Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::If it is indeed a statement of fact, it should be easy to find at least one falsity and cite it to a RS, correct? Nothing prevents us from quoting at least two falsities and then we have no problem stating it in Wiki voice as actual fact cited to at least 3 RS. That way, we eliminate potential challenges, and have strictly adhered to policy per NPOV and BLP. <sup>]]]</sup> 21:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
::::If it is indeed a statement of fact, it should be easy to find at least one falsity and cite it to a RS, correct? Nothing prevents us from quoting at least two falsities and then we have no problem stating it in Wiki voice as actual fact cited to at least 3 RS. That way, we eliminate potential challenges, and have strictly adhered to policy per NPOV and BLP. <sup>]]]</sup> 21:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Are you seriously disputing that Trump has made many false statements? Is anyone? There is no benefit to citing specific examples when the content being discussed is a general statement, nor is there a requirement to do so. I have no idea why you mentioned ] since it obviously has nothing to do with what we're discussing. - ]] 21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Are you seriously disputing that Trump has made many false statements? Is anyone? There is no benefit to citing specific examples when the content being discussed is a general statement, nor is there a requirement to do so. I have no idea why you mentioned ] since it obviously has nothing to do with what we're discussing. - ]] 21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::Step out of the bubble, MrX. Our readers comprise a broad spectrum of views, the majority of which may not necessarily support your own, which is why NPOV is essential. We are an encyclopedia, NOTNEWS, so everything we publish must be stated in a dispassionate tone, cited to RS with proper WEIGHT and BALANCE. We don't pick sides, we don't jump up on a SOAPBOX, we simply publish the facts. If Trump made false statements, then it should be easy to attribute them using in-text attribution. There is no reason for us to argue with each other over what is or isn't worthy of inclusion. If it's worthy, there will be plenty of 2nd and 3rd party sources we can use as references. <sup>]]]</sup> 21:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
== That the President defends an accused child molester is notable ==
== That the President defends an accused child molester is notable ==
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Hi. I added an image to Immigration. It could have gone into Environment and Energy. I am not completely happy with the current placement which really needs an image of people to make sense. The border wall seems to cross sections and maybe someone else here will know how to handle the issue of endangered wildlfe. The caption's source is a good start and quick read. Wherever it winds up could hatnote-link to Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration where I found room to write a new section. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting bit of info, but the whole area is already jammed full of pictures, makes it look out of place. Perhaps just adding the text to Environment and Energy. PackMecEng (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The lives of 100 species is a good deal more than an "interesting bit of info." Google News lists multiple articles published just today or this week. This belongs in its own section. I'm sorry but I can't tack it onto the Environment and Energy section because it is a totally different topic in an already overloaded area. I will have to write it and propose it here, maybe tomorrow.
By the way, @PackMecEng: why doesn't somebody straighten out all the images in this article? Misplaced Pages has a long term practice of alternating images left and right. It isn't hard to do and will improve the viewability of every image. See WP:STACKING. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I would, but I am not very good at working with pictures on here. What kind of section would you be looking at? Kind of a combo of immigration and environment? PackMecEng (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Just an acknowledgement that this administration wants a "border wall" that is at odds with the creatures who live there. I note that the image tutorial says that alternating right/left makes problems for readers with very low resolution (I guess netbooks are even lower resolution than a phone) but the result is still readable. That being the only caveat combined with not having any complaints in 10 years seems enough to go ahead with positioning the images. I can try after we resolve the wildlife issue. Thanks for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The border wall that Trump promised during his campaign threatens the lives of about 100 species, many already endangered. Such animals include the jaguar, ocelot, the Sonoran pronghorn antelope, and the Mexican wolf. A tiny pygmy owl and the Quino checkerspot butterfly both fly lower than the wall. According to Scott Egan of Rice University, a wall can create a population bottleneck, increase inbreeding, and cut off natural migration routes as well as range expansion.
Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, supports Trump's plan for a border wall, and the House of Representatives passed $1.6 billion to fund it. The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) plans to build the 32 miles of border wall Trump called for in his 2018 budget using the Real ID Act to avoid the years-long process of producing an environmental impact study. Reuters said, "The Real ID Act also allows the secretary of Homeland Security to exempt CBP from adhering to the Endangered Species Act" which would otherwise prohibit construction in a wildlife refuge.
Greenwald, Noah; et al. (May 2017). "A Wall In the Wild" (PDF). Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved August 3, 2017. {{cite news}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
I am not sure about the Paul Ryan part, seems tangential. I like the section title, I'm sure there are other things with his polices that could be added after this as well. PackMecEng (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The border wall threatens the lives of about 100 species, many already endangered, including the jaguar, ocelot, the Sonoran pronghorn antelope, and the Mexican wolf. A tiny pygmy owl and the Quino checkerspot butterfly both fly lower than the proposed wall which is 18 to 30 feet.
References
Greenwald, Noah; et al. (May 2017). "A Wall In the Wild" (PDF). Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved August 3, 2017. {{cite news}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
Greenwald, Noah; et al. (May 2017). "A Wall In the Wild" (PDF). Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved August 3, 2017. {{cite news}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
Susan, I think your proposed one-sentence additions to those two articles are just fine. JFG, speaking as someone who lives near the San Diego/Tijuana border, the problem here isn't the wildlife; it's the wild life! --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Without naming names, this edit removed agreed upon sentence in the section on Environment and energy. I agree the addition of overruling NAS was important however I strongly disagree with removing previously agreed upon text (and without any indication in the edit summary). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Section looks pretty POV with most of it is sourced to a editorial by the Washington Post here as part of their "The Debrief" which describes itself as "An occasional series offering a reporter’s insights". Which is not suitable for negative information on a WP:BLP. Looks like it was inserted by User:Snooganssnooganshere, challenged by revision by User:SMP0328.here, and then reinserted by Snooganssnoogans without discussion here which violates discretionary sanctions that are on this article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the version I was working on when I was edit conflicted. The text is thoroughly sourced, accurate and generally in line with RS coverage:
In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused unprecedented and catastrophic flooding in southeastern Texas. Trump's response to the storm focused primarily on the awe of the storm and talking favorably about his administration's response instead of providing helpful information or offering sympathy to the victims of the hurricane. The Houston Chronicle also noted that Trump "did not interact with storm victims or dwell long on their misery," and the Associated Press wrote, "Trump missed clear opportunities to strike a sympathetic note for multitudes who are suffering. The president did not mention those who died in the storm or those forced from their homes by its floodwaters. And he basked in the attention of cheering supporters outside the fire station where officials briefed him on the recovery." Amid record-setting rainfall in Houston, Trump promoted Sheriff David Clarke's book. Trump visited Corpus Christi, Texas on 29 August, and spoke for a few minutes where he praised his own administration, the work of Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and boasted about the crowd size. Politico wrote that during his visit, "the president didn’t meet a single storm victim, see an inch of rain or get near a flooded street."
The part about Arpaio definitely belongs, as RS bring it up when they talk about the response of the Trump administration to the disaster. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arpaio part is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I wouldn't have a problem with you removing it from there and adding to the hurricane section since I do agree most RS tie it more to the hurricane. Again though the main problem with the section is the Washington Post article since it is an editorial. PackMecEng (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Arpaio belongs both in Harvey response and as its own paragraph under 'Criminal Justice' ('Law and Order' or what the relevant section may be) where the context and ramifications of the pardon can be separately written up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
How about "The Friday before hurricane Harvey hit Texas, Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, calming "he timed it to attract maximum attention as television viewers were glued to storm coverage" ." PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
He pardoned Arpaio in the middle of the Hurricane (or when it was hitting) as far as I know, but otherwise I agree with the proposed text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You are correct it was same day. I just looked into it, I was mistaken. The hurricane made landfall at 10pm on the 25th. . Ill update the sentence and reinsert. PackMecEng (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This proposed version is way, way TMI, dwelling over and over on the negative comments about his reaction. IMO what we now have in the article is just right: It mentions the Arpaio thing, it says he praised his administration and the crowd size, and it includes the "didn't meet a single victim" quote. In other words, Arpaio plus the last two sentences of this proposal. It also mentions his charity donation, which was widely covered. That's enough. I favor keeping what we have now and not expanding it as proposed above. There is a second paragraph in the article, about a trivial short-lived feud with reporters, which I think should be deleted. In fact I will delete it, and we can talk about that here as well. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Will fix typo "On August 28, 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall; on the same day Trump announced his pardon of Joe Arpaio." ... This should be Friday August 25, and Harvey made landfall that night. I will update and add wikilink and a bit about the hurricane. Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Salary One of Trump's campaign promises was that he would not accept a presidential salary. In keeping with this pledge, Trump donated the entirety of his first two quarterly salaries as president to government agencies.
Personally I see no reason to delete it and believe it should be restored, but in keeping with the Discretionary Sanctions I am bringing it here for discussion. I think this is an interesting and relevant fact. And hey, we're constantly quoting Politifact when they call him a liar - can't we for once quote him when they find him telling the truth? --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
How is this noteworthy in any way commensurate with the office, the powers, the actions and achievements of POTUS? There are hundreds of equally as significant actions by every president that never even make it to public attention. And I certainly don't see why we would try to find an example of something he said that was not a lie! What is that about? Anyway his critics will call this self-serving and cite it as an example of something done just for promotion rather than charitable intent. Charity is generally not advertised and promoted in campaign rallies. It's not as if it's an example to all the other politicians to donate their salaries. That's already been done by many. And then of course there are those who will use this bit as the start of a long list of the opposite -- things done to enrich himself and his family that dwarf the pittance of a salary he donates. It's a high bar for anything to be noteworthy about the administration of an American President. Do we have ongoing discussion, reporting, or comment as to the significance of this in multiple prominent RS? The important information about an world leader will readily meet that standard. SPECIFICOtalk20:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
We already do have an extensive section on his real and potential conflicts of interest. IMO it is useful to leaven that by pointing out that at least he isn't taking a taxpayer-funded salary. RE: "That's already been done by many": Not very many. I believe some wealthy members of the Kennedy Administration were known as "dollar-a-year men". Reading that article, I find only two previous presidents who refused a salary: Hoover and Kennedy. A few more recent public servants included governors Schwarzenegger and Romney. According to that article, Trump wanted to go dollar-a-year but was told he couldn't refuse his salary for legal reasons. Anyhow, this is an interesting and unusual aspect of his presidency, IMO clearly notable. I'll see about more sources to prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, how many do you need? The first page of a Google search shows articles about this from CNN, Time, The Hill, the Washington Post, USA Today, Fox News, Fortune, and Business Insider. The second page shows The New York Times, Huffington Post, NPR - that's just singling out the Independent Reliable Sources. I think the point has been made: this is a notable feature of his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, MelanieN. I couldn't have put it better, and have nothing to add to your analysis, except to reiterate that the text proposed is merely a single sentence and to clarify that I added "Salary" as a subsection of "Ethics" (which seemed like the best place for it).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Please review my comments here. I reverted it and explained why it is trivia at best, personal not professional, and belongs nowhere in this article. SPECIFICOtalk00:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, what do you think is interesting about this? There are thousands of sources we could find on virtually anything from the hour he tweets to the size of his fingers. He's a wealthy guy who pays constant attention to his public image. Let's say the after-tax value of his paycheck is worth $200,000 a year and his net worth is $2 billion. So that's giving 1/10,000 of his wealth. Let's say the average WP editor is worth $1 million. So it's as if the average WP editor donated $100 to charity. And that's not accounting for the diminishing marginal utility of savings or of the PR and electoral benefit he derived from announcing it. You know he could have done it w/o announcing it or he could have done it quietly as, e.g. former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg did when he donated a huge multiple of his mayoral pay -- hundreds of millions of dollars to NYC civic causes -- without very much fanfare and certainly not any public boast. Finding a dozen references to any presidential action is no problem. It takes more than that to establish noteworthiness to an encyclopedic account of his administration. Maybe you could slip it in his bio. It's not clear what impact this has on the topic of this article, his presidency. What is the significance of this action for the governmental factors of his Presidency? SPECIFICOtalk22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you think of the "Cost of Trips" section? It's not as if Trump can help it that he owns a lot of properties that are very expensive/burdensome for the Secret Service to secure and has a large family making frequent international trips to protect, but our article depicts this reality as a major scandal. To be clear, I have no problem with the existence of a paragraph or two on this topic due to its continuing coverage in RS (e.g., , , ), but our article needs to have a consistent standard about what is trivial or UNDUE to avoid arbitrary deletions of content based on editor's subjective feelings. Longer term, if the "Costs of Trips" material remains intact, it probably should not be as a subsection of "First 100 days."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be closed by an "impartial" or uninvolved person; it wasn't a formal RfC or anything. Anyhow the trend here seems pretty clear: four people (counting the IP) think it belongs in the article; SPECIFICO, alone, argues for its removal. SPECIFICO's arguments are: that it is UNDUE and trivia; that there needs to be reporting on this in "multiple prominent RS," which I provided easily and in volume; and that this isn't really very much money for him, which is true (and Original Research) but in no way wipes out the significant press coverage of this topic. This degree of coverage certainly seems deserving of a small two-sentence mention. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, the "closer" is a recent SPA in this difficult topic area. With an UNDUE bit of biographical, not governmental or administrative, trivia being insinuated into this article, the precipitous declaration of a winning vote (!really, can't make this stuff up!) was inappropriate. Chill out and let others comment. This is nonsense in an article about a presidential administration. As if Abe Lincoln Presidency had something about what kind of RR car he liked best. What does this silly bit of nonsense tell you about Trunp's Presidency (subject of this article) other than that he made what appears to be a payment of a minimal sum of money publicly announced in a way to reinforce his longstanding and dubious narrative that he's extraordinarily wealthy. SPECIFICOtalk02:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
"Precipitous"? The discussion has been open for five days. "Let others comment"? I always hope for others to comment, but we went for four days there without anyone saying anything. At some point (often 7 days) we need to conclude that everyone who was going to say something has had a chance to say it. As for your straw men examples like "Abe Lincoln's rail car preference", if that subject had gotten the kind of coverage that this one has, we might have said something about it. You love to dismiss this heavily covered subject as a "silly bit of nonsense," but that is your opinion, and it is apparently not shared by the Reliable Sources whose lead we follow in deciding what to cover. That is the issue you keep ignoring: you may think this is silly and trivial, but Reliable Sources have thought it was worth reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, if you feel like disparaging me please join the crowd on my user talk page where I always enjoy folks venting. Meanwhile, let's stick to the article text and sources here and focus on policy-based argument. There are millions of news articles about POTUS on all sorts of stuff, so the issue is due WP:WEIGHT and NPOV. Any mention of this would need to reflect the mainstream coverage of it. The coverage (aside from primary-sourced puffery) ranged from skepticism to scorn, citing this as an example of what sources apparently believed was POTUS' tendency to self-promotion, disingenuous gestures and other unfortunate traits. If you feel strongly that this needs to be part of this article about his Presidency (once again, not his bio) then please review the coverage and all the critical remarks in RS reporting and commentary so that you can propose an NPOV text that's fair and balanced. That would be more constructive than obstinate denial of the policy-based problems and would get us to some content that might meet WP norms. SPECIFICOtalk11:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Generally, we cover things that happened during the campaign in the Campaign article, and things that happened during his presidency in the Presidency article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep it. Short mention is appropriate. Why Presidents aren't required to accept it is beyond me. By refusing it he can claim to not be employed by the people and has free hands to do as he pleases. Oh! That's what he does anyway... -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep - As long as we can also say he makes millions and millions of dollars from the US taxpayer by forcing the Secret Service and White House staff to rent parts of his own properties (Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower, Bedminster et al) to the Secret Service and White House staff so he can stay in them, instead of at the already-paid-for Camp David retreat. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see our article doesn't currently have a paragraph about the payments his properties get from the Secret Service and other government agencies when he travels, or about the rent dispute with the Secret Service. I would have no objection to adding a well-sourced paragraph about those issues to the "conflicts of interest" subsection, if someone can propose one.--MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There are policy-based issues that should guide us here. RS reporting on this bring in several factors. That this is what they call Trump's typical self-promotion, that he is allocating his payments to the same departments from which he pursues budget cuts on the order of 100 times the size of his payments, that other officials made similar payments quietly and without seeking public attention. Some brief summary of those widespread critical and contextualizing remarks need to be included, per NPOV. And I am still not hearing why this is a significant (not notable, guys - if it were notable it would get its own article) fact about Trump's presidency. Why does it belong here rather than in his bio, where we would expect to see discussion of his charitable activities and the degree of his completeness and candor referring to them. SPECIFICOtalk15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Our article currently contains a very large section - seven paragraphs - about Trump's conflicts of interest, including details about multiple lawsuits (which are nowhere near as widely reported as these donations), and many quotes from commentators disparaging his ethical situation. To also include a small, neutral, two-sentence paragraph about these widely-reported donations does not seem excessive, especially when WP:BALANCEd against our extensive negative coverage about his ethical situation. So I have trouble understanding why you are opposing this so passionately.
