Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

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".[1] 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)

I'm not going to wade through all that chest beating. Citing JAMA Forum posts is not citing JAMA. But it's not citing Facebook, either. This really isn't any different from citing with inline attribution, not in Wikipedia's voice, any other op-ed material by experts. It's primary sourcing, but it's not trash. I would hope an actually secondary source could be found, though, for the same sorts of claims. It's not really WP's job to report every random academic's opinion. The "is this WP:DUE?" question is valid to ask.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 29 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.[2] 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[3]. 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 [4].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.[5]
• 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,[6] or getting them back into the G-7.[7] 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.[8]. 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)

OK, based on suggestions here, I took out the Nikki Haley-gets-contradicted-by-her-boss material. There were mixed feelings here about the “60 is too high” story but I kept it in for now. I’d like to discuss the “Russia should join the G8” comment before adding it; to me it was just talk and nothing actually happened. Kind of like the Nikki Haley incident. We are omitting the oval office meeting and any details about the Trump-Putin meetings. Now I'm going to go trim some of the bloat from the "Ethics-Russia" section. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. No rush for the G8 suggestion; looks like a Putin–Trump summit is in the works, and we'll certainly have plenty of solid material to add when that happens. — JFG ^talk 01:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, how/where did we decide to omit the Oval Office meeting? That was a smoking-gun event. I strongly favor a mention and the nice photo the Russians released. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Under "Ethics", "Russia". --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good. Cause that's one of my fave's. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 29 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?[9] PolitiFact: "the turnover in Trump’s White House is certainly unprecedented."[10] NY Times: "unprecedented"[11]. NPR: "A full 43 percent of top-level positions in the Trump White House have seen turnover. That is not normal."[12] 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:[13][14][15]. 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[16]? 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)

• Support - I’m fine with it in this article. It is highly unusual, extensively covered by RS, concise and nonjudgmental. Passes DUE and NPOV. O3000 (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, though Snooganssnoogans' and MrX's copyedits should be considered; i.e., I support including these facts in the lead, and am not hung up on the exact wording. And I think I'm now going to flee the Trump-on-Wikipedia hellhole while my soul is still intact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is a good source for Trump's attacks on the press and his usage of the term "fake news".[17][18] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Why are we saying disdained the press rather than the more straightforward attacked that is widely represented in RS discussion of his actions? SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Question - Do we use the more straightforward Donald Trump is attacked by the press or do we say the Donald Trump is disdained by the press? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We use neither because Trump is neither attacked nor disdained by the press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wink: 1. Time to de-snark on these talk pages. 2. Press, historians, political scientists, and citizens may have "attacked" some of Trump's actions. None has "attacked" Trump. But as you should be aware, Trump himself actually does make personal attacks quite frequently against the Press, ordinary citizens, and various ethnic/religious sectors. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Something about this in the lead. Only by chance, I came to this article today, after reading John Kelly, Scott Pruitt, and the Epic Turnover of the Trump Administration -- good or bad, these are "historic" hard numbers, and seem truly central to any topic known as, "administration". Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Including audio file of children crying

I want to discuss this edit [19] 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)

WP:NOT is a perfectly acceptable and major policy section. User:JFG seems to be specifically referring to WP:SENSATION about infotainment and churnalism, though I think the direct WP:TABLOID for the part about not being first-party presenting direct recording also plausible. (He could have pointed at other parts such as WP:NOTPROMO since it's advertising or promoting a cause, rather than being an illustrative aid to text, or other parts this verges into, but he chose 'tabloid'.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 27 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."[20] 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[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] 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:[30][31][32] - 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.[33][34] 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" [35] Also, Bloomberg (another reliable source), correctly points out that it is an "essay, which was not a formal peer-reviewed study" [36] 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:[37],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)

Peter (Southwood), Neutrality, and Drmies, this will not end good. Rusf10's comments on this page show he's NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:35, 26 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)

"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." Can you explain your true intent here, Drmies? It seems you are saying that expressing an opinion, in a discussion where opinions are meant to be expressed in order to come to a consensus, is now a disqualifier for not just further comments in this discussion but also in all discussions at a particular noticeboard? I didn't realize admins were allow to unilaterally and individually institute topic bans, that is kind of what you're saying here, isn't it - or were you just being humorous? I'm seriously asking because I am, frankly, shocked you would say something like this because you don't like someone's expressed opinion. It's not as if he personally attacked anyone, after all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you want to talk? First stop gaslighting with your "don't like someone's expressed opinion". "It seems that you are expressing an opinion"--yes, I am, but it has nothing to do with politics. My opinion is that you are not capable of judging what is and what isn't a reliable source, given your comments here. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"My opinion is that you are not capable of judging what is and what isn't a reliable source, given your comments here." Now, that is very different than saying, "You have disqualified yourself for this discussion, and from any future RS discussion you partake in", wouldn't you agree? Especially when an administrator says it, the possibility of a chilling effect and all that. Regardless of how Rusf10 takes your comments, other editors reading "you have disqualified yourself" could see the statement as a warning and will stop contributing their comments in discussion, for fear of some kind of topic ban, even if they haven't violated policy (as Rusf10 did not violate policy). My concern is that your words could stifle and discourage discussion in addition to further contributing to the already toxic environment of the politically-related articles. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:27, 26 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[38] and WikiProject Medicine[39] 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[40]), 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)

