Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 186: Line 186:
:I agree that this was an allegation, and a rather vague one at that, and should not be in the lead, -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 02:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:I agree that this was an allegation, and a rather vague one at that, and should not be in the lead, -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 02:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source. Not sure what's vague about it. We don't know what the Mueller Report concluded, only what Barr said it concluded, and regardless, that's actually kind of irrelevant.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source. Not sure what's vague about it. We don't know what the Mueller Report concluded, only what Barr said it concluded, and regardless, that's actually kind of irrelevant.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:::No one is disputing that Cohen made the allegation, that's a strawman's argument. You have failed to explain why his allegation is so important that it belongs in the lead.--[[User:Rusf10|Rusf10]] ([[User talk:Rusf10|talk]]) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:50, 25 March 2019

Template:WPUS50k

Edit to Lead on polling at end of year 1

The polling remark in the lead is about polling at 1 year in, and states

"By the end of his first year in office, opinion polls showed Trump to be the least popular president in the modern history.[3]"

Obviously it is now past two years so this one seems up for an update discussion. Please indicate your preferences or concerns here - some possibilities that occur to me are

  1. No change - the note about a year ago can stay, we do not need a current or to-date version
  2. Tweak - keep the note about the end of year 1, but tweak the wording to make that more apparent
  3. Remove - this was significant a year ago, but enough other things have happened that it is no longer significant
  4. Add - add a second line about the second year
  5. Replace - put in a replacement line
  6. Other - something else

Discussion

  • Replace - my preference is to put in summarizing something more than just day 365. I propose "Trump’s approval rating has been stable and low within a band from about 36% to 43%." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I like Markbassett's wording better than what's there, but actually I would prefer to remove the sentence about his polling. I don't think such information belongs in the first paragraph of the lead. Put it in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison: Both Obama and G.W. Bush now have information in the lead about polling and place in history, now that they are past tense. Neither article had anything about polling or popularity at the end of their second year in office. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but neither GWB nor Obama ranked the least popular president after two years, Reagan held that honor until Trump came along, so Trump is now "special." See Second-Year Job Approval Averages, Elected Presidents soibangla (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Through his second year in office, Trump was ranked the least popular president since World War II," per body. It is not enough to say it's low, it's the lowest. You know..."worse than Carter" and stuff. soibangla (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carter wasn’t particularly low in his first two years. If you go down the approval ratings link at the start of that section, one can see that Truman, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton seem all in the vicinity and occasionally lower than Trump in their first two years, and later on we see approvals for some past presidents down in the 20s. Seems really more about recent times being more partisan than anything else, but that’s just OR. In any case, please do add input about preference for the section, with reasons. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because polls are volatile, if there is a sufficient time interval to measure, an average over that time interval is the best way to go, and that's what Gallup did. Two years is a sufficient time interval, and Trump ranks lowest since WW2 by that measure. It is noteworthy and ledeworthy, and my position would be the same if his average was the highest. To characterize it as merely "low" is inadequate. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Ford, Reagan, and Clinton seem by eyeball to be close in the ‘two-year average’. But I don’t recall that snapshot ever being paid much attention. It’s always been the approval-of-the-day as both news and reflects political strength, and around 40 just isn’t particularly odd. The RS seem more impressed/bored that his approval really has stayed the same ... events to date did not particularly swing it up or down. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3: Remove from lead – Not worth a sentence there. (I'd say the same if Trump were the most popular president ever…) — JFG talk 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removal is acceptable to me - There doesn’t seem much interest here and ONUS no longer satisfied. I’ve given it a full month so will consider that the answer. Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed the 2018 polling line from the lead per discussion. I was tempted to respect it by the MelanieN suggestion to paste it into the body, but have left it out ... it's in need of rewrite to make it clear it was specifically about day 365 and not the whole, and I don't feel charitable about doing that work for something that currently lacks ONUS or interest, plus I don't feel right about legitimizing a straight-to-lead edit that was not summarizing the body by backfilling the body with it. If someone else wants to clarify something about it into the body, go to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: mention false and misleading statements in the lede

I propose to add the following sentences to the lede. This mirrors the Donald Trump article, and is virtually identical to the version which achieved consensus in a recent RfC with the exception of the first wiki-link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. starship.paint ~ KO 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.