As for what article to put it in: The main biographical article cannot possibly go into this level of depth; that is why there are so many spinoff articles, including this one. These are issues that are arising during his presidency and specifically because he is president. This is the appropriate article to put them in (unless someone wants to spin off a whole separate article about his conflicts of interest). --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
What does this have to do with conflicts of interest? Nothing, insofar as I can tell. MelanieN, it almost sounds as if you're saying we'll balance nice things with nasty things. But that's not what we do. We first determine what are the items of lasting encyclopedic significance and then we present the weight of mainstream narrative with significant alternative or dissenting narratives to the extent they appear in RS or represent the opinions of qualified commentators. This donation bit has nothing to do with COI that I can see. He's not donating to the Dept. of Interior to plant trees outside his home or anything. My sense of RS reporting, if you don't double-count all the news outlet that repeated his self-serving press releases within a day or two, is that there's only skeptical and nullifying discussion among sources that thought it important enough even to comment on after the initial primary statement was summarized. There are literally thousands of administrative actions reported by RS -- they are law enforcement decisions, environmental and other regulatory decisions, and foreign policy decisions -- that are so vastly more significant than this that it's hard to conceive of this contrived "charity" bit (is the US Gov't a charity?) as being a noteworthy event in a relatively brief encyclopedia article about an American Presidency. SPECIFICOtalk17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep – A notable presidential factoid, unusual for other presidents and widely covered in RS. We don't need to advertise this donation as Trump does, but we don't need to deliberately hide it either. Let's uphold the WP:Neutrality pillar. — JFG17:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please do not misuse the word "notable" in a WP editing context. Please review my comments on this thread and explain how you feel that NEUTRALITY requies this. And please review RS reporting on the subject and state what you believe to be a balanced proportionate NPOV treatment of this subject. Thanks. Repetition doesn't advance the discussion. Responsive interaction will get us to consensus. SPECIFICOtalk18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please google "Trump salary charity" -- I think that's NPOV enuf for our purposes here. Now see what comes up. Let's get a 2-3 sentence NPOV mention, if anyone still insists this is a noteworthy fact of his Presidential Administration. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk19:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
LOL! I did, and of course no RS were found. I then searched for "Trump salary" charity and found plenty.
1st quarter: $78,333 to National Park Service, Antietam battlefield restoration. (His proposed budget would cut about $1.5 billion from the budget for the Department of Interior, which operates the National Park Service.)
2nd quarter: $100,000 to Department of Education. (He still wants to cut $9.2 billion from its budget.)
NPOV text Thank you @BullRangifer:. I still think this is UNDUE but per the above, I have written a brief NPOV version if there is still any editor who wishes to see this in the article. We can add the citations from among the many that give this account.
In a televised interview during the 2016 campaign, Trump stated that, if elected, he would accept no salary as President. This violates Article 2 of the US Constitution, which requires the president to receive a salary while in office. However, in the first two quarters of his presidency, Trump announced that he had made donations to the Departments of the Interior and Education in a total amount of $178,000. The move was criticized as having been a publicity stunt, and press accounts pointed out that Trump had at the same time called for funding cuts of over $10 billion for the programs of those two departments.
As I said, the best course IMO would be to drop this idea or consider whether there's some other article to which it is actually germane. SPECIFICOtalk14:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We already have a brief neutral version: the one at the head of this discussion, which you removed from the article but most discussants here want restored. You are free to continue to propose your new version and see if anyone accepts it, but I would at least like to suggest you remove the sentence "This violates Article 2 of the US Constitution, which requires the president to receive a salary while in office." That is irrelevant and immaterial as the lawyers say, because he IS accepting his salary as required, so he is not violating the Constitution as your version implies. How about trimming that to "In a televised interview during the 2016 campaign, Trump stated that, if elected, he would accept no salary as President. For the first two quarters of his presidency, Trump made donations to the Departments of the Interior and Education in a total amount of $178,000, equivalent to his salary for those quarters." This is not to suggest that I agree with your version - I don't - but just in an attempt to make it a little more factual. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am puzzled as to why you'd reiterate that the reverted version is "neutral" when I explained the contrary and one other editor has found RS that present it quite differently. In fact, @BullRangifer: and I tried to apply policy and -- I could be wrong on this -- seem to be the only ones who actually surveyed RS to reflect what they say about this. Now, there may also be many sources that just briefly say how he donated his salary. Especially local news stations and regional press. Examining those, we find that nearly all come within a day or two of the announcements and appear to reflect routine reprinting of government press releases and agency statements such as we find on hundreds of topics every day -- for example the menus, fashions, and floral arrays at State Dinners]. The longer articles or the ones written by papers' own reporters or columnists almost all are critical or disparaging.
The bit about the emoluments clause is to pick up on the initial comment in this thread, which cites Trump's own statement. It's also one of the things that RS cite in their reactions to this. I did omit some other frequent press comments, which while also rather on the negative side, did not relate directly to the donations but more to the writers' broader views of Trump's character. It's no more "factual" to omit the fact of Article 2 of the Constitution, but your suggestion is noted and who knows, maybe it will be adopted as consensus emerges. SPECIFICOtalk21:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, to state the obvious, you have still not provided any of the sources that you say you are basing your above commentary on. It appears that you have already determined what the truth must be, and are now asking others to do the work for you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This topic, with it currently having 8-1 consensus now after inviting more people to voice their input, I think consensus is firmly in favor of its inclusion. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, 8-2. And that applies to the sentences as originally in the article, listed at the top of this section. No one has shown any inclination toward SPECIFICO's proposed rewording. BullRangifer proposes adding the information about Trump's proposed budget cuts to the same departments. We could put our consensus version back into the article, and then decide whether to add the "budget cut" information. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually I don't think the budget cuts part is necessary. That's why I put it in parentheses. I'll note this above, too, by striking that part. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to close this because I was the one that started it, but I do think it is ready to be closed. There hasn't been a new comment in this thread for three days. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and I say this a day later heh. Since majority rules and there hasn't been any new comments (Minus yours) in now four days, I see no reason not to add the section. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, what was your rationale for reverting when this material was added to the article? That you don't think IPs are allowed to implement consensus? (WP:IPs are people too). That you didn't like the conclusion that an 8-2 majority can be regarded as a consensus? That you think there might be more commentary forthcoming here, even though you already listed the discussion at multiple talk pages and got a strong response, all of it in favor of inclusion - and no new opinions have been added in four days? I recused myself from closing this, but I think you ought to recuse yourself also. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Did you read my edit summaries both times? S-P-A. Not IP. IP SPA with a short history -- and the problem is that there's a lot of detail on this thread that was ignored in the reinsertion of that editor's previous unhelpful insertion. This can be stated in a balanced, compete, succinct, NPOV way as reflected in this lengthy and constructive discussion. Recuse myself??? Did I jump in and close it? Why discuss me doing something I already did? I expect a closer, if we call it that, to reflect the entire discussion, not just to jerk the same bad text back in place. I'm sure we all expect that. BTW "dontlike" is a smear and it's beneath you to use that. It's typically used by battleground editors to project their nonsense on more temperate participants here, and indiscriminate use of it only encourages such abuses. SPECIFICOtalk03:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If the closer concludes that the consensus of this discussion is to restore the initial text - what you call the "same bad text" - then yes, we would need to respect that. I didn't see much support here for any different text. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This was not an RfC with 2 alternative texts up for an up or down vote. The simple version was challenged. The thread developed a range of deeper and more contextually profiled aspects to the naive text that was reverted. An SPA reinserting its preferred version ignoring all the possible improvements doesn't advance anything. Now I suppose I could have added to and amended the restored bad version. Or somebody else can write something that's better than what was removed. Either way, the SPA's version will not survive because it's weak and unencyclopedic. SPECIFICOtalk03:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
And of course, it would be fine if you believe that the original language was the highest and best possible text for this bit of rank abject, tortured trivia. But then, it would help if you'd refute this thread's several arguments to the contrary so as to solidify your stance. SPECIFICOtalk03:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed this article as I would a GAC or FAC, but as a result of consensus issues, I have read a couple of sections. I feel rather strongly that the Potential conflicts of interest section is noncompliant with NPOV, fails WP:UNDUE and is not even applicable to the Presidency. The office of the president is exempt from COI laws; therefore, to have an entire UNDUE section about potential conflicts is clearly noncompliant with NPOV. Also keep in mind that it also fails WP:NOT as it applies to WP:NOT#JOURNALISMOriginal reporting, and that is without getting into WP:BIASED RS that dominate the citations in this article. The Comey segment fails NPOV and UNDUE as well. Show me where, in Presidency of Bill Clinton, there is even any mention of him firing FBI Director Jeff Sessions or the controversy surrounding that firing. There's not even a segment about Bill Clinton's impeachment. Don't you think it will be difficult to convince our readers that WP isn't biased when comparing the two articles? That alone supports my concerns over NPOV in this article. Much of it reads like condemnation, some filled with disproportionate, sometimes irrelevant opinionated news purposely designed to denigrate rather than provide factual information that is compliant with NPOV, WP:Weight and WP:Balance, not taking into account WP:BLP, et al. There has not been any consideration given to the fact that biased sources dominate. A WP article was even used as a source. The NYTimes, WaPo, Politico, and CNN dominate this article. I've noticed that several conservative sources have been dismissed as unreliable at WP:RSN. Where is the list of reliable conservative sources? NPOV clearly states (my bold underline): An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. I'm ok with resolving the issues one section at a time, so let's start with the most glaring noncompliant section, Potential conflicts of interest. It needs to be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with a paragraph explaining some concerns have been raised, and cite it with inline text attribution to a RS and balanced by explaining why the office of the president is exempt, citing the law. 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me, but that's nonsense. Moreover the section makes no legal claim -- it talks about "potential conflicts of interest" in terms that are robustly supported by mainstream RS discussion of the Trump presidency. If you want to pursue this, I predict you will hit a dead end after a lot of wasted effort. SPECIFICOtalk17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Just curious...do you think perhaps the best place to gauge reception and arguments for or against would be to add RS information to the Presidency of Bill Clinton re: the firing of FBI Director Sessions, and provide more information about his impeachment? Do you think such information would be as readily accepted as what is being added here per your argument? 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear Curious, I'm pretty sure I have no idea what you're talking about, but my advice is -- in your American vernacular -- "go for it" (signed) Clueless.😵 SPECIFICOtalk17:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
BTW, it's quite possible that the mainstream is "biased against Trump" as he's never received a majority approval either in the election or in any subsequent polling. Moreover his core -- the ones who still support him -- are not typically among those who shape the mainstream narrative on such things. However, Misplaced Pages is a tool of the mainstream. We fervently strive to present significant minority views in proportion to their incidence on Earth, but with Trump's ratings on character and other metrics related to COI at historically low levels, it's very likely that nothing very flattering is going to be presented here. Policy-based concerns are easier to adjudicate, but mere accusations of bias, when stated from a minority or fringe POV, are pretty well quashed by WP site policy. We present the consensus view of the real world, not necessarily of the assembled editors on any given article. SPECIFICOtalk
I'm a pragmatist, and facts tell me the man was elected President despite MSM's polling which was clearly out of touch with "mainstream", so forgive me for not extending a great deal of credibility to MSM as being representative of "mainstream". I'd like to think WP has risen above MSM's decline because the polls show that 84% of voters don't know what to believe online, and 65% believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media. I would think some of those people are WP readers and contributors. I'm here to help build an encyclopedia not a mainstream newspaper. I don't see very much info in the subsection potential coi that we can call "encyclopedic", especially considering the office of the president is exempt from COI law - I imagine that also includes "potential COI", 🤔. The facts tell us voters in the US don't take MSM seriously, and it concerns me that you're saying "Misplaced Pages is a tool of the mainstream". If that truly is the case, we should be listening closer to what got Trump elected as it more closely represents mainstream. Provide only the facts, please - keep the ethics, the morality, the pc, the censorship, and all the soapbox POV criticisms that are noncompliant with NPOV out of WP. When something in an article is challenged, policy prevails. 20:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, you forgot the bit about the dead folks, undocumented immigrants, and space alien voter fraud that made it look like Trump only got 46% of the vote. 🙈 SPECIFICOtalk21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I know this is an Other Stuff Exists argument, but since you have raised it several times I will answer it: Show me where, in Presidency of Bill Clinton, there is even any mention of him firing FBI Director Jeff Sessions or the controversy surrounding that firing. You mean William Sessions, and it wasn't all that controversial, and he was fired for ethics violations. (That's according to the link you provided.) Note the lack of an article called Dismissal of William Sessions. But you could add a sentence to the "First term" section of the Clinton article, if you think it's important. There's not even a segment about Bill Clinton's impeachment. Incorrect. The impeachment is mentioned in the lede and given several paragraphs in the "Second term" section. So there is no UNDUE comparison which I think is why you brought that up. As for your argument that the President can't have conflicts of interest because he is exempt from most COI laws, that's irrelevant: Congress could use non-criminal conflicts of interest as grounds for impeachment, if it so chose, so COI is a valid issue to discuss WRT presidents. Anyhow that is Original Research. There has been a tremendous volume of reporting on this issue by independent reliable sources, so it is appropriate for us to reflect that coverage here, per policy. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I struck the name Jeff - apologies for transposing names. It appears that my interpretation of UNDUE and "segment" differs greatly from yours. I'm of the mind the UNDUE issues in this article are quite obvious, which is why I used the comparison. The Clinton article is a better model to use as a base for gauging WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, and I will add that the way the controversial firing of Sessions, and it was highly controversial (unlike your impression that "it wasn't all that controversial"), was not presented at all in the article VS the way the Comey firing in this article was presented clearly makes it UNDUE. Worse yet, the mention of Clinton's impeachment comprises 2 sentences in the lead of the Clinton article, and 2 sentences in the section titled "Second term". The word (or form of it) "impeach" was mentioned 7 times total. There were only 339 words written about the entire incident that led to it in the section "Second Term" VS 7 full paragraphs (850 words) in Trump's "potential COI" subsection, and he's only been in office 8 mos. The use of WP:OSE is certainly valid in this instance as it relates to NPOV and UNDUE. Our readers should be getting far more encyclopedic information than what they're getting with the inclusion of "potential coi" and all the hooplah about The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming. Facts, please. WP policy dictates that we are not a crystal ball and certainly not a newspaper, even though some may think we are if they're coming here for "breaking news." 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, we certainly have different definitions of "controversial" - and especially "highly controversial". Your first link ("controversial") doesn't suggest that the firing was objected to by anyone except Sessions himself. In your second link ("highly controversial"), I do find a tiny bit of controversy at the very end of the article: one senator saying the firing was a "potentially worrisome precedent," and one House member speaking out strongly against it. But "Most other congressional reaction was more positive." Our article William S. Sessions doesn't suggest that the firing caused any controversy. And note that the story of his firing was back in the news last May (just Google William Sessions fired by Clinton); those 2017 articles do say it was the first time an FBI director was fired, but there's no hint of any public outcry against it. So I see no reason why you couldn't say in the Clinton article that he fired Sessions, and that it was the first time an FBI Director had been fired, but you'd have to do a lot of digging to find any evidence that it caused controversy - so much so that I think it would be undue cherry-picking to say so. I realize this is off topic for the current article, but you keep trying to say the cases are similar so you can compare the way we treat them. But they aren't at all comparable. The dismissal of Sessions got a public yawn. The dismissal of Comey touched off a firestorm at the time which continues to this day - including a federal investigation into whether it was obstruction of justice. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Trump did not obstruct according to Dershowitz. The concern now is if Comey broke the law, and whether or not he will have to testify again now that it's known that he may have exonerated Clinton before investigating her and lied under oath. Yes, our interpretations are much different. Thank you for sharing your views. The weekend is upon us! 02:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I propose we drop this unrelated discussion and get back to talking about the "potential conflicts of interest" section in this article. If I understand you correctly, you think it is UNDUE and unfair and biased for us to have such a section, and you seem to imply that it only exists because of Misplaced Pages editor bias - that you think we do not report negative stuff about Democrats, only Republicans. Let's examine that notion. Let's look at something comparable from the other side of the aisle - something that is current or recent, but involves a Democrat. Let's compare our coverage about Trump's "potential conflicts of interest" with the coverage given to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. We have an entire article Hillary Clinton email controversy, plus large sections at Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, and a paragraph at United States presidential election, 2016; probably others too that I missed. My point is, we do have massive coverage over something negative about a Democrat. Do I think it's too much? No, I think it is DUE - because it reflects the massive coverage given to the subject by Reliable Sources. By the same token, I think our one section in one article about Trump's possible conflicts of interest is DUE; it reflects the moderate coverage given to it by Reliable Sources. The difference in our coverage is not due to right vs. left; it's due to following Misplaced Pages policy, giving things weight according to the prominence and importance given to them by Reliable Sources. Bottom line, our section is appropriate and should remain. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
However the question of whether it is neutral to call them conflict of interests despite the president being exempt from such laws needs to be considered. If reliable sources call it this then we must think of the best way for to balance it being due, neutral, verifiable, and true. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Emir. I'm trying to demonstrate a NPOV issue and how other articles are handled properly, and all I'm getting is a Republican vs Democrat line of bull. It has nothing to do with political affiliation and everything to do with how certain information is presented. As for the contention over RS, it happens to be RS that have demonstrated the bias in sources, and PEW research has provided polling that indicates a large majority of Americans do not trust MSM. What we're dealing with now are a few editors who claim every conservative source is unreliable while all left leaning sources are but it's clear such a conclusion is based on POV and opinion not factual information. There have been multiple discussions at RSN and many of the same people keep claiming the same things over and over again, and those with the boldest replies and like-minded views seem to think they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Regardless, consensus does not overrule policy, and the latter appears to be the single most important argument subject to Misplaced Pages:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Potential conflicts of interest are UNDUE when real conflicts of interest are not even at issue but the argument to keep as I see it is based on speculation of impeachment. Loan me that crystal ball. Wow! We have speculation filling the article while actual impeachment of a presidency earned NPOV treatment. I've already cited the policy that applies to newspaper article speculation but again DIDNTHEARTHAT. WP:NOT tells us how such information is to be treated but that is not what is happening as a result of what appears to be political bias and that has to stop. What we need is for editors to leave their political biases at login and join in neutral collaboration, which may not necessarily be with all like-minded editors, but that's how WP is supposed to operate in order to acheive neutrality. 10:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Adding 2 sources that support my position - Snopes and CNBC. Look at the section Relationship with the media and tell me if you see anything...anything at all in that section you consider NPOV considering the two sources I just linked. 11:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This Republican vs Democrat line is definitely incorrect due to the unique nature of Trump. Conservative source should be held to the same standards as they always are, but we shouldn't however shove an unreliable one in just because we have too few opinions. I think some people need to read WP:CRYSTALBALL. Political bias shouldn't be present and we should remain neutral.
Your first article does have a point, but have to we have with what we are given.
Regarding the second source which is about a study from Harvard I think doesn't support any point in regards to "conflict of interest". It just says that coverage was negative, but not that it was unwarranted. I think that WP:NEUTRALSOURCE can be generalized to sources with a negative tone. However this source could be useful if we mention the media coverage of Trump and/or his presidency. Yes, I know that might be a bit meta, but as long as we don't branch into WP:OR I'm fine with it. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
What, um... what in the world do either of these two sources - Snopes or CNBC - have to do with the issue at hand? Is anything that is discussed in the Snopes article for example, part of this Misplaced Pages article? No? Then what's the point? Volunteer Marek 07:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Politicization of the Department of Justice
I don't see that this topic is now clearly identified and covered in the article. A neutral search points to this unusual activity in the Trump Presidency.
SPECIFICOtalk13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the White House calls to prosecute Comey? I wouldn't go so far as to call this politicization of the DOJ (that would be the GWBush administration, with their overt screening of potential U.S. Attorney candidates and DOJ hires to make sure they had the right political views before hiring), but I do agree it's a failure to respect DOJ's independence. (Some sources have described it as an unprecedented attempt by the president to dictate to DOJ, but I doubt if it's actually unprecedented.) I have seen this incident described as possible obstruction of justice, i.e., attempting to intimidate a witness, and maybe that would be a better topic to mention it under. Where were you thinking it should go? --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps he's relating it to this, or this mess which amounted to a big nothing burger. Is that what we should really be focused on for inclusion despite WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:UNDUE and WP:BS?
You may be onto something, provided there is balance per articles like this one with full disclosure and some evidence to validate the claims per NPOV. For example, authoritive articles on politicization should include information from articles like this because it can no longer be considered WP:RECENTISM - the politicization claims are supported by the ruling of SCOTUS rather than being more of the same allegations from biased news publications. 16:27, 20 September 201°7 (UTC)
Absolutely - I'll work in my sandbox and you are most welcome to collaborate so we get it right. 19:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: - I think this is relatively too small to mention, since Google is showing me about 150 Million hits for President Trump and only 300 K when politicization and DOJ are added, with significant amount of that being about Obama politicization or Bush politicization. But I will correct your views above with material previously Talked at Dissmisal of Comey -- DOJ is not independent, it is normally accorded some distance but is part of the Executive branch that the President runs; and that it is normal for political appointees to be vetted and that they may be dismissed with no cause required. In any case, politics and justice just seems a perennial item - said about Obama, about Bush - and not particularly notable compared to the historical cases for Reagan, for Nixon, for Lincoln re Merryman , and for Jackson. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't agreed with anything yet, and I haven't seen this covered as a topic in the Reliable Sources I read. So I'm inclined to agree with you. But if Atsme wants to propose some kind of wording, let's see what it says and evaluate it on its merits. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed several of the Presidency of... articles in an effort to find consistency or mention of DOJ politicization and haven't found much of anything, not even in the way of section titles. Nothing goes beyond justifiable dismissals, allegations and inuendos by detractors and MSM sensationalism. The standalone articles about Comey's firing, the Russian investigations, Special Councel Mueller, former AG Loretta Lynch, AG Jeff Sessions et al is probably where politicization belongs considering it's allegedly the DOJ that's being politicized, but I'm having a hard time justifying its inclusion here, especially something one could consider unprecedented politicization. A president really can't force anyone in the DOJ to do anything they aren't willing to do as we've discovered with former AG Sally Yates who (wrongfully) defied an Executive Order. The firing of Comey was also justified according to an AP report that was published in US News. After I read this OIG special report, which comes complete with graphs, it made me think that a standalone article covering a much broader spectrum would better serve our readers than singling out the Trump administration as being unprecendented in that regard. 05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe because previous presidents didn't politicize the DOJ or at least not to this extent, hmmmmmm? You can't really compare this to other "Presidency of..." articles literally like you're doing because every presidency is different, so OBVIOUSLY different kind of information will be included. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The main difference I've noticed is that a president's political affiliation appears to be the decided factor in what determines NPOV, balance and undue and to what extent published scandals and speculation will be included in the article. It's a style of writing that became most notable after Bill Clinton's administration, and with the onslaught of tv pundits and internet news. 01:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality tag - accusations of bigotry
I was moving some text and noticed the accusations of bigotry section has a Neutrality tag but had not started the TALK section to discuss the concerns.
So, here is the section to facilitate the record of details and discussion. Please indicate what neutrality concerns folks have for this section. Please refrain from rote denialism and such, and Thank any for refraining. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I was surprised to even see we have such a section, because there is an RfC going on right now at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Accusations of bigotry about whether to have such a section. These articles can tend to blur in my mind so I was wondering why we have a section here while discussion is ongoing - I guess I'm spending too much time on this stuff. Anyhow I would suggest that the outcome of that RfC might be helpful in deciding what to do with the section here. Personally if it was up to me I would delete the section entirely and put the various issues like white supremacy and anti-Muslim elsewhere in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN. "Bigot" is an evaluation or a conclusion, but an encyclopedia can give a more detailed account rather than highlight a broad label such as that. SPECIFICOtalk23:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
On 23 September, the RFC at the main Trump article closed, with no consensus to include a section regarding accusations of Trump's bigotry (racism, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia). Since that RFC got broader community input than any discussion about it here, I agree with Melanie that we should delete the section entirely and put the various issues like white supremacy and anti-Muslim elsewhere in the article. Or we could keep that section and add a section like "Accusations that Trump is trying to make America great again", but my preference would be to have neither section because they reek of opinion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Nuke the section. The recent Charlottesville event which motivated this section can be briefly summarized elsewhere. — JFG21:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN - well, the RFC Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Accusations of bigotry closed with no consensus but a skew to oppose having such a section, the RFC being too broad or vague focus without wording for it being part of the concerns. I think I'll try resolving it by moving Charlottesville paragraph up to the Domestic section as event and presidential actions. By dropping the lead of opinions that he is bigoted and ending remarks about cartoons, plus the section label "Bigotry", I think it reasonable to also drop the Neutrality tag. (Objections to the sources I will leave as an exercise to those who disliked them.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice job mainstreaming the Charlottesvill/white supremacy section into the article. One comment: that section contains an entire paragraph devoted to the cover-art of several magazines linking Trump to the KKK. I think that paragraph is undue, basically just name-calling under the guise of journalism, and I am going to remove it ("challenging through reversion" as the DS put it). Let's discuss here whether it or something like it should be restored to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Also, in the header, could you please change "White supremacy and Charlottesville rally" to "White supremacists and Charlottesville rally". That way it doesn't sound like the section is about his white supremacy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Washington Free Beacon published tweets by grant recipient
I disagree with this edit. The removed information shows that The Washington Free Beacon published tweets by a grant recipient who called for overthrowing the 2016 presidential election. The removed material provided in-text attribution as well. I don't see the problem. Additionally, the preceding sentence gave the incorrect impression that the administration cancelled the whole Countering Violent Extremism Task Force. Regarding alleged undue weight, I'd be glad to include sources that describe the tweets differently, but there are no such sources AFAIK; per WP:NPOV, "the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested" if it has not been contested. Moreover, the Free Beacon seems very reliable for purposes of not publishing forged tweets. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This passage that Anythingyouwant actually added to the article was "...tweets that the Washington Free Beaconcharacterized as..." (bolding is my emphasis), which is not quite what this user says above. In fact, this article talk page version is arguably worse, as Anythingyouwant now states "a grant recipient who called for overthrowing the 2016 presidential election", a plain assertion. Using an unreliable source to state that a person is guilty of a federal crime should be considered quite a WP:BLP violation.