• Can you cite any Wikipedia policy (with specifics, not shortcuts) that content in this article must be peer-reviewed? - MrX 🖋 11:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That would come into play for establishing the strength of the source under a MEDRS requirement. Under a strict interpretation of MEDRS this would qualify but I can see both sides on why it might not. PackMecEng (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you an Natureium discuss this somewhere else? I'm not sure how you can answer for them given that they didn't cite WP:MEDRS, which I don't think would be a valid reason anyway.- MrX 🖋 13:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans posted this to WT:MED and they answered it there. Also I just assumed since that argument has been brought up a few times here and at RSN on the topic. Also I am not answering for them, just best guess. PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 26 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)

• Neutrality, K.e.coffman, "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." It's like watching a bunch of school kids discuss quantum mechanics. Someone who says that just has no idea what academic, peer-review, editorial-oversighted publication is--they think that every opinion is of the same level. I'd like to see them try to get their opinion published in the JAMA; if there's no peer review etc., then surely the journal would publish their stuff. Doesn't matter whether they are qualified, have evidence, etc. Unless, of course, the scientific world is run by scientists who weight evidence and all that, even when they publish opinion pieces. I'm sure these Wikipedia editors would respond to their rejection letter by saying OHYOUDIDN'TLIKEMYOPINION (which is what they throw around here), or find a conspiracy involving biased scientists cause one of them worked for the Obama administration or whatever. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Is there a point to your comment or just complaining? PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 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[41]. 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 to take my word for it though, there's plenty of anti-Trump material on his Twitter (I'd provide the link, but apparently I'm not allowed to do that). Comments like "Trump's health plan: Make America uninsured again!" and "What's the opposite of HUGE and GREAT? Need a word for the Trump health plan" make it pretty clear that he does not like him. Oh and btw his Twitter probably should be considered a reliable source too because after all he is a Harvard economist (I bet it's peer-reviewed too), so you should try to work on getting it removed from the blacklist. 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.[42] 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)

Rusf10, no "double standard", just more trust in real scientists than Scott Pruitt's EPA, which is a sorry shadow of itself. He does not allow it to do its job. He hated it before he was placed in charge, and that is exactly why he got the job. He has been dismantling and crippling it, but even more vigorously than other cabinet members with their agencies, who were put in their positions for much the same reasons, to dismantle and cripple them. His policies on pollution control were written by polluting industries, not scientists, even while he was governor.

The EPA has scientists he will not use, but other scientists are speaking out. Previous administrations, both GOP and Democratic, allowed the scientists and EPA to do their job. Those politicians were normal people who trusted experts. That is no longer the case. The current administration and GOP are no longer rational. The current EPA is a transformed, crippled, political agency, a Trump tool, not a scientific one allowed to protect the environment and citizens. The consequences will make America like Flint, Michigan with its water crisis. Pruitt is anti-science and has banned the use of the terms "global warming" and "climate change" at the EPA, and I suspect you think that's a good idea, but, if so, you're on the wrong side of science, history, and what RS say in our climate change articles. If true, that would make you a fringe and unreliable editor. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.

Time magazine has described the situation: "...this is an unprecedented attempt to delete or bury credible scientific information they find politically inconvenient,...The EPA’s site is now riddled with missing links, redirecting pages and buried information. Over the past year, terms like “fossil fuels”, “greenhouse gases” and “global warming” have been excised. Even the term “science” is no longer safe." "Here's What the EPA's Website Looks Like After a Year of Climate Change Censorship", Time

