Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Polling averages

Would it be possible for us to import the polling averages illustration from the Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration? The 'approval ratings' section in this article is currently really flawed[1]. It's outdated and it relied on individual polls (and outlier polls) before I removed those. Graphics are beyond my Wikipedia editing ability, so I'm pinging MelanieN. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Beyond me too. Maybe you should ask at the talk page of that article, though? --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, who in my experience calls for the removal of nearly everything that reflects poorly on a conservative on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS, is now inserting individual polls into the approval ratings section. With the exception of developing situations (e.g. mass shootings) and deadline day transfer rumours, I can't think of a more glaring violation of WP:NOTNEWS. It's a common mistake, but we are supposed to look at polling averages, not individual outlier polls[2]. Individual polls have zero encyclopedic value and give a misleading and non-neutral depiction when we have polling averages available to us. Please revert. (I also see that the editor used the Daily Mail, which is no-no). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans unless you're talking valid specifics of content and policy, skip it -- vague personal attacks are not useful or welcome and only look like a position unable to provide factual support. As for my insert, it's not about this thread topic of graphic work nor a RECENTISM item, it is a routine catchup of February thru April from seeing the months of time gap between [3] and the Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration. (You may want to put in a new section division above your post to set this apart from the graphics talk.) I saw that the last thing in here was the mid-February a small group APSA poll notable mainly for its strong anti-Trump remarks, discussed at Donald Trump talk page 19-20 February. As for polling averages, you'd have to be specific about what you want to replace with what. If you want to make 'not individual outlier polls' a principle, then start a TALK section on that and we'll talk about APSA as well. Otherwise I'm OK to consider a removal or replacement of the CNN poll with an average if you'd care to suggest a RS. That the tweet story mentions Rasmussen I think is necessary part of a story related to approval ratings, just as I think naming APSA is part of that story. The tweet is a noted event, but if one leaves off the caveat of that source it would not WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE convey the language highlighted as part of the story and the fact checker remarks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is so bizarre. What possible reason could you have for wanting individual polls rather than polling averages? Is this seriously something you want to have a dispute over? *sigh* Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, since you insist and did cut the Feb-Apr update of CNN and such then I'll play along with that and cut APSA as well to be consistent -- and work back towards the above mentioned poll presentation so the section is just poll tracking. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have inserted a chart (vice diagram) and cut the APSA per SNOOGAN desire to exclude outlier bits (he forgot to snip APSA), then I added a trailer remark of current state because the section was too short for the chart and the only text there was 1+ year old. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What does the APSA poll have to do with polling averages? Do you seriously *still* do not understand why we use a polling average rather than an individual poll? There are no polling averages for polls of presidential scholars - do you not know what a polling average is? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN -- I'll suggest an alternative since many updates are yet to come, that this start with a table format Presidency of Barack Obama used instead of a graph. That will be an easier thing to do and to update. I will gin one up and post. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. I used the Obama chart and one row per quarter instead of Obamas one row per half-year since Trump currently is only a bit over a year. After a couple more years may be enough to try doing a graphic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We should not rely on any individual poll or polling company, as some polls are more hostile to the president and others more friendly, and individual polls fluctuate more wildly. Experts look at polling averages, not individual polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I am just on my way out the door, but two points. 1) Snoogans is right: we should use polling averages, not Gallup or any other individual poll. If we can't do that in chart form, let's just use text. The current text is out of date and uses individual polls. Snoogans or someone, do you want to draft a new paragraph using averages? 2) Drop the "presidential ranking" paragraph. There have been previous discussions, here and at Talk:Donald Trump, about whether to include any of those "greatest/worst president" reports, and consensus has been to leave them out. here was one recent such discussion. And Mark, you knew that, because you participated in that discussion (I believe you were the ONLY one arguing to include the material). I'm going to remove this unless a newer discussion finds consensus to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. An alternative would be not to have an "approval" section at all - simply a link to the "opinion polling" article which is well maintained. Should we talk about that? --MelanieN (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should just have a short 'opinion polling' section where we link to the main article and add a simple graph of quarterly ratings (January, April, July, October) from a polling aggregator (e.g. 538). Until some skilled editor creates a fancier graph. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking though it all, why do we have an article dedicated to Trump opinion polls? We don't seem to have that for any other presidents. PackMecEng (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - when you get back in the door check your link "here" again -- your "I believe you were the ONLY one arguing to include the material" is incorrect. Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, User:Snooganssnoogans, -- if you want a graph versus a chart is one thing, but polling averages is a separate topic where weight would seem to favor Real Clear Politics and I note that precedent *is* Gallup at the chart Presidency of Barack Obama has (which is how my copy of that chart became Gallup) and the graph Presidency of George W. Bush has. Presidential articles before those did not give this amount of focus to the topic. I'll give another try to contribute -- but this thread seems a bit much in flux about what it is after. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ooooops!

