodology or truth. Like all professional scientific and scholarly publications, the JAMA is a vessel for well-formed discourse, under which this article surely and self-evidently qualifies. It is not accurate to present this standard boilerplate as if it disavowed or disparaged the investigation by WP:NOTABLE academic experts. Whoever closes this RfC, please note the straw man, uninformed, and/or disingenuous attempts to marginalize these scholars' attributed expert evaluation of a public policy issue with unsupportable !votes. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

JAMA does not appear to put that disclaimer on their regular work, just work from JAMA Forum. Since that is their opinion section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. So what? As I said in an earlier thread, these notable authors' attributed findings could be used even if they were delivered on a personal blog, a TV interview, or Congressional testimony. They are notable experts in the field. This is not personal judgment, it's considered, reasoned analysis. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

But that goes against WP:EXCEPTIONAL since it is a low quality source making a big claim that cannot be proven. It is a source that fails MEDRS, fails as a strong independent RS, and making a pie in the sky claim that really does not matter. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not exceptional. These calculations are made all the time in public policy analysis and in epidemiology. The numbers aren't "exceptional" either. This is a big country and a ten-year horizon is a long time. This is simply a best estimate of well-informed analysis from competent experts, attributed to them as experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: this is tantamount to calling Trump a genocidal mass murderer. I'm dumbfounded that this is even a serious proposal. WP:EXTRAORDINARY requires--and this is "extraordinary"--multiple high quality sources to substantiate this theory in a research setting, independent of Cutler/Dominici, that Trump is setting in motion genocide. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." – Lionel^(talk) 06:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"this is tantamount to calling Trump a genocidal mass murderer." - um, no, it's not. Your characterization is pure hyperbole and strawman. Please read our article on genocide for further illumination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Activist (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a medical claim as such so WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. The source is much better than the average newspaper article, which is what most of the article is based on. The idea that policy changes which impact healthcare provision can have a significant impact in life years lost is not even remotely controversial, virtually every health policy has similar discussions around it and most governments engage with that and put forward their own estimates with rationale and methodolgy. It's a perfectly routine discussion of health policy impact. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I am not sure who brought up the MEDRS part of the discussion but if you want to get technical it does apply here. Specifically from Wikipedia:Biomedical information a supplement on what qualifies for MEDRS. Under health effects "Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc." Which the purposed text is clearly making reference to with death of 80k people and 1 million with respiratory issues. That being the case the source would easily fail the MEDRS test. PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Per Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. Time will tell whether they were right or not. I suggest the word prediction or some form thereof be inserted into the statement, as that is what it is. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I asked for input from the RS noticeboard[50] and WikiProject Medicine[51] as to the RS status of the source and the quality of the analysis. Perhaps, it would be wise to get feedback from Wikipedia editors with expertise on the environment and science more broadly, as well (but I don't know where they hang). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem stipulating that Cutler/Dominici is RS. Here are the issues that I see per EXTRAORDINARY:

1. RS isn't good enough. Cutler/Dominici must be found to be "exceptional RS" and without peer review this source won't meet that standard
2. You need multiple exceptional RSs and mass media reportage regarding Cutler/Dominici doesn't count

What? No "scientific consensus?"– Lionel^(talk) 08:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "Found" is a WP:WTW. If the text makes it into the article, the word "found" should be changed to "said". See WP:CLAIM. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  "Said that they found" (or equivalent) would also do for me. This is a prediction, not a statement of measurable existing conditions. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• weak oppose any medically related claim should be of a higher standard(review, clearly this one is not[52]), however in this case...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This ref is better than most we use to support statements in politics. Should switch "found" to "state" as this is a prediction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per JzG. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comment in the earlier discussion re the source: JAMA would publish only articles that they believe to be suited to meet their reputation as a first class journal. Gandydancer (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, and was published in JAMA Forum, not JAMA proper. Natureium (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I do not get the attempts to disparage this as a mere "opinion piece" … it is the opinion of an expert in the field and is therefore both significant and reliable. Attribute it per WP:RSOPINION and be done. Jbh ^Talk 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I might substitute the word "found" for a more neutral term like "stated". The article also doesn't say that this is the "most conservative estimate", the authors describe it as an "extremely conservative estimate". It might make sense to state that this was an essay rather than a peer reviewed article in-text. This is a well-informed expert assessment, it doesn't reflect a scientific consensus, but it's also not wild conjecture. Nblund ^talk 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: a notable opinion by two experts in the field; professionally published. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Professionally published in a opinion column that takes no responsibility for what is written there, has no editorial oversight, and is not peer-reviewed for something that probably qualifies for a MEDRS requirement. PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