You attacked me for having a "double standard". Really? I call BS. Look in the mirror for that attitude. Take it away from Wikipedia, because it will affect your editing. We base our content on RS and real science. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Professionally-published opinion by notable scholars. If there are countervailing opinions, they should also be included. That some people apparently think these scholars are "biased" is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Properly attributed opinion by recognized experts in the field covered by RS. Last I looked, arguments that we should exclude academic experts because they are somehow automatically biased isn’t policy. O3000 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the opinion, mainly because it is undue. Additionally the proposed text doesn’t convey the speculative nature of the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose UNDUE for this article. Its amusing when I see such leaps of faith in what is argued as "science" where the authors of this piece claim "41000 deaths premature deaths per decade" when the piece that supports that assumption states (with nary a piece of supporting evidence and is nothing more than an advocacy collective) "4100 in 2025 alone"[43] and that is based on "modeling" not an exact science by any means.MONGO 14:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• (conditional) Oppose - see Newsweek which provides the other highly relevant view that was excluded from the proposed text, making it a challenge to BALANCE and NPOV: The EPA called the essay a “political article” rather than a matter of science. “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,” the EPA told Bloomberg. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Why does this not include any counterpoints from the EPA?[44] It would be nice to present the other side of the story. PackMecEng (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Because when Bloomberg News, your source, asked the EPA to present data to support its self-interested dismissal of the expert research, the EPA declined to respond. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That would not invalidate their comments on it though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What would we write then? "A spokesman for the EPA rejected the conclusions of the study but declined to provide any further detail?" -- Wouldn't that just make them look bad without adding any information? SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably just their quote on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: The JAMA Forum calls itself a team of leading scholars, including health economists, health policy experts, and legal scholars, to provide expert commentary and insight into news that involves the intersection of health policy and politics, economics, and the law. The claim is attributed, is serious enough, the venue is good, and the author is a recognized economic expert. The sourcing is much better than much of the rest of the article, which is sourced to newspaper reports. Therefore, it passes a WP:DUE test, in my opinion. If required, the EPA response could be included for balance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral But if it will be decided to be included the EPA response should be included too.--Shrike (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Because of the nature of the source the word found should be replaced with the word wrote. (See also WP:SAID) ~Awilley (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is the professional opinion of recognized experts based on noncontroversial EPA findings. (To be clear, it is noncontroversial among expert sources. Controversy between Wiki editors doesn't count.) –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support but condense and paraphrase to clarify that this is an estimate, something to the effect that Cutler and Dominici "estimated that the Trump administration's proposed reversals of environmental rules could result in over 80 000 additional U.S. deaths and widespread respiratory ailments". Objections that this is merely an opinion are a non-starter. Properly attributed expert opinion is entirely valid, even preferred, as a source per WP:RS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have read the JAMA article and followed the discussion on this page. I do not find the claims OTT in the context of a decade and 300 million. It demonstrates the importance and impact of public policy. The authors, the publication are highly respected and the the rejection of the claims by the EPA are entirely predictable by an organisation that has been politically usurped. Jschnur (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I came to this RfC with an open mind. The publication in JAMA forum does not account for much in my eyes - yes, it is expert opinion in a reputable venue. No, it is not peer reviewed. The question in my mind, was whether anyone else (and given the nature and recentness - this would be news orgs) was mentioning this opinion. Doing a BEFORE, I see some coverage - [45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. I also see a fairly lengthy section in the article. So - seeing that this isn't a tree that fell in the middle of a forest without being heard, I lean inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Politics aside, this seems like a piece of source text which belongs in another article. It's unbelievably detailed and represents a speculation (albeit a notable speculation) on the outcome of policy and decisions. I read through the article, particularly the section on environment and noted the fact that the Environment and Energy section is burgeoning and has already forked. If any more detailed speculations and in-depth assessments on the subject are to be added to Wikipedia then it might be better to put uncontroversial facts and summaries of research efforts in this article, and in-depth examinations and on-going research/notable speculations etc into the spin-off articles rather than further expanding sections here, which already have articles of their own. Edaham (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

2 July 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is very biased and much of the information is based on opinion without an opposing point of view. The sources of the information are not reliable, many having an agenda that verges on subversion of the American president. Please revise. The information provided in this article and all articles regarding American politicians should be collated almost solely by American citizens from varying backgrounds with many different biases and points of view to keep the information fair, balanced, and most of all, within the boundaries of logic and reasoning. Wikipedia may one day become a credible source of information and allowed to be cited itself with improvements such as this.

1. my2cents EnglishIsGod (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Logic and reasoning? In US politics? LOL. You have made sweeping criticisms there without pointing at anything specific you think is wrong with the article. In my country the better media outlets have come to describe Trump as very unorthodox. That seems fair to me. That's presumably what his electors wanted. Someone who wasn't like all the others. Given that he is unorthodox, it's difficult to ask for his article to be like those of others who came before him. And why should only Americans be involved in writing about the most powerful man in the world? HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump pressing advisors about invading Venezuela