Tillerson unleashed On subject of lying. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Three paragraphs to trim in the 'false and misleading statements' section

I think we should remove the 'Bella DePaulo', 'Scientific American' and Trudeau paragraphs.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While we're at it, @Atsme: you removed RS about Trump lying, citing NOTNEWS. This seems rather weak. Are you claiming it's news that Trump lies a lot? It would be news if he went horseback riding or something like that. Lying is one of his main features. It's well sourced. It can go back. Anyone object? SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did and I don't think NOTNEWS policy should be construed as a "rather weak" argument. The New York Times doesn't corroborate WaPo's article but they did publish the FoxNews exchange which speaks to the issue. Speculation is just that...speculation and since it just happened the other day, it happens to be noncompliant with NOTNEWS. I also don't consider events that happened 6+ years ago part of Trump's presidency. We still don't know why Cohen was raided, or what any of it has to do with Daniels except for the fact they took those files. When there are exceptional sources that establish notability about what was said on Hannity, then we can revisit it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If NOTNEWS had the slightest relevance, it would be persuasive. NOTNEWS isn't "don't cite newspapers". It has to do with recent uncontextualized events. And this is not what's proposed here. Let's see if anyone takes up your cause. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The text you deleted[5] has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. The WaPo quote is an assessment of patterns of behavior throughout the Trump presidency, it's not specifically tied to any one event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're linking to that NY Times article and talking about corroboration with the WaPo article. It's a transcript of the Giuliani interview... ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

About the sources, Atsme cited the NY Times article that contradicted the Washington Post article you added. The Washington Post article you cited here is about a single recent event while mentioning the past in passing. Atsme is right here with notnews. PackMecEng (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what in the NY Times "article" contradicts the WaPo article. It's a transcript of the Giuliani interview. ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The quote from the WaPo article is not about a specific recent event, but patterns over time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No contradiction. This is getting dumb. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what in the "NY Times article" contradicts the WaPo article. There are two editors here who insist that a "NY Times article" contradicts a WaPo article, and that a quote from a WaPo article about Trump's pattern of lying should be left out. These editors stopped engaging in this discussion after being asked to substantiate their claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see the NOTNEWS as reasonable, and will also point out UNDUE and at the time RECENTISM (less than half a day old?). Also, does it really fit as an item of Presidency -- the defined duties and actions of the president ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A president and his staff telling lies all the time obviously has no relevance to an article on the president and his staff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, are Atsme and PackMecEng every going to get back to me on what exactly in a "NYT article" contradicted the WaPo article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they already input here on the edits. If you want the side comment wording further explained, it might be best to try the talk page of

PacMec. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Baylor University study on "Presidential Greatness"

I was reverted here by Snooganssnoogans on the basis of a SYNTH violation, when the material was quoted directly from the Baylor study. Can we have a discussion on this? I couldn't find anything in SYNTH policy stating that copying material directly from the source is considered a violation. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH violation is to use this 2012 study to imply bias in the 2018 APSA ratings of Trump. The 2012 study has nothing to do with Trump or the 2018 APSA ratings of him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not synth if the source is making the connection. I will say I do not know if Campus Reform is a RS, I do not see them mentioned at RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to cite a poll as if it has meaning, how is research that says the polling participants "favor progressives" and describe the poll as "not very rigorous" not relevant? If an accident occurs on the London Eye that causes injuries and/or death, is a study from a few years prior that found the London Eye has safety issues not relevant? Even if an opinion article from Campus Reform isn't considered reliable for whatever reason, the connection and relevance is plain. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not appear to be an opinion article from what I can tell. But again I do not know much about Campus Reform. I actually think it is interesting content and would agree with the insertion assuming the source is found to be good. Their about page seems okay, but you will find pushback that they are a project by the Leadership Institute. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove sentence

Remove this sentence please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of sourced material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL: Restore the edit.