If other editors would like to review the Free Beacon link, it is in the article history. In it, the person in question tweeted things such as "Anyone else still clinging to the hope that some crazy twist of fate will still happen in the next 6 days to make the world right again?", "And as rulers, our first order of business is to remove you from office before you destroy us", and so on. Inflammatory, sure, but not a literal declaration of a coup or assassination. The Free Beacon is interpreting the remarks as treasonous, but they are not a reliable source, thus this should not appear in the article. By Anythingyouwant's own admission, xe wants to balance a perceived "incorrect impression". That impression is their own opinion, only. TheValeyard (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Free Beacon article. I'd be satisfied if we simply quote some of the tweets without mentioning how the Free Beacon characterized them. Like this one from November 19, 2016: "@realDonaldTrump fuck you, asshole". Sounds like a great grant request!🙂 Or this one from January 21, 2017: "our first order of business is to remove you from office before you destroy us. #notmypresident". Plus (as I said above), we need to correct the misimpression that Trump cancelled the Countering Violent Extremism Task Force or stopped making grants under that program; after all, the cited Politico article says Trump was restarting that 10 million dollar program, not cancelling it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You know - I think we should delete the entire paragraph. It's about funding for one organization. It's hardly a significant event in his presidency, and not particularly enlightening about his relations with white supremacists. Or we could replace it with something like this: "The Department of Homeland Security temporarily halted grants from the Countering Violent Extremism Task Force for review. Grants were resumed after dropping one organization, "Life After Hate", from the program." Cited to Politico as above. I don't see any need to go into why the group was dropped - which is a matter of speculation anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I would support removing that paragraph from the subsection on white nationalism, unless someone can point to a reliable source saying that the grant was pulled because of the grantee's opposition to white nationalism, rather than because the grantee said "fuck you, asshole" to the grantor (among other things). Per WP:Preserve, this topic can be adequately covered at the Christian Picciolini BLP, and/or at Countering Violent Extremism Task Force. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it. Open to discussion/consensus about whether to restore it, or insert some other version about this issue somewhere in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
First 100 Days, or Abbreviated Timeline?
There's currently a top-level section entitled "First 100 days". There's no specific section for any events that happened after the first 100 days. I propose that the section be renamed to something like "Abbreviated timeline" so events from after the first 100 days can be included. One specific move would be to put "Hurricane Harvey" there and not under "Domestic policy". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
power~enwiki - I'd suggest deleting the 100 days section instead. It's not matching with the general Presidency style where the general organization of the article is by areas of Presidential actions. The division by areas of 'What' seem more useful and it is always possible to include a date anywhere the date is of significance, or narrate anywhere that a predecessor was a cause. I do not think the exact date would be of interest, such as does anyone really care what day of the week DACA shutdown was announced? Instead I think that giving substance or dependency of speech X was said to be in response to event Y will be clearer. Markbassett (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree to delete. There is much duplicate information across articles already. Keep this one organized by themes. — JFG22:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree with deleting it (provided we make sure that important referenced information is covered elsewhere). I think this probably only existed because everyone (including Trump) was making such a big deal of it DURING the first 100 days. More of a RECENTISM thing rather than actual encyclopedic content.
I disagree with removing it at least as of now, since it does cover some notable moments in his young Presidency such as the Syria strike, Muslim ban, and his response to Hurricane Harvey. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Any notable bits would be moved to the appropriate topic section - Harvey would be domestic, DACA would be with immigration, and so forth -- and if something was only noted because it was within the 100 days it would be tossed. Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I just moved Harvey to that section, I can move it back. The consensus seems to be leaning towards removing the section entirely, and to rely on the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections for categorization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with moving most of the contents to other sections, but not deleting the content. A 'timeline' section could maybe be restored after 3-4 years of the presidency and reflect assessments of 100 days, year 1, year 2 etc. by reliable sources. The first 100 days should be its own section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Split off the "foreign affairs" subsection, move it to the section on foreign policy, and expand and rewrite to focus more on his praise for Putin (which has received by far the most coverage of anything in the foreign affairs section and deserves more than a sentence. Notably, a lot of the coverage is non-opinion, which is what the section needs.) That aspect is both legitimately unusual and has heavy coverage across the political spectrum.
The other part is more difficult; I'd suggest splitting it into three parts that can then include more than just criticism:
First, Trump grappling with checks and balances or criticizing the system - possibly also include his attacks on Congressional Republicans here (again, something unusual that attracted a lot of coverage.)
Second, move the media bit into the existing "relationship with the media" section, and expand into a larger section on Trump's efforts to expand libel laws or otherwise go after his critics, which (again) is something we can find non-opinion coverage of.
Finally, a section for "rule of law", which can include both Trump's own rhetoric on it and the existing criticism from that section regarding Arpaio or the constitutional crisis.
This keeps essentially all the material (which is well-sourced), but organizes it in a less inflammatory way, without a big "authoritarian" header, and allows us to balance it with non-opinion coverage or even (eg. in the rule of law section) with Trump's own positions on these topics. --Aquillion (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this kind of approach - eliminate the "authoritarian" section and move the material into other areas - is a good one. Might "rule of law" and "criticizing the system" and "attacks on Congress," and maybe "allegations of obstruction of justice", be combined in a section called "Constitutional issues"? Or is that almost as inflammatory as the current title? --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the approach, and I would tone it down with the opinion pieces. Any editor can find well-sourced opinions of Trump's character leaning one way or the other, that doesn't make them encyclopedic. Agree with Aquillion that we should focus on issues that have been widely covered by fact-based reporting. All hypothetical scenarios such as "OMG, what if Trump does ?" should be mercilessly edited out unless and until the Trump administration actually takes such feared dictatorial actions. — JFG22:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
With our current system of checks and balances in the US - a Constitutional republic governed by the rule of law - surely you don't really believe a sitting US president would be able to pull-off a dictatorial or authoritarian action. It takes every resource a president can muster just to protect the homeland by imposing a simple travel ban to/from countries known for recruiting terrorists. The US is not Venezuela, Cuba, the Ukraine or other socialistic/communistic country where such actions are a reality. Please don't fall for the media hype and propaganda. It doesn't belong in our encyclopedia. Stick with PAGs and we'll all be just fine. 22:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete -- Spreading Neutrality-tagged material throughout the article seems a poor idea. I'd suggest instead delete as it seems WP:OFFTOPIC general voicing of suspicions and negative opinions about motives rather than a being at a factual item of Presidency or about some role of President of the United States. Already have subsections mentioning Media, Comey, Arapaio, etcetera -- and any comments about those should be at those sections in due WP:WEIGHT and NPOV WP:BALANCE. This seems just a collection of interjected motive claims above their due WP:WEIGHT and without WP:BALASP. Also -- spreading the material around would seem to require also replicating the neutrality tag wherever it goes to avoid the move being just a way to avoid the tag, and I think keeping the dispute to a narrow area is preferable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete - noncompliant with NPOV. You reverted my removal of that noncompliant section Marek. This article is protected by DS in case you forgot. 00:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's under DS so why are you violating the sanction? The text has been in here for awhile, there was an RfC on it, by removing it unilaterally YOU broke the sanction. You have some chutzpah to then try and turn it around on others. Volunteer Marek 02:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Look guys, before you start it with the whole let's-vote-because-we-can-get-numbers-even-if-we-violate-Misplaced Pages-policy !votes, please start a proper RfC. Or perhaps an attempt at discussion of how the section could be improved rather than removed/white-washed because it hurts somebody's feelings. Start an RfC. Volunteer Marek 02:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
So, I put the tag back into the section... only to be accused of it being a revert! By Anythingyouwant. And he's using the fact that I put back the tag to try and get me sanctioned. Seriously. At any rate, if someone wants to remove the tag again, of course I don't have a problem with that. I'm not gonna do it because no matter if I remove it or add it or just look at it funny Anythingyouwant and Atsme are gonna go running to some admin whining and pleading to get me blocked. Or hell, maybe I will do it, since me putting it back is being called "edit warring". Volunteer Marek 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, I'm not going to indulge you any further over your strawman argument. I suggest you read this section in its entirety and stop the nonsense because it doesn't matter how many RfCs you hold, consensus does not override policy, and it is quite clear that section is a BLP violation because it is noncompliant with NPOV - what do you think POV tags are telling you? JFG, MelanieN, Markbassett and I have all weighed in, and you are the one creating disruption here. There is no question that it is "one or more of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:COATRACK." My contention is that it's all three and that is why TNT was the correct solution. You reverted it and that was not the correct thing to do. If you believe it needs further discussion, you do not revert rather you come here to the TP and discuss FIRST. End of story. 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not a strawman argument. It's not a BLP policy violation. You do not have consensus. We did have an RfC and there were multiple editors who thought the section should stay (it was no consensus either way). The section is well sourced and notable. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is NOT Misplaced Pages policy. It is not NPOV (well sourced), it is not UNDUE (prominent coverage), it is not COATRACK (of what exactly?). You're just throwing out random Misplaced Pages policies willy nilly to make excuses for your own personal prejudices. Reverting your disruptive edit - since it was unilatral and did not have consensus - was indeed proper. In fact, your unilateral removal was a violation of DS. You then tried to get cute and pretended that the ondoing of your DS violation was a DS violation. You have a tendency to do that a lot - falsely accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of. There's only so many times, and so many editors that that will work with. Volunteer Marek 15:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, you running to Samsara to whine for sanctions against me is extremely bad faithed. If you thought my edit violated DS you could've asked MelanieD right here. You could've asked a different admin. You could've brought it to WP:AE. You didn't. Instead you tried (are trying) to specifically get an admin that you know I had a dispute with in recent past to intervene on your behalf. That is a textbook example of WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faith. Please clean up your act, you've been warned about this type of behavior several times before. Volunteer Marek 15:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I was trying to keep it short and did not go into detail about a policy every editor should know - Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Levels_of_consensus - so I'll simply quote it for clarity (my bold underline): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Hope that helps. 16:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Gandy - I'm at a loss over what you're talking about. Please provide the diff or quote the part you are referring to so I can properly address it. 19:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Revealing classified information to Russia section
Do we need the section "Revealing classified information to Russia" here? If so, where should it go? It was top-level until I moved it to "Abbreviated timeline", now I see nowhere to put it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for tackling this big job. I think the "Abbreviated timeline" section is a good place for this but IMO it doesn't need a separate subsection. I'd put it in the timeline section chronologically, as a sentence or two, including a wikilink to the main article. OTOH I think the "first 100 days" paragraph could be a separate subsection in that area. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Several people proposed removing the "Abbreviated Timeline" section entirely above; that said I'm not seeing any reasonable way to move all that content to other section. I'm not going to make any content edits on this page (or anywhere else) for the next week, other editors will have to make any changes proposed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm challenging the neutrality, balance and weight of the above named section. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and POV articles authored by Trump detractors in left-leaning partisan sources are not exceptional sources. There is an obvious reliance on such sources per the inline citations and selected quotes which created the imbalance and POV issues. Accusations that a president - any president - breached national security and may have put his country at risk is an exceptional claim; therefore, it requires exceptional sources and an indisputably accurate presentation in this encyclopedia. The NYTimes article linked here is far more balanced than the way the section was presented in the article. To date, Trump has consistently operated within his enumerated powers as Commander In Chief so repeated attempts to make it appear otherwise do not belong in this encycopedia, especially when such claims are sourced to partisan sources and presented in an unbalanced manner with undue weight given to the allegations in lieu of the fact the claims were denied and no foul was called. 13:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he disclosed classified information to the two Russians is an extraordinary claim, all right, but it has an extraordinarily good source: The White House's own transcript of the meeting. There cannot be any doubt that he did say this. As for extended analysis of the incident and its repercussions, IMO that should be reserved for the separate article about the incident. I continue to think that a sentence or two in the Timeline would be preferable to an extended item in the Foreign Policy section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, it appears to me that WaPo, the NYTimes and Reuters broke the story May 15th based on reports from anonymous sources which does nothing to boost the public's trust in MSM. Instead, they used terms like said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, and according to a current and a former American official familiar with how the United States obtained the information. The only information I consider factual is that none of it was proven to be true. POTUS and WH officials denied the reports. NBC stated: " Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, told reporters in a brief statement: "The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false." And further stated: "At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed," said McMaster, who didn't take questions. "I was in the room, and it didn't happen." I'm also wondering if it meets Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) for inclusion. The MSM sensationalized what would be considered routine discussions between a US Commander In Chief and another member of the UN who was once a US ally, and now fighting the same enemy. Why are we including "breaking news" which is noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS? Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to the US, wasn't the least bit concerned over it - reaffirmed the relationship, and Netanyahu also said in response to reporters: "The intelligence cooperation is terrific.” So maybe you can explain why the "speculation" and "innuendos" have been given so much weight in this article? And then I stumbled across Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information, and couldn't believe what I was reading because of the UNDUE and IMBALANCE there, too. The cited sources were more balanced than what is in our articles. Oh, and do you have any idea why the Alleged authoritarian tendencies section wasn't removed after my edit was reverted? The prevailing consensus among editors clearly indicates removal because it was determined to be noncompliant with PAGs. 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
RE: "none of it was proven to be true." Oh yes it was. It is indisputably true, confirmed by the White House and by Trump himself, that he did give classified information to the Russians. (He later pointed out that as POTUS he has the right to declassify anything, which is true, but that is usually done formally and after consideration and consultation with staff - not blurted out spontaneously as was done here.) With regard to those "official denials," you may have taken in by the carefully limited wording: "At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed." But nobody said they were (although it was apparently possible to DEDUCE the methods from the information given). Trump didn't directly mention sources or methods; he may not even have known anything about sources and methods. But he certainly did give the Russians highly classified information that we weren't even sharing with our allies. As for your claim that "The MSM sensationalized what would be considered routine discussions": that disclosure was so non-routine that as soon as the meeting was over, other people who had been in the room phoned the CIA and NSA to alert them that the information had been revealed to the Russians. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, you have misinterpreted what the sources stated. Breaking news by journalists who are making extraordinary claims made by anonymous sources, none of whom were in the meeting, is unacceptable for inclusion as statement of fact. It really shouldn't even be a separate section, and at most, passing mention somewhere in the Foreign policy section. WP:RSBREAKING advises us to not cite unconfirmed reports by anonymous sources and those attributed to other news media which is exactly what was done, making it noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. The source you cited above does not state anything indisputably - several editors have disputed it for good reason - and there was nothing confirmed by the WH or Trump himself about giving classified info to the Russians. In fact, Trump and WH officials who actually attended the meeting have repeatedly denied the allegations. Keep in mind, breaking news sources are considered primary sources so they do not pass the acid test for inclusion as extraordinary sources supporting extraordinary claims. To confirm, WP:RSBREAKING also states All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS. In this instance, WaPo's & the NYTimes articles along with other media that attributed what they published to WaPo and/or NYTimes are not considered RS for statements of fact.