The following text[52] was removed as "UNDUE", with the argument that Trump was "not actually planning any action" (the text never said he did). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Undue, yes. It's one of the many "reportedly" claims from an anonymous "administration official" (which could mean anything, really) that is about an unverified something said that turned into no action or further discussion. In other words, it's a giant nothingburger in the way of any encyclopedic value, now or in the future, and the addition of it on those merits alone equals WP:UNDUE as well as trivia that's actually unsourced (since it's from an anonymous individual and no verification can be performed). Definitely doesn't belong in this article. In my opinion, it doesn't belong in any article because it's something that ended up be a nothing, putting it squarely into the WP:FART category. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's remarkable how much about this "government by chaos" administration falls into that category. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to the general breadth of the sources I posted below, look at this one in particular. Trump's comments attracted international responses not just from President Maduro of Venezuela but from other leaders in the region. I'm not sure what else you would expect - it's an international incident. Is your position that we can't devote even a sentence to it unless an actual invasion occurs? Regarding your opinion that you don't believe the coverage, remember, we have to go with what the sources say, not with your gut feelings. They've reported it as fact (meaning they found the sources credible), so we're required to take the same position. If you don't like the fact that they trusted a source without naming them, you're free to send letters to the sources I listed below asking that they retract the story, but until / unless they do, at least a sentence in the article is required. But if you insist on trying to read tea leaves and performing your own WP:OR to try and discredit their coverage, I would point out that numerous people were at the meeting, and neither they nor the White House has denied any aspect of it, despite the international outcry it has caused. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It has had extensive coverage by mainstream and international sources: [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. On top of that, it got a reply from the President of Venezuela[62]. All of these reported it as fact (in other words, I don't think arguments based on individual users who don't believe it happened hold any weight) I don't see how anyone could argue that a single sentence devoted to it is WP:UNDUE in that situation - it has had an impact on US / Venezuela relations. I would suggest that we also mention Maduro's response. --Aquillion (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Clearly UNDUE does not apply here. Is there any reason why a brief mention would not be in the appropriate section? SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The recently-added text was mostly redundant with the previous sentence. An anonymous report that Trump "pressed" his advisors does not intrinsically say more than what was already known and stated in the article, i.e. that Trump was considering a military option. Also, Maduro's reaction is already in the article. — JFG ^talk 05:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You recently added info to the article about Trump's repeated talk about invading Venezuela but then self reverted JFG removed it. I think it belongs in the article. That was not just "thinking out loud"; he brought it up repeatedly, not just with members of his administration, but with leaders of other South American countries. I had been planning to add this myself but am out of town and limited to mobile editing so I can't easily do it. Would you consider re-adding this well sourced material? MelanieN alt (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) sorry, I misread the history. I hate mobile editing. I do think the material should be restored, and so do most of the commenters here. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The mention "thinking out loud" is in the CNN, it is WP:OR above to say no it isn't. The complete reject note [User:JFG]] said is "(Undid revision 849009273 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) UNDUE. Source itself says Trump was just "thinking out loud", not actually planning any action)"

Since there has been no further discussion here for several days, and those who have discussed seem to be 3-to-2 in favor of including it, I have restored it to the article. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think both WP:UNDUE and that the source is not properly represented source do apply somewhat. UNDUE bears a bit in this does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and in the "prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". The placement at the second line in the paragraph gives it a high prominence and is confusing the sequence of events -- it now reads as if the 2017 Venezuelan defense minister statements are in reply to a 2018 AP article, which is clearly invalid. I'll also point to WP:VOTE or WP:CONSENSUS that the resolution should be "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Personally I think it a bit WP:OFFTOPIC because its not a Presidential action or public statement, it's a story from someone else -- but I'll skip that part and try to address the other concerns as follows:

• Include something - a few folks advocate this or perhaps something similar, and there are a number of Google hits that say the 2018 article was mentioned a lot -- caveat that many covered it as an AP article event and not as a fact, and many simply reprint AP articles as AP articles without meaning the material is independently verified or agreed to. Articles reporting on the AP story included such as FoxNews, and UK press of Guardian, Independent, BBC, and Daily Mail,
• Move it to the end - to help UNDUE and make the chronological order clearer (maybe also say "2018")
• Rephrase "asked" - to help UNDUE, as a closer paraphrase and the characterization used most often in articles reporting on the AP story. The word "Pressed" even for AP is used only in the AP banner and not within the article body. (By google, I saw 172 thousand "asked", 40 thousand "considered", 14 thousand "raised" and 9 thousand "press".)
• Attribute more carefully with 'reported' - per -- ψλ mentioned it is a single anonymous source, and both external cites say it that way and this WP article prior conduct does do that for some such anonymous-source items. (e.g. The disclosure mention presents both sides; the Russian sanctions lifting says "reportedly"; though "shithole countries" does neither.) The Washington Post and NY Times typically want *two* anonymous sources before they'd print a story, or one on-record public statement -- so this one only having a single anonymous source seems to be a ccase of 'reportedly'.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit made - here. Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• p.s. Two oddities here: The article mentioned only asking of Trump advisors --- and oddly did not mention the asking of foreign governments ? ? Second oddity is that the 5 July AP report mentions Maduro responding Wednesday (4 July?) to an AP report and calling this a "criminal vision" -- but I do not see an AP report that was being responded to. Possibly some Spanish-language AP released a day earlier ? The other comments seem from Aug 12, 2017 (e.g. Mercosur "the only acceptable means" per actionnewsjax.com) but this one seems to be saying there were two AP reports rather than just one. Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The AP article does say that he brought it up with the President of Colombia and three other South American leaders. BTW I removed "in 2018" because it was confusing; it made it sound like a new development when in fact all the action was in August and September 2017. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. I added the South American leaders, and I made it clear that the Venezuelans (not Maduro himself) were responding to something Trump had said publicly. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Zero tolerance policy and family separations

I believe that the Trump administration new "zero tolerance" policy and the resulting separation of families is significant enough to be included in the lead. A few reasons include:

• The American Academy of Pediatrics called the policy child abuse, saying it was causing “irreparable harm” to children. I should think that government-approved child abuse would be worthy of lead-inclusion. If not, how far have we sunk into a new type of acceptance of the most extreme bizarre as just another form of "normal"?
• According to our article, the policy is, "extremely unpopular, more so than any major piece of legislation in recent memory."
• In June hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated against the policy in over 600 cities.
• In June the ACLU filed a class action and at the hearing Federal Judge Sabraw wrote, "The news media is saturated with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice." [63] Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Moreover, recent RS reports make clear that the Administration had no plan to reunite children with their parents, lied about it, and has now failed to meet a court-mandated deadline to do so. Trump's approval ratings have also taken a precipitous plunge over the course of this scandal, although we do not know whether that has been attributed to the treatment of children and asylum-seekers. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Without a doubt. This is one of the most significant policies of this presidency as evidenced by the extensive, sustained, international coverage in reliable sources. WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT apply. - MrX 🖋 11:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - no specific text offered, and no basis appropriate for WP:LEAD given. Seems WP:OFFTOPIC and misfit anyway, as the arguments here are showing too much POV and too much OR and too much detail to suit the LEAD. LEAD summaries are about 5 words for neutrally mentioning each of the major executive actions and events, not external opinions and actions of others. An insert into LEADs is generally always going to be a dubious step, but this one would at least need to show a proposal and give justification for any real consideration. Even then -- lead seems UNDUE at this time, it's just not as long and big an item to be in the category of Comey dismissal or Russian election interference. Maybe come back when more time has passed and it's shown any greater WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there is only one objection. To answer Mark's issues, I have made a suggested edit for the lead, including it with the sentence re DACA. As for being off-topic, etc, I'm not in agreement with Mark on those points. My suggestion:

Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and initiated an immigration family separation policy that resulted in the separation of hundreds of children from their parents. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Try starting with just follow the cites, which will likely phrase it more correctly “Trump administration”, not him personallly, and then a date and then phrase “zero tolerance” mention. There is no literal family separation policy, other than the EO saying to *not* separate families, you see. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How about "...and in May 2018, the Trump administration initiated an immigration "zero tolerance" family separation policy that resulted in the separation of hundreds of children from their parents." Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a novel excuse

[64] - what's so "inappropriate" (sic) about it? This looks like a revenge revert for my comments here.

More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Rusf10.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the one participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND right now. Rather explain why you think a picture of a balloon is appropriate for an article with the broad topic of "Presidency of Donald Trump", you decide to attack me. You're the one trying to add a politically charged photo into this article, you need to explain yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you're the one who claimed it was "inappropriate", which could mean, well, basically anything. Like "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". So it's up to you to explain your revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I just did, there is absolutely no reason why this belongs here that I can think of. A balloon flown by people in another country is a defining moment of his presidency, I think not. So let me ask you again, what caused you to think that this should be added to the article?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It illustrates the reception that the President, Donald Trump, received when he visited UK. Which is what this article is about and what that section is about. The section is about people in another country! Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that section of the article is about foreign policy. Protests against Donald Trump has its own article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support including the iconic image File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg in the UK section. The image cannot be adequately described in text and is highly significant. It aids readers' understanding of the public perception of Trump's presidency by citizens of the UK. There is nothing inappropriate about it and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.- MrX 🖋 01:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! But seriously no. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"No" what? Try to participate constructively.- MrX 🖋 02:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No to basically everything you wrote. I tried to be as simple as possible. Highly significant is incorrect on the face of it. If the reader wants to find more about the balloon or public perception (which the balloon obviously does not illustrate btw) they are welcome to go to that article for all the information they could want. Not censored has nothing to do with this, and you know that. So yeah, no, is all that was required. PackMecEng (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You got that right, Mr. X made a strawman's arguement. No one is debating whether or not the image can be on wikipedia (it is in other articles), so WP:NOTCENSORED is not even applicable to this discussion. To be clear, the use of the image in this article is inappropriate, not the image itself. The section of the article is "Foreign Policy", so I'd like to know what the hell this balloon has to with foreign policy?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It illustrates the response to Trump's foreign policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it illustrates childish attempts to ridicule the sitting president of an allied country. And it's not working very well at that, either; some outrage fatigue is setting in. — JFG ^talk 13:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's working pretty well. It's coming to America.- MrX 🖋 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This will be fun. — JFG ^talk 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Something that's been in existence for all of three days is suddenly, "iconic"? I think not. It's part of popular culture and just another incidence of WP:FART. Is not at all defining to Trump's presidency but could be seen as defining to the protesters in the UK who created it. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in its own ridiculous, unencyclopedic-of-no-long-lasting-value article and the protests article. Not here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a highly noteworthy symbol of significant opposition to Trump, according to a huge number of sources. Citing a humorous essay and repeating the same bloviation used in the failed AfD makes it clear that your entire line of reasoning is not to be taken seriously.- MrX 🖋 02:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but my reasons are clearly stated and need to be taken just as seriously as any other experienced, longtime editor. Doesn't matter if you like my reasoning, it's still sound and, as it turns out, pretty much the same reasoning for 'no' as two other editors above. IDLI is what's not to be taken seriously, if you want to get down to it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE and SOAPBOX, and just no relevance bit of snark. It’s too brief and not much import to have gathered enoughWP:WEIGHT for even coverage in the article, let alone the prominence an image gets. This is novel as a crowdfunded bit, but in the end it is just a short term protestor PR prop that has not truly been affecting the course of the presidency or been about for long is simply trivia. To give that UK group special promotion would be aWP:SOAPBOX issue. And finally, it does not suit WP:IMAGE of having MOS:PERTINENCE by clarifying some article text or representative of a section, because it is not part of presidential activity. In short ... cute crowdsource to do balloon snark, ignore for now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't make sense of this comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – The right place is Protests against Donald Trump. This balloon is no more and no less notable than the hundred other attempts to ridicule this president. — JFG ^talk 13:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent mention. It already got included there on 6 July, and also got its own article. (The Greenpeace paraglider did not get a mention though, nor did the inflatable trump in KKK garb or the recent Rise and Resist climber of the Statue of Liberty.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Just to make clear my point from above. "No". Protests against Donald Trump is the proper home for this if anywhere. It has nothing to do with his foreign policy as mentioned above. It is just silly. PackMecEng (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose floating this image in this article. I don’t want to poke a hole in this “iconic” characterization of this balloon, but to see this somewhat ridiculous float called a symbol of Trump opposition leaves me a bit deflated. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Obfuscating drivel about Helsinki summit