  • No. Still not met WP:LEAD, contrary to existing consensus was/is against such language here, and again some supports or cites somewhere else is simply irrelevant, it’s failing LEAD and V unless it is in *this* article and about *this* article’s topic and body. This seems just a rerun of recent failed attempts ( archive 7 “Edits to lead” started 9 January, and “This revert should be reverted” started 8 January) with minor changes to phrasing but without any substantive effort at making a better case or improving basis. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world is it "failing V"? That makes no sense. In fact, how is it failing LEDE? If it's relevant to the main level Donald Trump article it is even more relevant here since it's directly about his presidency. Ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it fail WP:V and WP:LEDE when we have an entire subsection on False and misleading statements with over 15 sources? starship.paint ~ KO 06:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tightened the section so that the body reflects what is being proposed here. starship.paint ~ KO 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tosh. It should be obvious: failing LEAD and V here because it is proposed based on content and cites IN SOME OTHER ARTICLE !!! As already stated at all the 3 weak efforts so far, a proposal for lead here must make its case HERE, and have basis on content and topic HERE, or else it fails V and LEAD for HERE. Put some effort into it, do not just keep rerunning the same notion with wrong-for-here material dubbed from elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable precisely because his rate of falsehoods is far beyond anyone else in politics. You ask where is the content, we have a whole subsection on False and misleading statements. You ask where the cites are, here they are,[1][2][3][4][5] and also in the article. starship.paint ~ KO 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in US politics.
  2. ^ Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2019. "When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?" presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.
  3. ^ Glasser, Susan (August 3, 2018). "It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 10, 2019. ... the President's unprecedented record of untruths ...
  4. ^ Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2018. Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.
  5. ^ Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication., New York Times (August 7, 2017). "President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level."
User:Starship.paint Sigh. Let me detail out some of what’s looking wrong or deceptive or at least not good practice as an approach and not focused to LEAD or V. (There are nice aspects too ... It’s very good in that it clearly stated content and tagged folks from before. But since it did not address prior objections, and seems to have difficulty in seeing / understanding / accepting any other aspects, and seems intending to repeat or override rather than responding to the concerns.) The proposal is made on the basis of
  • “This mirrors the Donald Trump article”, as if that matters here or for LEAD
  • Being “virtually identical”, which reads as ‘I didn’t like that consensus so here’s my personal rewrite’
  • Also, adding a wikilink is odd/unexplained, not exactly LEAD basis and this link is to not something of Presidency scope and a page argued as a generic POV fork and ATTACK page, with DUE issues and a title that seems sarcasm or at least not followed. (The Veracity of statements by Donald Trump goes into even trivial things wrong, not on ‘Veracity’)
  • No reference to parts of WP:LEAD
  • No reference to the topic of this article and avoiding WP:OFFTOPIC
  • Not mentioning prior consensus (consensuses?) here were without this and prior discussions on similar addition particularly two recent threads
  • Misguided sounding phrasing of appeals to NOTABLE ... I.e. deserving its own separate article,
So... I read a response to LEAD and V that began with an assertion not related to LEAD or V as a bit of unsupported posturing... and various other assertions not simply responding to the lead of this article by LEAD and topic of this article with guidance quote bits and pointing to article content here ... just seems an indication the proposal cannot do so. Assertions made as if personal opinion that it is ‘notable’ or thought ‘important’ are all very well — but that would not suffice as sole POV even in body, and seems nothing to argue it fits LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course consensus on the lede of the Donald Trump article matters. Much of the content ledes are similar, and this content is not about his business / TV stuff before his Presidency.
  • I didn't do a personal rewrite. The text is exactly the same. The only difference is the wiki-link.
  • The wiki-link is relevant, the other page is content on false and misleading statements by Donald Trump, including during his presidency.
  • The proposed text is relevant to the topic of the article, Trump is making many false and misleading statements both leading up to and during his presidency.
  • Relevance to WP:LEAD: includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more ... Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole. Trump's lies are significant and have received much coverage:
  • With the lack of a definitive consensus in the recent discussions as listed above on this page, this proposal seeks to determine consensus now. starship.paint ~ KO 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my links above was not valid. As such I have taken the liberty to find more links. Trump's false statements are clearly significant enough to his presidency to be included in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this had achieved consensus previously why ISN'T this in the lede NOW? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • False premise. Maybe it was unclear the rfc was elsewhere, and not about this proposal. This runs contrary to what was/is consensus for lead. It had not achieved consensus here, it had a kinda-sorta rfc in another article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Trump's main claim to fame so far is the lack of veracity in his statements. We even have an article on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all the good reasons already stated on the main article. I agree with Marek that there is no reason not to put this in the article now. The proposed content is a highly significant point about the Trump presidency. Does anyone actually refute that? - MrX 🖋 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, refute it as unproven and basically still not even worked on. The first thread is still at the top of TALK here, failed ONUS of there was not consensus for material such as this — basically soibangla just dropped the thread at “This revert should be reverted”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - matches main article, and highly significant point about the Trump presidency. Neutralitytalk 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Neutrality ‘matches other article’ does not suit WP:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A strong and obvious consensus that material belongs on the parent article lead section is obviously illustrative for a lead section on a subtopic article. And you missed the second part of my post: this is a highly significant point about the Trump president (as the cited sources so). And is there really a need for you to respond to every comment? Neutralitytalk 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Neutrality obviously not, but when they’re talking to me or my point then a response is invited. As to your second part ...I took that as just flamboyant hyberbolic, meaning nothing. If you’re seriously wanting me to consider that as a point, then explain it — I ask you to show how “highly significant” is something other than just hyperbole. I don’t see that in common phrasing from RS, and it’s not the mathematical meaning e.g. over 30% of coverage (it seems a low percentage of articles are on it from a relatively few sources), and it’s not a reference to some objectively measured consequence of his remarks, and it’s not a big portion of the article — not a lot of things to even say on the topic. So what is “highly” significant mean? RSVP, cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and I take the lack of explanation to mean it was just bloviating... Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The many, many sources cited by starship.paint above directly speak to the historical significance of the unprecedented scope of false and misleading statements. And I'd ask you not to be rude, thank you. Neutralitytalk 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Neutrality pfft. You complained I hadn’t noted the apparently empty hyperbole part, now complain when I give it serious attention. Make up your mind. Meanwhile, pointing at a seeming semi-random ten cites to some pretty low-prominence-pubs of little relationship that aren’t in the article and aren’t about “significance” and saying “many many” sounds like that’s pretty much more casual hyperbole, as that’s a pretty trivial level of significance. Anyone could get twice as many of far bigger prominence about Melanias shoes. So second part now noted, still looks like empty hyperbole. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, and multiple-peer-reviewed journals are not "low-prominence-pubs." Neutralitytalk 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed to ten other cites that *are* wimpy as why you said “highly significant”. Now you’re just naming publishers without specifying a cite. Just seems like trying - badly - to hunt about for something. Look, I asked for what you meant by the apparent empty hyperbole “highly significant”. You produced nothing, and now produced two different stories more. No need to keep grasping for my sake, I’m ok with it being just hyperbole. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grey box that says Sources [show] has New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker etc. Also, I can't really take you seriously with your previous comment that Anyone could get twice as many of far bigger prominence about Melanias shoes. starship.paint ~ KO 07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (against my better judgement) User:Starship.paint Well thanks for the clarification. Still have Neutrality changing about where he was pointing, and never did get his meaning for “highly significant”. So empty hyperbole. As to your taking me seriously that Melanias shoes coverage far exceeds the teeny prominence of list “Informal logic journal”, “American ethnologist”, “Qualitative Inquiry journal”, etcetera he was saying showed “historical significance”? I’ll just suggest we have WP:WEIGHT which applies, and WP:V is a lot more direct and verifiable about her shoes than about the vague aspersions. Neutrality’s “historical significance” here seemed just flailing to defend the first empty hyperbole with another or with WP:OR. Again, no need to flail around trying to find some way to defend it for my sake, the not having a description/definition in hand was enough to know there really wasn’t one. And I’m OK that TALK had some empty hyperbole in it, and really it isn’t needed or helpful to TALK by trying further to find potential backfill on it. Cheers and Over & out again. Markbassett (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still disputing WP:V? We do have direct, verifiable sources. They are quoted above in the grey box. As for the other sources, we have books by notable authors, including Pulitzer prizes winning ones. The journals, Informal Logic might be a minor one, but American Ethnologist's citation reports rank is 14/85 for anthropology, and Qualitative Inquirys citation reports rank is 10/98 for social sciences. Not as teeny or wimpy as you describe. starship.paint ~ KO 02:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Starship.paint Don’t be silly. Duping content from another article meant it is not summarizing the article - not following WP:Lead - and lacks the cites of that other article body - thus failing WP:V. A grey box tucked somewhere in TALK of the article also does not satisfy WP:V for article content. The specific 5 cites in the grey box seem to have 3 that are helpful but insufficient to support the breadth of the claim or the prominence in this article. For the teeny pubs prominence, you’re saying this is no better than 10th or 14th hence lacks prominence or consensus even in those small ponds — it then looks more like Google just found some very remote instances. Citing circulation or Alexa numbers might allow better perspective anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starship.paint - To give advance notice and ask your thoughts re venue.... I think it best to ping some appropriate V and LEAD forum(s) to ask for some more inputs and policy clarification about ‘the cites and content summarized are elsewhere’ question. I am thinking WT:LEAD for Lead and WP:RSN or WT:V for V, as the WP:VPP combined forum seems more for proposals. Please ping back if you've thoughts for better venue. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It’s been over a week there, and has gotten the suggestion to mark it as WP:CWW. I’ll give it another day or so to see if anything else appears and then give it a try. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose- There's no need for this, other than to make the article even more negative than it already is. Name any political office holder and I guarantee I can find false or misleading statements that he or she has made. Reminds me of an old joke: How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- User:Markbassett is right, there should have been an attempt to get more input here since it appears select editors were canvassed here, rather than all editors that regularly edit the page or have participated in discussions about the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rusf10: - it wasn't canvassing, there was a related discussion about the lede on 8 January 2019, it wasn't archived at the moment I made this post, I pinged everyone who participated in that discussion. If you regularly edit this page and watchlist it, you would see this discussion. starship.paint ~ KO 02:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: and why were the participants of that paticular discussion chosen and not those of the more recent discussion about the lead on Jan 23. This would have also included @MelanieN and JFG:.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rusf10: - the 8 Jan discussion was very related to this one, it was similar topic. The 23 Jan discussion was not related, it was on polling. The two users you mentioned had the chance to reply to the earlier discussion but didn't. starship.paint ~ KO 03:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:V concerns, I managed to find more sources. I will list them together with what was already found above, so you'll see repeats. There's American Ethnologist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker, The Toronto Star, CNN, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