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

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

NY Times "criticism"

A number of sources have noted that Trump has bypassed traditional procedures on pardons (this is a noncontroversial observation). An editor now twists this noncontroversial observation into a "criticism" by the NY Times.[6] The sources note that the cases Trump is pardoning relate to grievances into "various investigations into his campaign, his personal lawyer and his own actions that may have been aimed at obstructing the inquiry of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I'm pretty that every single source that covered Trump's pardons noted the erratic process and the bypassing of DOJ procedures. So, I googled the first three news outlets that came to mind: (1) Site:WSJ.com trump + pardon + process[7], (2) Site:POLITICO.COM trump + pardon + process, (3) site:WASHINGTONPOST.COM trump + pardon + process.[8] And you know, all three sources confirmed exactly what I said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• BBC News[9]: "Over the years the presidential pardon authority has been governed by an extended (some would say overly bureaucratic) process of review and approval by Department of Justice lawyers. Breaks from those traditions, such as with George HW Bush's pardoning of Reagan-era Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger and Bill Clinton's of financier and deep-pocketed political donor Marc Rich, came in the final days of a presidency and were met with controversy and outcry. Mr Trump, with his pardons over his first 16 months in office, is eroding another political norm and flexing political power the scope of which, in the US Constitution, is largely undefined."
• The Independent makes no mention of the process. And who in their right goes first to the Independent for detailed takes on anything?
• LA Times: "President Trump’s announcement on Thursday that he is giving a full pardon to conservative provocateur Dinesh D'Souza and considering clemency for Martha Stewart and imprisoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has underscored the relish he takes in that power — in ways that break norms dating to the nation’s founding. The D’Souza pardon would be Trump’s fifth, and the latest in a pattern of using the president’s near-absolute authority to benefit individuals in legal trouble based on his political whim or convenience... Since George Washington, however, presidents have, for the most part, voluntarily accepted restraints on their ability to pardon. Starting in 1789, government lawyers have been designated to review pardon applications. And since 1865, presidents have typically relied on a review by the Justice Department before granting clemency. Trump, so far, has sidestepped that process... Trump has seemed to act on impulse or at the urgings of friends and celebrities in making his clemency decisions. Three of his pardons have gone to people backed by his conservative political allies... Another pattern is that Trump has seemed to favor clemency for people prosecuted by his nemeses."[10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

to:

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

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

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

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

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

I propose that we add the following sentence:

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

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

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

No. As the RS states, the Dept. of Justice has processes to support the Presidential pardon power. These are the traditional processes that Trump bypassed. No "hard data" contradicts the involvement of the DOJ in the process that the Times RS calls the traditional process. Everything is not just a matter of personal style. There are governmental and civic processes from which RS say the current Administration has significantly deviated. Please read about the established institutional processes here [11] [12] SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

• WSJ: "the day’s events presented the clearest picture to date of Mr. Trump’s approach to presidential-pardon powers, one focused on high-profile cases, drawing on instinct and bypassing traditional Justice Department processes."[13]
• WaPo: "Trump’s pardon of D’Souza was his sixth act of clemency as president. Each was issued unilaterally, subverting the traditional Justice Department process of reviewing thousands of pardon requests. Traditionally, people seeking pardons apply through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which reviews thousands of cases and advances some to the White House for the president’s consideration."[14]
• BBC: "Over the years the presidential pardon authority has been governed by an extended (some would say overly bureaucratic) process of review and approval by Department of Justice lawyers. Breaks from those traditions, such as with George HW Bush's pardoning of Reagan-era Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger and Bill Clinton's of financier and deep-pocketed political donor Marc Rich, came in the final days of a presidency and were met with controversy and outcry. Mr Trump, with his pardons over his first 16 months in office, is eroding another political norm and flexing political power the scope of which, in the US Constitution, is largely undefined."[15]
• LA Times: "in ways that break norms dating to the nation’s founding... Since George Washington, however, presidents have, for the most part, voluntarily accepted restraints on their ability to pardon. Starting in 1789, government lawyers have been designated to review pardon applications. And since 1865, presidents have typically relied on a review by the Justice Department before granting clemency. Trump, so far, has sidestepped that process..."[16]
• AP: "Trump’s predecessors largely relied on a formal, Department of Justice process to identify those deserving of clemency. None of the clemencies that Trump has granted have come through the front door of the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which typically assists the president in exercising his pardon power."[17]
• Bloomberg: "The president has charted new ground in issuing pardons outside of the traditional vetting process."[18]
• USA Today: "A pardon for Johnson would continue a Trump pattern of granting pardons outside the regular process at the Justice Department for vetting pardon applications."[19]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characterization of Breitbart and other news sources retweeted by Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.[20] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Including audio file of children crying

I want to discuss this edit [21] 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."[22] 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)

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".[23] 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 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.[24]
• 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,[25] or getting them back into the G-7.[26] 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.[27]. 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)

2 July 2018

Thread retitled from "What happened to logic and reasoning? ".

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.