We can say something to the effect that anonymous sources told WaPo that Trump revealed classified information but As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law. Technically, he declassified the info when he shared it so we can't say it was classified. White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism. The president was acting within his enumerated powers as Commander In Chief, so all the hooplah about him revealing classified information is nothing but breaking news sensationalism which has already died down, so it didn't even have staying power. McMaster even reiterated his statement and described the Washington Post story as “false”. When the US national security advisor who was in attendance of the meeting says the WaPo story was false, and we know by WaPo's own admission that the story came from anonymous sources with no way to confirm or deny; therefore, the sources are not reliable. The section needs a bit of TNT along with the other noncompliant sections. We've got another 3+ years to go, possibly 7+ and the prose size is already off the scales. 05:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Breaking news by journalists..." - this isn't breaking news.
"WP:RSBREAKING advises us to not cite unconfirmed reports by anonymous sources and those attributed to other news media which is exactly what was done, making it noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV" - somehow you missed the "unconfirmed" and "those attributed to other news media" parts. It's perfectly compliant with both NOTNEWS and NPOV. What do these two have to do with anything anyway? You're, once again, randomly quoting policies without rhyme or reason.
"The source you cited above does not state anything indisputably" - yes it does. The headline is "Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador". Hard to get more indisputable than that.
"nothing confirmed by the WH or Trump himself about giving classified info to the Russians" - yes it was (although of course they tried to spin it) etc etc etc
"Trump and WH officials who actually attended the meeting have repeatedly denied the allegations" - no they didn't. Of course they tried to spin it but they admitted that it happened, see right above.
"breaking news sources are considered primary sources" - what the hell are "breaking news sources"? And this isn't breaking news.
"they do not pass the acid test" - what the hell is "the acid test" and what does it have to do with Misplaced Pages? This is more incoherent nonsense.
"extraordinary sources supporting extraordinary claims" - what in the world are "extraordinary sources"? Do you mean exceptional sources? We got those. The sources are about as RS as sources get and there's lots of them. And the claim is not all that extraordinary given the nature of the Trump administration. They've done crazier shit before and since.
" WaPo and/or NYTimes are not considered RS for statements of fact" - sure they are. And these are stories from months ago. If there's something inaccurate in'em surely you can provide sources that contradict them?
" Technically, he declassified the info when he shared it so we can't say it was classified" - technically, that's original research. And yeah we can say it was classified if sources say so. Which they do.
"The president was acting within his enumerated powers as Commander In Chief" - maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but this is also OR unless you can provide a reliable source.
"nothing but breaking news sensationalism which has already died down, so it didn't even have staying power" - no, it was not sensationalism, no it does have staying power, the only thing that has happened is that other scandals have come up so those get reported on. Oh, and here's a story which mentions this incident from just yesterday .
"McMaster even reiterated his statement and described the Washington Post story as “false”." - shrug.
" therefore, the sources are not reliable." - that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
"The section needs a bit of TNT along with the other noncompliant sections." - the section is fine, please stop it with the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT attempts at weaselin' and whitewashin'
In all honesty, I am struggling to find more than a single sentence in your comment(s) above which is not false. To be able to write such two paragraphs, with so many inaccurate claims is truly astounding.
Well, VM your comments indicate that WP:CIR may have something to do with your innate inability to get beyond your snarky rebuttals and refusal to understand the relevancy and correct application of PAGs. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in your POV; rather, my interest is focused on what the cited sources actually state, and the verifiability of what is claimed. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see. ~Edgar Allan Poe. To that I'll add "be suspicious of what you read", especially when it comes to the garbage published on the internet and all the fake and misleading news reports published over the past few years.
Savvy editors recognize when weasel words are used in sources they intend to cite in support of extraordinary claims, such as those made by WaPo and the media that repeats WaPo's claims as relevant in the named section. FYI, I purposely used the word "extraordinary" because the claims go beyond "exceptional" but the same PAGs apply, so VM's nitpicking of semantics was a fruitless waste of time and space. While some may consider MSM trustworthy, the majority of Americans do not which is precisely why our encyclopedia should exercise caution when repeating unreliable information from anonymous sources published as "breaking" or "developing" or "bombshell" news in primary sources, especially sources that have demonstrated an indisputable bias against the subject.
Again, WP:CIR to understand the concept of "breaking news". In politics and in law it "breaks" at the point of discovery. Our job is to recognize whether or not the breaking story provides substantive evidence for the claims or if it's simply bait & click sensationalism or biased wishful thinking. A major clue that it's unreliable is when unverifiable anonymous sources provide the information which is exactly what we're dealing with in this article.
The only verifiable supporting evidence are the published quotes cited to WH officials and POTUS - those who actually attended the meeting - not some unverifiable anonymous source who wasn't there or happens to be a disgruntled former staff member. There is no way we can verify reliability of the information.
If editors are following WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and other WP:PAG, it is quite obvious how the weight and balance should be distributed in this particular section, if it even warrants being a section, and I'm of the mind it does not.
Editors are expected to read the transcripts or at least listen to the recorded interviews so they can corroborate what was actually said - not what they "think" they said - particularly in the cited sources used to support the MSM's allegations. For example, in the interview May 16th between CNN's journalist Fareed Zakaria and CNN anchor Don Lemon, Lemon clearly stated: ...every single time I have you on, there is some breaking news, the president has done something outrageous and here we are reacting to it...so that debunks your claims that it's not breaking news. Others either headline it as breaking, or they are repeating the WaPo article.
To prove my position that the cited sources are simply repeating WaPo's "breaking story", the NYTimes states: The Washington Post first reported Mr. Trump’s disclosure. Where is the evidence, pray tell? Your rebuttal has no substance, VM. I stand by everything I stated above 100% because to date, no one has provided one bit of reliable evidence to dispute it. The detractors are still detracting with nothing burger claims purportedly leaked by staff, and if you actually read what the reports say...such as "Two former officials knowledgeable of the situation confirmed to CNN..." I have to laugh. Former officials may well be CNN's politically correct way of saying "disgruntled officials fired by Trump's Chief Of Staff". Sorry, but I lack the hatred and/or apparent dislike some editors have for this administration, and while I may dislike some of the policies that were passed by the current and past presidents, I don't harbor any animosity toward any US President.
My primary concern now is that this article has become heavy with unproven allegations by detractors who have relentlessly tried to discredit this legitimacy of this president, and the UNDUE, IMBALANCED treatment of the information that is being included is noncompliant with NPOV, not to mention the fact that the word count has to be trimmed, beginning with the unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous sources that broke months ago and that's where it died on the vine. Adherence to WP:NOTNEWS is required, especially when a controversial public figure like Trump is the topic. 19:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"my interest is focused on what the cited sources actually state, and the verifiability of what is claimed" - the nature of your comments and your edit history pretty much shows that the opposite is the case. You are trying to DISMISS reliable sources. You appear NOT TO CARE about verifiability. Instead you want to include your own original research and personal prejudices in the article. Doesn't matter how many times you quote Poe, or whoever else, you're still the one who's violating Misplaced Pages policy.
Likewise you can link to "competence is required" all you want, but hey, at least I know the difference between "grammar" and "semantics". Also the difference between "breaking news" and "shit that happened five months ago".
And I don't really care about your own personal crazy opinions so I didn't finish reading your comment. The first para was enough to see that this is just more of the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruptive obfuscation and Wikilawyering. When you're ready to actually address the issues let me know. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Markbassett that the stuff should be moved to the foreign policy section, it's very much out of place in an abbreviated timeline. The material was revealed to Russia (as part of Trump's foreign policy), it came from Israel (as part of Trump's foreign policy), and it related to Syria (part of Trump's foreign policy). I don't have any opinion yet about how the material should be edited, though it does seem rather verbose. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Markbassett and Anythingyouwant about a foreign policy section while at the same time - as I already stated above - this article has NPOV issues, and is already way too long for a president who has only been in office 9 months. I just did a DYK word count and this article is already at 123221193612485 words of readable prose. I did a word count for the other "Presidency of" articles: Obama's 8 years=12828 words, George W. Bush=13560, Bill Clinton=8347+/-, Reagan=5056. There is way too much recentism in this article and noncompliance with WP:NOTNEWS, it is far too wordy, and there are sections that simply don't belong because the information is not factual, is based entirely on innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations by political detractors and partisan sources. We should be summarizing important factual events in his presidency not distracting from them with countless allegations and bait & click sensationalism by MSM. For example...
there is way too much info in the Comey section,
the 2020 campaign needs to go or shortened considerably and added to the end of the article - too much can happen between now and 2020,
the details of the campaign staff and cabinet member firings, etc. can be reduced to one sentence each, as in they were fired & replaced
the entire section Alleged authoritarian tendencies needs to be removed as it is noncompliant with NPOV and BLP, and unless there is broad consensus to change those policies, that section doesn't belong in this article, much less in this encyclopedia. It would be like having a section in Presidency of Bill Clinton titled Sexual predator tendencies. Ridiculous! 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the noncompliant section - a much broader consensus is needed to add it back. Neither WP editors nor the MSM are qualified to provide a medical psychoanalysis of a US President. It's worse than the handshake article that was recently deleted. 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Removal of that section was reverted while concerns of NPOV in this BLP are still at issue. As I said before, it should be removed as noncompliant. 01:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing POV about the revealing classified information section (as has JUST been explained to you Atsme). As far as the rest: Comey stuff could be shortened as long as it's done in NPOV fashion, rather than an excuse to remove stuff per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The 2020 campaign does need to go to the end, and probably shortened, agree with that. The cabinet firings and all that - depends who. The Flynn thing obviously deserves its own mention. Who else? We had a discussion about the Authoritarian tendencies section and it's there by consensus. What needs to be done is the spurious tag needs to be removed (and I don't like the "alleged" in there either as it's classic WEASEL but I can see why it's in there). The Bill Clinton analogy is just stupid.
As for NOTNEWS, the Hurricane Harvey stuff needs to be trimmed. I'd probably cut the Cannabis section. Environment and energy should be shortened. Some of the stuff in Trade could be also cut. Volunteer Marek 00:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, I disagree about the POV issues at Revealing classified information, and you are mistaken about consensus for Alleged authoritarian tendencies as evidenced in this RfC and later in this most recent discussion. When noncompliance with NPOV is at issue in a BLP, it is our responsibility to remove it. I did just that and you wrongfully reverted my edit, and with it, the POV tag so you violated consensus on top of everything else. You may have also violated DS by reverting two edits today, and in my case, restoring a BLP violation. Not good, VM. 03:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The RfC was f'd up because whoever started it worded it in a confusing manner and the only conclusion in the closing was to keep the tag. And that's on top of the fact that it was a non-admin closure and that sock puppets !voted in it. There was absolutely no consensus to remove it or that it was a BLP issue. You're making that part up. It's not a BLP issue - it's extremely well sourced and Trump is a public figure. I did not "wrongfully revert" your edit, you "wrongfully removed" well sourced text. You're trying to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages policies here. Please stop. Not good. Volunteer Marek 03:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing for me to stop, VM - you are the offender. The RfC was clear about the POV tag - what do you think that means exactly? As for the remainder, the closer stated (my bold), "There is also a rough consensus that the section is one or more of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:COATRACK but exactly how it is violative of policy and which specific remedies should be put in place for those concerns requires further focused discussion." Right - a nonadmin closure who apparently doesn't understand BLP policy, and that isn't my fault because I do understand it, and when there is the slightest question of even a potential BLP violation, the wise thing to do is remove it, which I did. We don't need to know HOW it violated policy, just that it did. You would be wise to stop digging. 03:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Stop trying to WP:GAME wikipedia policies - it just shows your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and approach to editing. As to the tag - yes, you're right, the RfC did say it should stay. Which is why I put it back. And what happened? User:Anythingyouwant then claimed that me putting that tag back in was further edit warring. Geez. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess, when some editors are desperate for things they want to "report" you for.