[1] starship.paint ~ KO 03:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Sources:
    1. McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented."
    2. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level.
    3. Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2019. “When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?” presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.
    4. Konnikova, Maria. "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico. Retrieved March 4, 2019. All presidents lie ... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent."
    5. Barabak, Mark (February 6, 2017). "There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations — on matters large and wincingly small — place him "in a class by himself," as Texas A&M;'s George Edwards put it.
    6. Glasser, Susan (August 3, 2018). "It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 10, 2019. for the President’s unprecedented record of untruths ... the previous gold standard in Presidential lying was, of course, Richard Nixon ... the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan.
    7. Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". The Toronto Star. Retrieved March 4, 2019. “We’ve had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we’ve never had a serial liar before. And that’s what we’re dealing with here,” said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian.
    8. Cillizza, Chris (May 9, 2018). "President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days". CNN. Retrieved March 4, 2019. We've never had a president with such a casual relationship to the truth ... The sheer rate of Trump's untruth-telling is staggering. It is unprecedented.
    9. Skjeseth, Heidi Taksdal (2017). "All the president's lies: Media coverage of lies in the US and France" (PDF). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.
These are a bunch of opinion pieces. And putting these opinions in the lead and stating it as fact is very misleading at best.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rusf10: - are you saying all of these are opinion pieces? Which ones exactly, can you be clear? The first source is a journal article, you know? starship.paint ~ KO 04:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are opinion pieces and some are not, like the last two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I'm pretty sure there already was consensus to include this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this article. The top of this thread points to the BLP article RFC consensus (now in archive 95 there) to have a similar line on the topic. In this article there was an insert by Soiblanga but discussion about reverting its revert fell dormant (now in archive 7) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One of the most noteworthy and well-covered aspects of Trump's presidency. This material absolutely belongs high-up in the lead section. If there wasn't consensus to include it before, there is now. R2 (bleep) 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The proposed edit is the mildest possible way to characterize who is indisputably the most fundamentally dishonest man ever to be POTUS, and quite likely in the history of American public life. This is not a partisan matter, it's not TDS, it's a fact: we've never seen a liar like him. It's utterly astonishing anyone can still be disputing this, but I will stop short of characterizing their motives or states of mind. Let's get this over with and lock it down, both here and in his BLP. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is simply a matter of fact and extraordinary well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Largely due to the consensus on the main Donald Trump article. It makes sense to also include this proposal, or something similar to it, in the lead of this article.Worldlywise (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request a typo fix: Under historical rankings at the bottom of the article, it states "Siena College Research Institute's 6th presidential expert poll, released in February 2019, placed Donald Trump 42th out of 44th — ahead of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.[687]," instead of 42nd Losingskin (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should Mueller report summary be attributed to Barr?