Winkelvi changed a concise summary of what happened at the Helsinki summit into obfuscating drivel[65]. Apparently, this disaster of a summit was met with "mixed commentary" as to its success, and Trump did not refuse to condemn Russian interference, per Winkelvi's changes. Winkelvi's changes were, as seems to be the case with most, if not all, of Winkelvi's edits on this article, unconstructive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you are close to WP:PA territory on Winkelvi. Please address content, not contributors. No opinion on the edits. — JFG ^talk 21:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He IS addressing content. Winklevi turned constructive text into obfuscating drivel. THE CONTENT was made into obfuscating drivel. In fact, changing the text to read that it was met with "mixed commentary", without sources to boot, is a straight up WP:TENDENTIOUS POV violation and since it effectively falsifies sources (since virtually all reliable sources say the responses have been negative), should be subject to a sanction under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Snooganssnoogans, if you notice, I changed "mixed" to "much of it unfavorable." And that was well before I knew you had posted your commentary above. I'm interested to know what part of my edits you are identifying specifically as "obfuscating drivel" and "unconstructive". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

??? Not seeing what the thread wants to have folks talk about. This edit does seem a bit 'Bold'. Surely a revert or substantial edits as others jumped in could not have been so unexpected ? Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If by bold you might mean opinionated commentary, then yes, bold it was. My purpose was to take it back to NPOV and get rid of content that wasn't germaine to the facts: They met, they talked, there was a press conference, people were displeased. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by 'opinionated commentary'? Snooganssnoogans seems to have been attempting to summarize this sentence from the CBS source: "Offered multiple chances to denounce Russia's actions, Mr. Trump instead placed blame on the FBI and said that he had "confidence" in both parties -- the intelligence community and Russia", which seems to be very central to the event and its reactions (so, we need a proper summary.) You removed this sentence: Offered multiple opportunities to unequivocally condemn Russia for its election interference, Trump attacked the FBI and said that he had "confidence" in both Putin and the American intelligence community ...which is a pretty close paraphrase of it. I assume your objection was to the word 'attacked'? The original source talks about 'blame', which is a bit different. But the fact that he blamed the FBI (despite being offered multiple opportunities to condemn Russia) is significant and obviously needs to be in that section for the rest to make sense. I think Snooganssnoogans might have gone a bit too far with "attacked", but they're correct in that you drastically over-cut to the point where the current version makes little sense. The fact that Trump was directly siding with Russia against the FBI is important and emphasized in nearly all sources - see eg. the BBC headline, Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit. You also removed the sentence that the meeting took place a few days after Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents for interference in the 2016 election, which is obviously vital context whose relevance is well-attested to in the sources. (Without it, the questions Trump was asked and his response to them make little sense.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Aquillon - it seems worse than ‘opinionated commentary’, seems factually off. Having a day to look, it’s not “Offered multiple chances”, it was the final questioner from AP gave a common long framing setup of assertions (about election etc) and then asked two questions of who do you believe and will you here and now denounce Putin, and Trump gave a common politician reaction of talking in the area but declining to be led response of saying some stock material. (Including ‘No collusion’). And while that was dramatically portrayed as throwing the DNI under the bus or attacking the FBI, literally he led with saying confidence for both and otherwise seemed not dancing to the reporters bait for reversing his prior positions plus simple diplomatic behavior at a summit. A question does not seem well portrayed as “offered” nor “multiple” nor “chances”, might better be “asked” if he would denounce Putin. A “President Trump instead” seems a usable start for the next line, followed by “said he had confidence in both DNI and Putin” following the actual order of events, and then whatever about the later FBI “no collusion” and “witch hunt”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

p.s. And yes I am obfuscated by the text.... The article at the moment is not really clear about events. It has a paragraph line about the CBS interview then a line about the 3 agenda items (not including Elections) -- was that from the interview or from something at the summit ? Then it goes to elections -- could use wording to be clear if that's press conference material. Then a paragraph of various dramatic quoted complaints is below that -- but context is missing on what aspect(s) are they complaining of, and not sure what/if there are missing positive comments. There's not really coverage of the press conference -- can we get something with cites saying what was said and done rather than just saying various gossipy bits on what adjective folks reviewed it as or felt was missing so they would get quoted ? (Maybe Vox? or Express? or Time ? BBC ??) Seems almost like the summit followed the agenda and it was the press conference that ran off the rails ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