As to the non-admin closure - are you saying the closure was non-legit? Okay, then we should have another RfC. And one more time - no, this is not a BLP violation, not even close. Stop trying to abuse Misplaced Pages policies. This "slightest question of even a potential BLP violation" (are you sure it's not "slightest possible question of maybe even a minuscule but latent unrealized budding BLP violation in its earliest embryonic stages" - I mean, shouldn't those be removed too?) stuff is nonsense and silly and not backed by the actual BLP policy. So no, you apparently DON'T understand BLP policy. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
My desire to reduce the "Revealing classified information to Russia" section is purely as WP:UNDUE, not as a BLP issue. I do think we must avoid having the "Ethics" (or "Leadership and Philosophy") section become a de-facto "Criticism and Controversy" section, due to BLP concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, while collaboration is unequivocally the best option for productive editing, it is actually supposed to work the same for everyone. With the latter in mind, why does Power~enwiki have to present a proposal and all other editors except you have to discuss potential edits while you just add whatever the hell you want to add and revert whatever the hell you want to revert on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT, or other false equivalent? 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
≠== Glaring issues with UNDUE, NPOV, and BALANCE ==
I'm going through this article one section at a time trying to address the blatant POV, UNDUE and BALANCE issues, and my first edit was quickly deleted by Snooganssnoogans as "trivial". I disagree that a world-wide poll about such an important matter is "trivial". Furthermore, I question whether it belongs under the section "Domestic policy" in a subsection titled "Immigration order", especially considering EO#13769 is titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, and EO#13780 is titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States which is clearly about national security or possibly foreign policy. There is mention about Yates insubordination, but when I attempted to address the issue on a global scale, my edit was reverted. Look folks, we can't have nothing but criticism in this article. There has to be balance and a more mainstream view because it is so political. We can't keep citing biased sources and picking out the criticisms while excluding what other world leaders think. I cited the information to a RS, and a reliable poll so to say it's trivial is nonsense. The EUobserver stated: "According to the survey, 71 percent of people in Poland, 65 percent Austria, 64 percent in Hungary and Belgium, and 61 percent in France agreed. Support was also high in Greece (58%), Germany (53%), Italy (51%), the UK (47%) and Spain (41%). Chatham House called the findings "striking and sobering". I'd say that was highly notable and what I included definitely belongs in this article. 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You're complaining about POV, UNDUE and BALANCE at the same time as you're trying to stuff some barely relevant poll into the article? I mean really, POV pushing is one thing, but this isn't even the article in which this kind of POV pushing is on topic or relevant - European refugee crisis article is over that way --> Not that it belongs there either. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
VM, what makes you think I'm "complaining"? Do you not understand COLLABORATION or how it works? 02:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't waste good banter here - take it to EEng's TP. He's got lots of TP stalkers who will contribute for your entertainment. 05:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Table timeline
I see that User:Anythingyouwant has converted the timeline section from prose to a table. Was this discussed? I personally think it is out of place in a prose article. If we are going to do it this way, maybe we should split out a separate Timeline article? --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There are already a bunch of timeline articles (all using tables BTW), so I wouldn’t favor spinning out another one at this point. The thing that’s messed up about this one is it stops in February. If no one wants to keep it current, I favor just deleting it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with ATYW'S timeline suggestion, but I have already challenged the information included as misleading, innuendo and POV. It is not classified when a US President declassifies it as what Trump did, and what a Commander In Chief is supposed to do to defend and protect the US. Perhaps he should have cleared it with WaPo or the NYTimes first? Possibly WP editors? *lol* Not our fault if the biased MSM doesn't approve of Trump's tactics, what his generals and national security people have advised, or what foreign leaders have said in support/defense of what he did and is doing. The information in that section regarding that particular meeting is clearly POV, UNDUE and IMBALANCED. Please fix it. 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Wellllll...uhm, no. ATYW, would you believe me if I said it was meant as a "just-in-case" reminder? Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough00:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the table format is helpful. I renamed it from "First 100 days" to "Abbreviated timeline" as there was no good reason to not include later events in the same section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, if we want to have “timeline” in the header then we ought to deliver. A timeline is generally understood to be a “table listing important events for successive years within a particular historical period.” Misplaced Pages has particular guidelines for how to do a timeline, e.g. see WP:Timeline. There are already immense timelines at Misplaced Pages for Trump’s Presidency, and the easiest way to summarize them is by using the same format. If a more narrative presentation is desired, then we ought to replace the word “timeline” in the heading with something else like “chronological overview” and then have a subsection for each month or quarter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Timelines are quite handy, especially for looooong articles like what this one is turning into. We should probably use them more at AN/I. 00:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I also support removing the timeline from this page. The full timeline is already linked at the top of this page and there is no need for an abbreviated timeline. While we're at it, I'd favor removing the "National Security Council" and "Evaluation of first hundred days and secrecy of visitor logs" sections. Orser67 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree it would be okay to remove the “Abbreviated timeline” section and the uninformative “Evaluation....” section. The National Security Council section is kind of weird because it cites Democrat Susan Rice saying it’s crazy without saying why it’s crazy, and without any administration official saying why it’s not crazy, so I woukdn’t miss that section either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the NSC section as well. Most of it was criticism of appointing Bannon there, and he's out (of the NDC and of the White House). Rest of the section was not very informative or Earth-shattering. — JFG00:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Insurer profits
I just removed the sentence Irrespective of the back and forth politics surrounding healthcare and concerns raised by lobbyists, doctors and health care providers, financial reports indicate that the top health insurers, including Aetna, Humana and Cigna, realized substantial second quarter earnings in 2017 with a more than 45 percent rise from same quarter earnings in 2016, despite the losses they experienced on the Obamacare individual plans. It was cited to a source from August 2017. I think that juxtaposing insurer profits with the removal of health insurance subsidies has a POV feel to it. I also think this information would be better placed in the Obamacare article rather than in this article about Trump's presidency, so I think the sentence was a bit COATRACKy for this article. Of course reasonable people may differ so I thought I'd bring my revert here for discussion. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The revert was not helpful, and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you should not be reverting well sourced material simply because you think it had a POV feel to it, or that it belongs elsewhere. The material you removed was well-sourced, the statements were directly supported by the source and relevant to the balance of that section. By reverting, you restored the issues of UNDUE and POV which is quite evident in statements like "...refusal to commit to continuing paying Affordable Care Act subsidies, which has added uncertainty to the insurance market and led insurers to raise premiums for fear they will not get subsidized" and other statements expressing concern over the destabilization of the insurance market - all speculation and fear mongering when in fact the top health insurers realized a 45% rise in quarter earnings despite losses caused by Obamacare. 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well sourced doesn't guarantee inclusion. Are there RS discussing insurer profits together with this speculation specifically related to the executive order? If not, that conclusion is SYNTH-like and feels POV-like. Also, insurer profits aren't directly related to the presidency, making the profits a COATRACK for this particular article (in my opinion).
I'm unsurprised that you disagree with my removal of the sentence since you had originally added it to the article. I'm hoping other editors will weigh in as well. Ca2james (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC) edited Ca2james (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsurprised that your first edit here was to zero-in on an edit I made out of all the edits in this very lengthy article. Then you reverted my work without good cause and are now accusing me of SYNTH and POV, obviously not having read the cited source. We really need to stop meeting like this. 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
All 3 articles are, well...sleazy for lack of a better word, on two counts: (1) the sources are politicizing the death of American soldiers while trying to switch the blame to Trump, and (2) they are capitalizing on it. It's time to start adding some balance to this article with some positive things our readers actually care about - they can read National Enquirer if they want sleazy stories about this presidency. This article is already UNDUE with negativity and criticism published by leftstream media. I don't see how such constant denigration of a US president would not cause some damage to WP considering the millions of readers who actually respect the office, identify as Republicans and reject the obvious MSM attacks on Trump's presidency. WP is NOTNEWS, and we should not use WP as a soapbox to further the politics of Trump detractors in MSM when their only goal is to discredit and criticize his presidency. 21:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can find sources that give a different account of these events. This only came up because POTUS raised it at his press availability a couple days ago, so I don't think it's "fake news". Maybe you can research and write some good NPOV text? SPECIFICOtalk22:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's time to start trimming this article down to an acceptable size per WP:SIZE which says 60kB of readable prose should probably be divided. This article is at 79 kB (12770 words) "readable prose size". There are far too many lengthy allegations, inuendos and criticism which makes it noncompliant with NPOV (Undue & Balance), and there's plenty that can be trimmed off and never missed. If editors need examples to follow, look at Presidency of Bill Clinton and Presidency of Barrack Obama after 8 years. There were plenty of allegations made against both with Clinton's ending in impeachment but his article is only 13 kB (2054 words) "readable prose size". I don't see any encyclopedic value in politicizing soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice, and I don't see any need to further subject their families to it by including it in WP. That's where our editorial judgement per BLP should come into play: ...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.01:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not about the soldiers themselves, it's about POTUS. Anyway there's a simple explanation as to why a 25 years-ago president has a shorter article. It's that we now have the benefit of perspective as to what has enduring significance. Lots of the Trump Presidency content will turn out, in the perspective of future editors, to have been unduly detailed. The problem is that we don't know today what will fall by the wayside. SPECIFICOtalk02:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"and as such violates federal law"
Watson's decision noted that the latest ban “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor” as it “plainly discriminates based on nationality” and as such violates federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”
"and as such violates federal law"
No, the source never stated Trump's ban violated the law, it only stated Watson's POV,
"Watson also wrote that the executive order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that is opposed to federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”"
The way it is included in the article implies Trump's ban is described so in the source especially with the phrase "noted" which implies she pointed out an irrefutable fact, when that is clearly not the case. Either reword this sentence or I highly recommend deletion for WP:NPOV concerns.
If it is cited in the source, we include it in the article. Simple as that. Also, note that you violated the "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" warning at the top of the page when you reverted your edit back in. Also again, note that because of Misplaced Pages:Pending changes being set on this article, your edit is not even visible to the reader. TheValeyard (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@TheValeyard: There is a trick to getting past the paywall on the Washington Post. If you open it in incognito mode you get past all that and can read the article. I figured that is why you mentioned cited in the sources since that is not actually what the source says. "in a way that is opposed to federal law" is not the same as "violates federal law". With different implications and meanings. Also it was wrong to reinstate the edit that Specifico challenged here.PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Executive order 13771
I reverted the insertion of a poorly-sourced and weasel-worded reference to this Executive Order.
The order is a vaguely-worded proclamation of a largely undefined requirement that "two regulations" be rescinded for every one new order enacted by the Federal government. The source to which the article text was cited is a rather general discussion of the topic that concludes more or less that time will tell what the upshot of this order may be. The order itself is replete with assertions as to the general undesirability of regulation, but no procedures or standards to determine how to implement the declared reduction in administrative regulation.
An editor, who I will AGF and assume is unfamiliar with the issue and the source, has reinstated the text I challenged prior to consensus here. I hope that action will be reversed so that we can discuss the issue here as required.
"But if, as seems more likely, there are lots of opportunities to bring old regulations up to date with modern realities, and plenty of accumulated detritus to clear out, then the regulatory budget offers a much needed spur to action."
McMahon said, “As I travel the country meeting with small business owners, I hear over and over again about the volume of regulations they must comply with and how difficult it is to manage the burden.”
My position is that the editor who reinstated the text you reverted did so justifiably. 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, the question is not whether it's good policy. The text I reverted stated "Trump's actions have had a decisive impact, with little or no net increase in the number of federal regulations occurring in the first nine months of his presidency." But all the sources, yours, mine, and every other source in the universe of sources, states that there has been no effect to date and that it remains to be seen whether this order has a significant impact in reducing regulation (or in anything else, for that matter). I assume that in your enthusiasm you did not actually intend to be saying that it's OK to violate DS rules on consensus. Regardless of what the community decides now upon reflection, I know you support law and order and Discretionary Sanctions. P.S. belated happy birthday wishes! 👸 SPECIFICOtalk00:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Trump has further embraced the use of directives and executive orders in overturning Obama rules and regulations. His most potent such action was Executive Order 13771, which mandated that for every new regulation issued by an agency, two outdated or ineffective or excessively costly regulations had to be killed. It was a clever ploy; the process of combing through old regulations is a time-consuming burden, as is the companion Trump order that the cost to the economy of any new regulation must be offset by savings from canceled regulations. Together, the effect has been to greatly delay new regulations. The government keeps track of the regulatory pace of its agencies through a semi-annual report called the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, and one White House official who has reviewed the autumn edition says that new regulatory output is effectively nil.