Given that this administration, including former AG Jeff Sessions (I don't know enough about the current AG), frequently lies about things and distorts its own reports, it seems fair to attribute statements made by administration officials rather than state things in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but we should see how sources treat it and follow suit. I would be surprised if they don't attribute the summary of findings to Barr, with the possible exception of the quote that Barr attributed to Mueller.- MrX 🖋 22:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be attributed to Barr, because he's the one who's making the statement. All relevant sources note this, although some of the headlines (rather than actual text) are a bit sensationalistic about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the report summary were Barr's judgment, but he also directly quoted Mueller's report a few times. Does anyone seriously think that Mueller would sit idly by while Barr distorts the results of his years long investigation, with key parts of the actual report surely to be released to the public? Barr isn't stupid, and there's no way he wouldn't follow this by the letter of law knowing how much interest it is going to receive. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen's allegation in lead

@Volunteer Marek:, added an unproven claim by Michael Cohen that Donald Trump knew about the wikileaks email leak ahead of time. [3] I'm not sure how this got in the lead in the first place, as I do not see any previous discussion about it. Why would this one claim be so significant that it goes in the lead? It seems WP:UNDUE to me. The claim also does not seem to be supported by the Mueller Report which concluded, the Russians were responsible for the hacking the email, but there was no evidence that Donald Trump or members of his campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was an allegation, and a rather vague one at that, and should not be in the lead, -- MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source. Not sure what's vague about it. We don't know what the Mueller Report concluded, only what Barr said it concluded, and regardless, that's actually kind of irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that Cohen made the allegation, that's a strawman's argument. You have failed to explain why his allegation is so important that it belongs in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=889452487"