See my comments above. I feel that some of Winkelvi's removals (probably prompted by a few relatively minor wording issues, like 'attacked' vs. 'blame') have caused this confusion. The key points in virtually all sources are: 1. The meeting came shortly after 12 Russian agents were indicted for interference in the 2016 election, and 2. When this topic was raised, Trump sided with or trusted Russia and Putin over the FBI. Those two things are the most noteworthy aspects of this meeting and need to be mentioned in the first sentence or so. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

On July 16, 2018, former CIA Director John O. Brennan tweeted his reaction to Trump's comments at the Helsinki summit:

John O. Brennan Twitter @JohnBrennan

Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

16 Jul 2018

Sources

Needless to say, myriad very RS have commented on this remarkable statement. Keep in mind that Brennan knows far more than we do, so his comment is conservative, yet revealing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need the Brennan quote, Brennan is highly partisan and has basically been outspoken about Trump since the day he took office, so no surprise there. Regardless of whether it was the right thing to do or not, criticizing the intelligence community is far from High crimes and misdemeanors. In general, we really need to look at cutting down the quotes in this article. If for no other reason, just for the purpose of conciseness> It like everything Trump says or does anything, we add five opinions about what he did to the article. No wonder why there is a tag on the article that it is too long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Brennan is highly partisan and has basically been outspoken about Trump" So what? It doesn't matter whether he's "highly partisan" but whether he's notable and reliable. And as a former CIA director he most certainly is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rusf10 here, that in no way qualifies for this or possibly any article. Perhaps Brennan's article, but even then. Starting to go off the deep end there. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The next days coverage featured Rand Paul praising Trump and describing such crazy talk as Trump Derangement Syndrome. By day 3 it all may have faded away, too early to tell yet. Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• For the most part, I don't have a problem with the original edit by Snooganssnoogans, but attacked should not be used. The source that was used doesn't say attack, it said blame as pointed out above. But if you really want to know the context of this you have to look at other sources or better yet the transcript [66] After he said he had "confidence in both parties." then he said "I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer." The last sentence also deserves a brief mention, here's a source you can use [67] (its an AP article)--Rusf10 (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think quoting Brennan improves this article. Nobody cares about Rand Paul's praising Trump. No, this will not "fade away". - MrX 🖋 11:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX Can agree on Brennan being OFFTOPIC, but “nobody cares” is false. CNN, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Fox, The Guardian, Times Herald, ... positive views have RS and substantial WEIGHT, so NPOV requires both or neither. The Trump Derangement Syndrome got tweeted yesterday so now that story is being covered by BBC, The Telegraph, NY Times, Fox ... I’ll ask — are you are wanting to trim out criticisms as well, or if it is just the Brennan bit, or what? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We should be able to summarize the relevant point without detailing every reaction. Brennan is not off-topic; it's just that his criticism of Trump is very routine. I would have to see sources and the argument for including Rand Paul's praise, but I doubt it would be worthy of inclusion. The so-called Trump derangement syndrome is made up thing for hard-core partisan hacks to dismiss any examination or criticism of a President who is out of control in just about every conceivable way. It got tweeted. So what? Was the tweet covered internationally in dozens of news sources? If so, let's look at it. If not, leave it at the bottom of the bird cage.- MrX 🖋 01:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, "very routine"? Really? Far from it. This is a highly unusual and significant step above and beyond anything he's ever said before. Here he uses the words "high crimes & misdemeanors", IOW an impeachable offense, and also uses the word "treasonous". It's extremely notable and significant, especially coming from someone of his stature and who knows so much. He chooses his words carefully, so it's not hyperbole. Its removal is disturbing, to say the least. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Leave out Brennan. His comments are over the top, accusing Trump of crimes, by far the most extreme reaction of any I've seen. There is enough criticism of Trump to quote, without going to this extreme. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it belongs here and in the summit article. Brennan is a major figure, and his comment was representative of plenty other voices on social media this week, it was an absolute firestorm, and it appears that Trump's performance has elevated the controversy of his presidency to a whole new level. Paraphrasing Bill Kristol (of all people): not only is Trump not the leader of the free world now, it's even questionable if he's on our side. This is a BFD. soibangla (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As Melanie said Brennan's comments are over the top, not to mention how far-left he is (he once voted for a communist). As for Bill Kristol, his reaction is not surprising either. Although he's claimed to be a Republican for many years, he is also a "never-Trumper" and opposed Trump in 2016.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump's scripted vs. unscripted remarks

I think this edit should be restored

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=850804982

because Trump says one thing when he's handed a script to read by his aides, and another thing entirely when he ad libs, and the latter is typically what he really means. He has consistently stated that others could've have been the hackers, like some 400-pound guy on his bed, and his allies ran with the whole Seth Rich thing, and once again, despite his major blunder in Helsinki, he still reverts to that unfounded hypothesis. This should pointed out.