SPECIFICO "challenged" this material under transparently false pretenses, part of her long-standing and systematic WP:GAMING of Discretionary Sanctions to purge content she doesn't like and get editors she disagrees with blocked or banned. She should really find something more productive to do with her time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I was planning to remove it too, but got distracted. Actually I was going to reword it to include other analyses, since as it stands it is blatantly one sided and based on a highly partisan source. "Decisive impact" per this one source; "minimal results" per other sources cited above. The bottom line appears to be that not much has happened. So one source interprets that to mean it has had a decisive impact, and another source that it has had little or no impact; both may be true. The truth appears to be that more than 200 new regulations have been created, but most are minor and almost all of them are exempt from this rule. Let's leave it in for now but try to find a balanced way to say that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Manafort
All the Manafort news belongs on his BLP or possibly in the Trump campaign article, not in the Presidency article. The guy was fired resigned, and his prior history belongs to him. 17:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, do you have a source that states that Trump "fired" Mr. Manafort? We don't know the ultimate significance of the indictments, but they clearly relate to RS reporting about Trump's presidency. I think a mention is enough for now and we should not spend too much effort on more extended content until the situation is better understood by RS reporting and analysis. SPECIFICOtalk18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Just feels weird that the ex-campaign managers actions years before he was the campaign manager has weight on the presidency of Trump. Seems early for the dump it in every article that has Trump's name rush. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not just about his "actions before he was the campaign manager". The indictment covers the whole 2008-2017 period. You guys need new talking points. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That is some nice sleuthing there. But no, the RS cited are not tying anything Manafort did to Trump or his presidency. Also with your revert here you violated DS by reinserting a challanged edit. Please be more careful. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
So what? The implications of his involvement are for the PRESIDENCY of Donald Trump. Also, Gates, who was also arrested today, was with Trump through his inauguration. This seems like an attempt to sweep this under the carpet. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
There are probably half a dozen articles where I would argue the details of Manafort's arrest and involvement in the Trump campaign are relevant. This is not one of them. Are there sources tying Gates to Trump's presidency? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
James, what are those 6 articles and how do you differentiate them from this one? RS discourse does seem to tie these indictments to the current Administration.SPECIFICOtalk19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Articles that relate to Manafort, Manafort's involvement with Trump, Mueller's investigation and alleged Russian interference in the election. My estimate of half a dozen is probably low. I have not kept close track of dozens of Trump-related articlse, e.g. Trump's handshakes. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Do we have an article on "Manafort's involvement with Trump"? And while claiming that "half a dozen is probably low" you've managed to name only half-half-a-dozen. Volunteer Marek 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Charges not directly connected to Trump or his campaign (let alone presidency). No reason to include in this article. As James above notes, there are plenty of articles where this info should be included, but including it in Trump's presidency article is Undue and POV. It's about forum. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You actually have no idea whether the charges are "directly connected to Trump or his campaign". So stop making stuff up. Most sources - and indeed, the reason why this story is so big - believe otherwise. There's nothing POV about adding a single sentence about this to this article. Volunteer Marek 19:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The POV is in forcing something tangentially related to the Trump presidency into the article. Manafort was charged with money laundering and tax fraud connected to Ukraine and his lobbying efforts. Where is the connection to Trump? If there is one it is no where to be seen yet. So, yes, it would be wrong to include it. There are at least 10 articles about Trump Russia allegations, so take this there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia19:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
No, the POV is to ridiculously pretend that this is only "tangentially related" to the Trump presidency. The connection is that Manafort was freakin' Trump's campaign manager, that Gates worked for Trump through inauguration", that Papadopolous was Trump's foreign policy adviser during the campaign and that Mueller is investigating... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I mean, seriously, find me a single source which talks about these arrests that DOES NOT mention Trump's presidency. Volunteer Marek 13:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Sources make clear that a money laundering indictment, and even the pre-dawn raid of Manafort's domecile, would not be a particularly big story were it not for the connection they make to a sitting POTUS. SPECIFICOtalk19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If Marla Maples were in the news her connection to Trump would make that news more significant. It still would not belong in this article. What journalists hope may become relevant to Trump's presidency is distinct from what is relevant. When and if it is we can incorporate it here. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
And what Misplaced Pages editors wish to be true is even more irrelevant. Actually, what journalists write IS relevant. So if it's in the sources, it belongs in here. Hell, there's sources calling this "the worst day of the Trump presidency" (which, you know, we got some ways to go, but ok). Volunteer Marek 19:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
BLP leave Marla alone. It's RS that tie this matter to the Trump presidency, to its possible (attempted) collusion with Russia, to POTUS deflection twitter campaign, to the conduct of its surrogates, etc. We'll make better progress by parsing the details of your objection, if you'd care to state them, rather than discussing loose-fitting and irrelevant analogies. SPECIFICOtalk20:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
VM & SPECIFICO - you are arguing against consensus. It doesn't belong in this article. VM, you need to self-revert and get consensus before adding the challenged material back. The material is noncompliant with NPOV and NOTNEWS because it implies that Trump is guilty by association over something he had nothing to do with - it happened during the Obama administration. If it belongs in the article, consensus will determine it, not you alone. Manafort became irrelevant to the Trump presidency when he resigned in August 2016, and is in fact more deeply connected to Tony Podesta, who lobbied for several Democratic presidential campaigns, had close ties to the Obama administration according to Newsweek, and based on an NBC News report, worked with Manafort's PR campaign, European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU) to promote the Ukraine in the West. It has since become a criminal inquiry, and there is no evidence to support that it has anything to do with the Trump presidency. Manafort was only with the Trump campaign for less than 6 months - he joined at the end of March and resigned in August 2016 before Trump was elected president. The Times article clearly states - The indictment of Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates makes no mention of Mr. Trump or election meddling.- see the NYTimes. CNBC published a WH statement confirming that Paul Manafort "has nothing to do with the president." #1 - Manafort pleaded not guilty, #2 - indictment is not a verdict of guilty, #3- if the info should be added anywhere besides Paul Manafort, it belongs in Tony Podesta. Tony stepped down from his lobbying firm the same day that Manafort & Gates were indicted. The Politico article says Podesta's firm was paid to promote the Ukraine in the U.S., and that Podesta is currently under investigation by Mueller - Trump isn't the one who is being investigated. 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Well Atsme, speaking only for myself I am not arguing anything. I'm asking James to specify his objections so that we can have an orderly discussion of them. So far, nothing on the table except Ms. Maples. SPECIFICOtalk20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Atmse, I'm sorry but you're being absurd. Tony Podesta was NOT indicted yesterday. You know who was indicted yesterday? Donald Trump's campaign manager. Please take this ridiculous spin and obfuscation to some other website. Volunteer Marek 12:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Color me shocked that someone who posted this on their talkpage would descend into such a rant. If/when Tony Podesta is indicted (just in case you came to the conclusion he was after consuming your media diet yesterday morning), we can talk about where to put the revelations. Oh! Would you look at that? There's already a section started. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Leave it all out. The recent arrests and guilty plea do not belong in the article. None of the three men involved ever worked in the Donald Trump administration. The Manafort and Gates charges date from before Trump even declared his candidacy, and Reliable Sources are pointing out that they have nothing to do with Trump or his campaign. The Papadopoulos charge relates to the campaign but not the presidency. We have pasted this information into probably a dozen articles so far today, but it does not belong in this one. Someday there may be charges that impact the Trump presidency. But these don't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. None of yesterday's revelations have had a noteworthy impact on the presidency, and we cannot include anything based on speculation that they might. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh gimme a break. We have the biggest story of the Trump presidency so far - hell, on radio this morning they were referring to it as exactly that - and we have people on this talk page claiming "gee, shucks, it's not really relevant to his presidency". It's freakin' ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 12:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Dude, I fully expect this is just the beginning of a process that could massively affect the presidency, but it hasn't had any effect yet; therefore, we wait. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The "widespread coverage" is all about how it's expected to have an effect, but that effect hasn't actually happened yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the sentiment that it would be patently absurd not to include this summary of yesterday's revelations. Of course it relates to his presidency and deserves mention here. The detail brought in the claims belongs elsewhere, but the same reasoning that has led us to include a section regarding Trump's alleged ties to Russia in the ethics section demands that this summary also be included. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about his PRESIDENCY. Not about whether it made him "fume" (he "fumes" over a lot of stuff). Not about what people speculate might happen next that really would be consequential. This is a big news story but so far it is not part of his presidency - meaning, his administration. I have cited multiple Reliable Sources pointing out that the Manafort/Gates charges are unrelated to Trump and the campaign. We are supposed to reflect Reliable Sources, not our own opinion or our vision of the future. This story is already, correctly included in a dozen Misplaced Pages pages. It does not belong in this one and I don't understand why you two are fighting to desperately to get it added. Aren't the other dozen-or-so articles enough coverage here?
VM, you have four times used the word "ridiculous" to dismiss people's opposition to including this. Not to mention one "absurd", one "gimme a break", and one "stop making stuff up". That kind of talk 1) is against talk page policy, 2) promotes a confrontational atmosphere here, and 3) makes your own arguments look weak. Cut it out. And if you can't come up with actual, rational arguments for why this should be considered important to his administration NOW (as opposed to in the future), then stop talking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable to me to include two-three sentences where the facts of the case are laid out, the administration dismisses that it has anything to do with the President or the presidency, and that the revelations "cast a shadow" (or whatever language the RS use) on the administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
One of those "absurds" was mine, and I would disagree that it is against talk-page policy to refer to an idea as "absurd" when it clearly is. I would also counter that telling someone to "stop talking" is definitely in the same family as "gimme a break". As for the meat of why this belongs: it's not because Trump "fuming" about is relevant, it IS because this is effecting his presidency in a tangible, measurable way as reflected in all of the mainstream coverage of this event. This investigation continues to be a cloud over Trump and his administration, so yes: our two-sentence, well-sourced, description of yesterday's section deserves a home in this article and is critical to a reader understanding the Presidency of Donald Trump. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with MelanieN - it has nothing to do with the presidency. At this point in time, it's guilt by association which makes it noncompliant with NPOV and NOTNEWS. Several RS have already confirmed that the Manafort indictment does not involve Trump. If they had something on Trump, he'd be the focus, not Manafort. Besides, the article needs more trimming as it has become too long and unwieldy with "readable prose size" a staggering 83 kB (13356 words) at only 10 months into his presidency. Trim the fat and stop adding breaking news allegations that are unsupported by evidence, or aren't related to the presidency. 15:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but arguing that this has "nothing to do with the presidency", where every single source discusses these arrests in the context of the Trump presidency is in fact ridiculous. I'm not sure what other word would accurately describe this situation. And you are trying very hard to set up a blatant strawman here Atsme - no one here has argued that we should write that "Manafort indictment involves Trump".
And then I see we get to the "the article's too long so we can't include this text that just doesn't fit in with my POV" tactic, which is another Misplaced Pages standard. No.
Look folks. I am not saying we should put this in the lede. I'm not saying we should have a whole section devoted to it. All we need is one or two sentences about the arrests somewhere in the article in order to observe DUE WEIGHT and NPOV, since this is so widely covered in sources. And it is covered in sources in terms of how it affects the Trump presidency. Volunteer Marek 11:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
See my comments in the section below. I had been under the impression that this article is supposed to be about the actions of the Trump administration, but after taking a closer look at the article, particularly the "Ties to Russia" section, I came to the conclusion that is not what it is about. Based on the coverage in that section about Jeff Sessions, which I assume was put there by consensus, it appears that a very broad interpretation has been placed on what should be included. Seeing that, I think at least the Pappadopopulos guilty plea (how come nobody has mentioned that? when it is the one news item from yesterday that DOES relate to Trump, or at least the Trump campaign?) should be mentioned. I'm still hesitant about mentioning the Manafort/Gates indictment since it relates entirely to actions before Trump even declared his candidacy, but I will go along with it if there is consensus (which so far there isn't). If we do put in something, it should include a disclaimer that "The charges arise from their consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign. " --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Well...actually, content should represent what the title implies, and it should also maintain some consistency with other Presidency of... articles in the pedia. If there's information that is not directly related to the presidency, it should be moved to the proper article. Like it or not, we will be trimming this article per WP:SIZERULE and those items will be among the first to go anyway. It's better to do it now than later - we've got 3 more years to go in his first term and we're already at 84kb. None of the other Presidency of... articles are as detailed after 2 terms, and they shouldn't be. 17:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This content DOES represent the title. As to consistency - sure, in terms of style and lay out. But every Presidency is different so every Presidency will obviously have different info in it. I'm not seeing what is suppose to be "inconsistent" about including two sentences about this event.
I have added a brief paragraph about Papadopoulos to the "Ties with Russia" section. I think we sort-of have consensus here for Papadopoulos, who actually was convicted on campaign-related issues. I am still opposed to adding anything about Manafort at this time, simply because none of the Manafort charges relate to Trump or the campaign. Maybe Mueller will be able to leverage those charges to get evidence on that subject, but at this point that is just speculation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Anti-Trump Tax March in San Francisco, April 15, 2017
Looking a little harder at the article, I found that the section "Ties to Russia claims" was a complete mess - not in any logical order, and didn't even mention the special counsel investigation. I have reorganized the first two paragraphs and added the special counsel investigation. Considering the length of detail given to the Sessions material in that section, I think a sentence about the Papadopoulos guilty plea (which actually does relate to "ties to Russia") would be in order, but I didn't add it, pending discussion here.
Also, I removed this photo of a completely unrelated "anti-Trump tax march" from the "Ties to Russia" section. Can someone find a better place to put it? --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: the photo - do we have an article for "Tax payers who love to pay taxes"? If so, that's where it should go. Regarding Papadopoulos, meh - he was a former Trump campaign aide who thought he'd be praised for getting opposition research on Hillary Clinton, and made a mess of things. He got himself in trouble by making "false statements and material omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation" on January 27, 2017. It has nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with the campaign. There is already mention of it in Trump campaign-Russian meetings. 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
" It has nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with the campaign" - since "the presidency" is under an investigation for what it did during "the campaign", that's a pretty disingenuous claim. Volunteer Marek 05:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
We clearly have different perceptions of NPOV and relevancy but I don't see that changing based on the information you've been supporting for inclusion. What I do want to see changed is your PAs, such as calling me "disingenuous". Focus on content and keep in mind WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't win many arguments and it sucks as a defense for PAs. 19:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you're just quoting irrelevant Misplaced Pages policies randomly and misrepresenting things. I didn't call *you* "disingenuous". I called *your claim* disingenuous". Which it is. Volunteer Marek 06:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I think your changes to the section are an improvement overall, though your language surrounding yesterday's revelations is just not strong enough. Papadopoulos should be added, too. A small addition to the text proposed earlier would do fine. A question: has everyone else arguing for inclusion/exclusion actually reviewed the placement of the proposition within the context of the rest of the article? I'm a bit disheartened that it seems editors were arguing over addition/exclusion without a baseline understanding of what is already in the article (presumably by prior consensus). 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN - Thanks! I'll offer two other things you might consider as part of your cleaning this section up. First, a starting line or two to make sense of what this area is and why mentions of 1987 or 1996 are here, to explain why something before 20 January 2017, and not a part of the Presidency actions is in this article or part of Ethics. Perhaps 'Due to concerns over Russian Interference with the election, all of President Trump's administration has come under special scrutiny regarding actions and past ties to Russia.'. Second, I note that 'Revealing classified information to Russia' section up near the timeline might fit here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, the constant reverting of my edits accompanied by a fallacious edit summary to restore inaccurate, POV information (misinformation by omission) has to stop. Our job is to include verifiable facts, and that is exactly what I did, and carefully worded it to reflect what the sources actually said that are factually supported and verifiable. Let's not forget, the WaPo and NYTimes articles that are being cited are still primary sources. WP:OR clearly states: A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. My edit clearly stated verifiable facts whereas the revert by SPECIFICO restored misinformation by omission. My edit basically involved:
inclusion of the important fact that the information came from 2 unnamed government officials. Knowing where the information originated is highly important and should not be omitted;
inclusion of the fact that per the NYTimes: Trump's disclosure did not appear to be illegal because "the president has the power to declassify almost anything". That is simply stating a fact which is highly relevant to the innuendos that Trump did something improper. The way that paragraph is written now is more like an indictment rather than simply reporting what happened and the relevance of it.
the rest of my edit was simply copy-editing.