”no editorial oversight”? There’s no evidence for that. I’m sure the JAMA Forum has editorial oversight. Neutrality^talk 01:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And why do you think they put a disclaimer on it???--Rusf10 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If they had editorial oversight they wouldn't put at the bottom of the article in bold "Disclaimer: Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant. The editors of a journal, their opinion means nothing. Two notable experts who've conducted rigorous study in their field of acknowledged expertise -- their "opinion" is the sort of thing we cite on WP in thousands of articles, with attribution. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is correct here. To add, "oversight" doesn't mean "endorsement of everything that's written"; rather, it means that there is a degree of selectivity, editing, and quality control. Such is the case here. The about page expressly says "JAMA has assembled a team of leading scholars, including health economists, health policy experts, and legal scholars, to provide expert commentary and insight..." This is not like a Forbes or Huffington Post blog where just anyone can waltz in and get published Neutrality^talk 01:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Except that is not what we are doing here, there is no in text attribution for the claims they are making. As I mentioned above I still stick by the MEDRS and exceptional claims issues as well. After the section above purposing it and this now being pushed I have no idea why this is important for this article. Also there is no sign of selectivity, editing, or quality control though. That is the issue and the reason they have such large disclaimers. It follows standard procedure for an opinion piece and is not special in that regard. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do you continue to call this an "exceptional claim" -- We're dealing with 300,000,000-plus people. Everything is big numbers in such analysis. What's exceptional about it? What would you expect to project with a significant cut-back in health protections? Why do you think these policies were enacted in the first place?

It was not to hobble industry and commerce. It was to protect public health and reduce the social cost and suffering of disease and disability.  SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

80,000 additional US citizens dead and 1,000,000 new respiratory problems over 10 years. That is a lot of people. Heck that is close to the number of people per 10 years that die from suicide, leukemia, or liver cancer each year[53]. So a claiming that many people will die and a million will have major health problems is kind of a big deal. PackMecEng (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes sir. That's why rolling back 40+ years of environmental protection is a monumental policy shift, isn't it? You can't refute a detailed reasoned analysis of the consequences by arguing that its finding shocks you. That's like weighing an elephant and it's bigger than my cat so I conclude the scale is broken. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is being pushed into the article because it fits into the narrative that Donald Trump is evil. No one here actually cares the prediction fits into the category of WP:Fringe theories. The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump. And its was published in an academic journal. That's another fallacy, because something is published in a medical journal, it must be creditable. Believe me, if I found an expert opinion in favor of Trump's policy and tried to add it to the article, it would be thrown out as biased, even if it was published in a reliable source such as a newspaper or national magazine. Even the New York Times, publishes op-eds by conservatives from time to time. But because this guy is an academic (over 90% of which happen to be liberal), we're supposed to believe that is of high integrity and wouldn't just write a political piece (even though a look at his career shows he held political positions). I don't accept that his opinion is any better than those of pundits (left or right) I see on cable news. To illustrate this, take Jonathan Gruber (economist), an "expert" academic from MIT. After being caught on video actually telling the truth about Obamacare (which he helped craft), I wouldn't trust anything this guy says. Just because someone is an academic does not mean they can be trusted, especially when the are putting out claims that have not been reviewed and that they will never be held accountable for.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump." <-- This is a BLP violation and User:Rusf10, you need to strike it.

And again, your comment basically indicates that you have no intent of following Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (you dismiss academic and scholarly sources out of hand).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no violation, that's a true statement. You don't have any intent to follow WP:NPOV, since its clear that you here to push a certain viewpoint, so don't lecture me on policies.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you calling me fat? That's not a very nice thing to do to a lady. But anyhow, it is still a large what if, full of disclaimers like hey this could be way off. It is best guess estimates of an economics professor and a biostatistics professor (which I will admit she has more weight than David in this situation, not sure what he has to do with the article). So yeah big claims based off of best guesses. PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you don't understand how scientists work and how policymakers work and how knowledge advances. Our best estimate is... our best estimate. Would you instead base decisions on worse estimates or random numbers? All this equivocation about opinion, estimates, and so forth is at its root denying the 5 Pillars. We go by the crux of mainstream knowledge. That's not perfect, it's simply the best we have. Folks are free to live their lives according to some other approach, but not while they're here discussing edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we are at an impasse here, I appreciate your thoughts on the policy side but I must disagree with your interpretation my friend. Agree to disagree? PackMecEng (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"This is being pushed into the article because it fits into the narrative that Donald Trump is evil. No one here actually cares the prediction fits into the category of WP:Fringe theories. The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump. And its was published in an academic journal."

^^^^This. A hundred times yes to this.^^^^ Thank you, Rusf10. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Some sources talking about the study are interesting.[54] Should be noted the EPA has commented on this study and the use of their statistics "This is not a scientific article, it’s a political article. The science is clear, under President Trump greenhouse gas emissions are down, Superfund sites are being cleaned up at a higher rate than under President Obama, and the federal government is investing more money to improve water infrastructure than ever before," with the EPA "dismissed the essay as rhetoric, not research,". Most of the sources listed above mirror the same concerns. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's incredible. And completely unexpected. Thanks for finding it, PackMecEng. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The current EPA is very anti-science, pro-pollution, so they aren't a RS in these matters. They are purely political. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird, people were saying the same kind of things about this essay. But seriously, we are going to say the EPA is not a reliable source for their own data? No you are mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

See, clear double standard by user:BullRangifer, the "experts" at the government are political and cannot be trusted, but the academic "experts" from Harvard are not political and must be trusted. I guess, the EPA was only a reliable source when it was being run by Obama.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)