See: How Trump retreats: Grudging apologies, plus a wink and a nod to the original insult

soibangla (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Then let's the facts straight, he's actually said several times that he thinks it was Russia. Here's three examples: January 11, 2017 "I think it was Russia" [68] November 12, 2017: "As to whether I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies — especially as currently constituted," [69] July 6,2017 "I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries" [70] --Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those are three examples of the "exception that proves the rule". He's said contrary things far more often. At least you did find that ref where someone actually was able to find a paltry three examples. He'll probably say something else next time as his utterances are just like his "alternative facts", totally unrelated to facts, truth, or accuracy, but are purely expedient utterances for what he thinks will work at the moment. Ever the salesman. Believe him if you want, but at your own peril. The rest of us follow RS which confirm that those three are rare exceptions, but thanks for reminding us of them and what are unlikely to be his true beliefs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer A bit ranting there with vague unsupported assertions, hyperbolic, predictions and hypotheticals... none of those are useful for this BLP. Can you provide the RS saying there are “far more” contrary things? Or explaining how statements are contrary ? Seriously, can both ‘it was Russia’ and ‘it could be others also’ not both be said ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To your last question: No. The intelligence community is completely certain that the interference in the election was solely Russian, and there is no evidence of any others being involved. We base our content on RS, not on fringe sources and Trump, although, even though he's unreliable, RS do document what he says, so we do too.

As far as the "far more" goes, if you don't know that, I can't help you. It's not my job to educate editors who don't pay attention or don't read RS. Editors who read RS know this stuff. The whole time the interference has occurred, Trump has made myriad assertions, and except for those three instances, he has dissed and denied it was the Russians.

Even Fox News has reported this. Even fringe editors who only read unreliable sources have been spoon fed the myriad instances where he has denied it was the Russians. Even during the debates he denied it, even though Hillary told him and he actually did know it. His campaign knew it before anyone else because they were getting direct information from the Russians and others.

Admitting they interfered, and did it to help him win, would undermine the legitimacy of his election, and he can't allow himself or his sycophants to even entertain that fact. You should read our articles. There are plenty of RS which can help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This raises an interesting philosophical question: how can we know the thoughts and beliefs of a man who frequently contradicts himself, frequently exaggerates, and frequently makes official statements that may not reflect his personal views? The only solution I see is to focus on what the verifiable facts of the situation are, and what Trump's actions are. His beliefs, when they are not reflected in actions, may best be considered unknowable and unencyclopedic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would second that approach. As Wikipedians, we are not in the business of mind reading or assessing somebody's "true beliefs" from their contradictory statements. Just lay out the statements, including contradictions, and watch the facts and actions more closely. — JFG ^talk 09:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to analyze whether Trump believes his own lies, or the lies about his lies. Just follow the sources. Read a few and it will be very clear what the gist is. soibangla makes a valid point, but I think that aspect is already clear in the article.- MrX 🖋 11:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not about mind-reading. It's about distinguishing what he reads from a damage-control script provided by his advisors from what he spontaneously says that contradicts that script and reverts back to what he's said previously. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't psychoanalyze Trump in Wiki voice. We should just follow reliable sources. My position has always been to report the contradictions rather than seek to find Trump's one true belief. In my experience, it's usually been pro-Trump editors who have sought to identify Trump's "one true belief", see for example JFG (a participant in this talk) seeking to remove Trump's statements on same-sex marriage here[71]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You are misrepresenting the discussion that you and I had back in March 2017. Nowhere have I sought to identify Trump's "one true belief" or tried to remove Trump's statements on same-sex marriage. More exactly, I was attempting to correct text that you wrote in order to better represent sources, including Trump's contradictory answers on such questions, and how they evolved between campaign interviews and presidential actions. Conversely, you repeatedly tried to suppress or water down the fact that Trump considered gay marriage a "settled" issue with the Obergefell decision, irrespective of what his personal opinion might be. But don't take my word for it; thanks to your reminder, interested readers can check the facts for themselves. — JFG ^talk 13:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please everyone, go ahead and read it. Here is JFG removing Trump statements that he consider unreflective of Trump's "one true stance" on LGBT rights[72], and here is an extensive discussion where I explain why that specific JFG edit is wrong[73] while JFG argues that Trump's statements on the record do not describe his position. Blue is red, sky is green, and apparently I was the one trying to remove Trump's positions... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you persist in misrepresenting my statements and the sources. Fine, we'll just disagree. — JFG ^talk 13:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla — Starship.paint did both edits there, so what are you on about here ? Is it the “wouldn’t” part, the “straying” part, or the “exclusively” part? And why? I can imagine reasons why Starship might have made those changes, adjusting from additional sites or lack of cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)