SPECIFICO's claim in the edit summary rv undue pov rewrite is simply not true. With reference to what was recently pointed out to me over the misspelling of an aide's name, this is still a BLP even where Trump is concerned. Human dignity applies all the way around; therefore, unsupported allegations, name-calling and editorialized innuendo are clearly violations of NPOV and BLP. Things certainly has taken on the smell of a double-standard from where I sit. When edits are reverted because they accurately portray the facts as reported in the sources and are verifiable, something is wrong, especially when the edits are compliant with Misplaced Pages:PUBLICFIGURE and NPOV. And while we're on the subject of human dignity and BLP policy let's review the following reverts:
I removed the noncompliant section regarding the MEDRS noncompliant medical diagnosis by Trump detractors and journalists but it was restored - it doesn't belong in this article. The neutrality tag has been there since September and nothing has been done to improve it. Instead, more POV is being added throughout the article.
I provided important and highly relevant information that was removed and replaced by tendentious editing.
I again provided factual information that was removed and replaced by tendentious editing.
Now that I have been awakened to the importance of strict adherence to WP:BLP on this TP, as well as to the importance of how carefully we should include and cite (or simply exclude) unproven allegations by detractors and primary sources on TP in a different situation, the same that applies to TP should apply equally to the article. Can we please try to reach a local consensus using WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the prevailing policy which clearly states: If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported, and A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.? Errors by omission are still errors which are noncompliant with the 3 core content policies that govern BLP. There have been multitudes of allegations that, to this day, are unsupported by evidence, and without evidence, they are nothing more than allegations of "guilt by association". Some of the information that has been published in RS and is being cited here includes allegations by anonymous sources which not only fails WP:V because they are unproven and have remained unsupported after years of intense investigation. The best they've come up with is a volunteer campaign aide who lied to the FBI, and 2 indictments to which the accused have pleaded not guilty and to the latter I refer everyone to "innocent until convicted by a court of law". MelanieN, I'm open to your suggestions since you have taken the lead on this article. 16:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Slow down, let's take things one at a time, and stay with specifics rather than generalities and accusations. Let's start with this recent edit. What specifically did you change? My analysis of the diff is different from what you listed above. You wanted to attribute the disclosure of classified information to "two unnamed government officials"; I disagree with that because Trump himself confirmed that he had done it - while stating that he had a perfect right to do so. You removed the "grounds for impeachment" sentence; I agree with removing that, it was POV. And I agree with your removing the third, redundant sentence about what McMaster did and didn't say. Were there other things that you thought should be changed? The NYT comment about it not being illegal was in the article all along and is still there.--MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, let's start with "two unnamed government officials". The cited NYTimes article begins with President Trump boasted about highly classified intelligence in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador last week... - what did he "boast", what exactly did he reveal, and in what context was it taken? The NYTimes then does a CYA by ending that first paragraph with...a current and a former American government official said Monday. The latter is where the "two unnamed government officials" came from and is basically what I added without detailing former and current. Who were these so-called "government officials" and did they attend the meeting? No, they're anonymous sources. Where is the citation that verifiably confirms Trump admitted to the unethical revealing of highly classified intelligence that jeopardized an ally which basically is what the current paragraph implies? Sounds more like the conflating of facts with sensationalism and innuendo to me, especially in light of the denials and actual enumerated powers of the Commander In Chief. You'll be hard pressed to convince me you're holding a dog when it meows and purrs. First, let's resolve where the information originated. And I sincerely thank you, MelanieN, for opening this up to discussion. 20:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Not your job to pass judgement on another editor. Save your criticism for the topic, not the editor. My explanation requires simple sentence comprehension not OR, and to distinguish between the two, WP:CIR. 13:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, if I see somebody trying to justify their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits by doing OR, well, yes, it is my job to point it out. My criticisms are firmly grounded in Misplaced Pages policy so please don't try to use this "you're discussing the editor" excuse. You are clearly disputing, arguing with, and trying to reject a reliable source simply because it doesn't fit your POV. Textbook OR. Volunteer Marek 05:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: The fact that he said some highly classified things to the Russians is not in doubt. It does not need to be hedged; although the initial report came from "unnamed government officials," it was quickly confirmed by multiple people, including Trump himself on several occasions. Our article already points that out: The following day Trump stated on Twitter that Russia is an important ally against terrorism and that he had an "absolute right" to share classified information with Russia. Another confirmation that we didn't bother to cite in the article: After the media (and doubtless the Russians and others) deduced that the source must have been a mole operated by the Israelis, Trump both confirmed his disclosure of the information and denied identifying the source as Israel (implication: yeah, OK, it was Israel, but I didn't say so). He actually blurted that out to reporters while he was in Israel, saying "Hey, folks, just so you understand, I never mentioned the word or the name ‘Israel.’ Never mentioned it during that conversation."
Immediately after the initial reporting, both McMaster and Tillerson issued carefully worded statements which did not deny that he had disclosed the information, only pointed out that "they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations" (Tillerson) and "At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed and the President did not disclose any military operations that weren't already publicly known" (McMaster). Bottom line: Trump did not directly disclose sources and methods (and may not even have knows the source of the information), but we do not deny that he did disclose classified information (from which people were easily able to deduce the source). So let's forget about attributing this information to "unnamed officials" when in fact it is attributed to multiple sources including Trump himself.
About the other issues, I am going to delete the "grounds for impeachment" sentence and the redundant third sentence about McMaster. Anything else? --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. I thought I had seen a "grounds for impeachment" sentence in this section, but it didn't appear to be there now. I added the rest of the NYT statement and clarified the McMaster statement, removing the redundant sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
With utmost respect, I disagree with your conclusion that it was "highly classified material". Please re-read the cited RS because they say "sensitive information", (less the superlatives), and there is a yuge difference between "sensitive" and "classified". There has been no admission of Trump sharing anything, and certainly nothing beyond "sensitive" based on the simple fact that Trump declassified it per his enumerated powers, which he awkwardly attempted to explain to the media. Also keep in mind that the sharing of classified material is a crime, and to say or even imply that the Commander In Chief of the United States of America disclosed highly classified material is the same as accusing him of committing a crime, and that is unacceptable in a BLP. It is important that we get the story right.
The report did originate from 2 "unnamed government officials" per the cited sources, and to say otherwise is OR and/or SYNTH with a splash of tendentious editing thrown in. We are required to exercise caution regarding how things are presented in any BLP (and on the TP), which means we avoid noncompliance with PAGs and adhere closely to BLP policy. Also, per RS: multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. The same would apply to a RS like the NYTimes publishing a breaking story as told to them by their anonymous sources and others citing that same story in their respective publications.
Unsupported evidence is still unsupported evidence regardless of how MSM attempts to portray it; therefore, it is still conjecture and innuendo and should not be considered statements of fact, especially when the source is a known detractor. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE.
I am not the least bit surprised that McMaster and Tillerson issued "carefully worded statements" - it is actually expected of those who hold such high positions in any administration. To reiterate, no classified information was divulged, and the president acted within his enumerated powers. When a person is under the kind of scrutiny the Trump admin has been under, one should not expect anything but carefully worded statements in an effort to avoid misrepresentation by media detractors. The Andes are probably the result of politicians making mountains out of molehills, not unlike the paragraph subject of this discussion. I prefer to not let WP be among those pouring the foundation for those mountains when all one has to do is state what the RS actually state, specifically in that "sensitive material" is not the same as "highly classified" for the reasons I states above. 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
About disclosing classified information: as Richard Nixon once said, when the president does it, it is not a crime. As plainly stated in the NYT quote in the current article. No crime was committed and none is alleged. So put that argument aside.
About the nature of the material he disclosed: "highly classified" per WaPo, derived from "an intelligence sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government". The New York Times independently also said "highly classified" information was revealed "in break with ally". Also according to the initial sources, "this is code-word stuff", and Trump "revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies." One official told Buzzfeed "it's far worse than what has already been reported." Also: Immediately after the meeting ended, "senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency", presumably so they could alert the unnamed ally to get their secret source safely out of danger immediately, because hostile states would soon identify him. We could put all this in the article, if you like, and we will if you insist. But "highly classified" is well supported and I doubt if you want us to go into this much detail showing exactly how classified it was - and how damaging it may have been for him to reveal it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. If in fact no classified information had been revealed, that's what McMaster and Tillerson would have said. But they didn't. They did not deny that classified information had been given. They merely insisted that "sources, methods, and military information" had not been revealed (and btw none of the reporting claimed they had been). What the two of them chose not to say, speaks volumes about what actually did happen. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good, we agree there is no crime involved, but WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL comes to mind when I read statements in that paragraph like: "...providing details that could expose the source", and "...could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship". Could expose? Could jeopardize? If only I could win the lottery. That unsupported speculation was debunked, and most everything else is not supported by evidence. The Guardian article states that Israel's US Ambassador Dermer, told the New York Times “Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump.” In that same article, it says Putin offered to hand over to Congress the records of the Trump-Lavrov discussion, and "dismissed the scandal over the intelligence-sharing as “schizophrenia”. Moving on a bit to The Hill article - it includes statements like "Trump reportedly shared sensitive intelligence..." and "The information was reportedly gathered..." and "Israeli intelligence officials reportedly vented..." Their use of weasel words tells me they don't have much confidence in the allegations by WaPo and the NYT, both of which are primary sources, which brings to mind WP:NOR. If we must keep that paragraph why not move it to the Foreign affairs section instead of keeping it in the section with the accusatory title, Claims of ties to Russia? 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The ambassador said what diplomats say. So did the prime minister of Israel. In public. Privately the Israelis were reported to be furious, and to have warned their people not to share sensitive information with the U.S., but that is all behind the scenes and not in the article. There is plenty of evidence that there was international dismay about his telling this to the Russians, and widespread concern about possible danger to the source. Even Trump's own aides reacted in kind of panic mode, alerting the CIA and NSA as soon as the meeting was over. Again, that is not in the article, but it does provide support for the inclusion of the widely reported concern that the disclosure "could expose the source" and "could jeopardize" the relationship with an ally.
As for the repeated use of "reportedly" in The Hill, that's a journalistic requirement, because the story is not a product of their own reporting; it is based on an article published in another source, which has to be attributed.--MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. About moving it out of "Ties to Russia": That is possible, but I don't see a good place to move it to. Take a look at the "foreign relations" section; it doesn't seem to be ideal for this kind of narrative reporting of an incident. Anyplace else where it might fit? --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I love signs of progress. With regards to moving mention of any appropriate/inappropriate activities of the Commander In Chief, I'm of the mind the most important role of a US President should have a section of its own, like Decisions as Commander In Chief or National Defense policies, or something along that line. We have far too much fringy stuff in this article, some of which is arguably relevant to the Presidency of... but I'm not too concerned because as time progresses, it will eventually be removed or shortened to make room for the undeniably relevant material. We probably should move some of the allegations about Trump's ties to Russia, allegations about Manafort, Sessions, Trump the candidate and his son & son-in-law's brief meeting that proved to be a nothing burger, and so on. There is also too much emphasis placed on the presidency for things that are actually under the control of Congress or state governments, some of which can be/should be trimmed or removed. Things can get rather confusing in a hurry when dealing with opposing political views and perceptions of how governments should operate, especially considering WP editors come from all parts of the world. The inner workings of a Constitutional Republic are often misinterpreted as democracies rather than governance under the rule of law with 3 separate branches of government. j/s
With regards to the Israeli ambassador, I must have overlooked the published statement that dismissed the ambassador's comment as being "what diplomats say". I also haven't seen anything about Putin's response or his willingness to turn over documents of that meeting to Congress. I am not convinced that they should be shrugged-off as unimportant based on POV that already weighs heavily against Trump.
Regarding the use of "reportedly" by The Hill, yes, I am well aware of how journalists do things, having been a field producer for CNN in the 80s-90s. The "reportedly" precedent is actually one place that editors actually should read something into what is not being said because it helps us make proper judgement calls with regards to inclusion worthiness and presentation of the information. It tells me that The Hill published information that is unconfirmed, and by that I'm referring to not available elsewhere for them to publish it as a statement of fact, and that is what should be raising a red flag of awareness as to how we treat WP:PUBLICFIGURE. When information in a BLP is challenged as I have done in this instance, our PAGs tell us to use in-line text attribution, and to also include the denial. I'm ok with everything but the use of "highly classified material" because it is just plain inaccurate and originated from anonymous sources as published by a primary source. Information Trump shared may well have been highly sensitive - that's what a Commander In Chief does - he discusses highly sensitive material with allies and countries who are fighting similar battles in the name of national security. If it wasn't sensitive, he'd be tweeting the details of the conversation. There is no denying that he discussed national security issues with Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak but it was not highly classified at the time he discussed it with them because he declassified anything that may have been classified at the time, and did so within his enumerated powers as our Commander In Chief. Anything beyond that is POV and innuendo that he committed a crime and it doesn't belong in this article. Reading all the sections in this article is a strain but if it's any consolation, by the time we finish getting it right, it can be nominated as an FA candidate. 😁 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, please remember WP:NOTFORUM and don't go off into philosophical discussions and opinions. We are here to discuss the content of the article, which should be possible to do with brevity.
"Reportedly" does not mean they doubt it. It means that they, themselves, have not confirmed it; they are describing something that was reported by another publication (hence "reportedly"). They use that word repeatedly to show that they are still citing that other publication's report, not their own independent research. When possible, we should probably cite the article that other publications are reporting on, rather than those derivative reports, but that's not a guideline here. Sometimes the derivative sources are simply more accessible, such as when the original report is behind a paywall.
"Highly classified" is still accurate, per numerous sources. I suppose we could say "material which used to be highly classified until Trump blurted it out to the Russians, thus declassifying it," but I haven't seen any source put it that way.
I didn't see a suggestion where else in the article the material could be moved to. I guess that means it stays in the "Ties to Russia" section. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Read my comment again, please. I repeat: I'm of the mind the most important role of a US President should have a section of its own, like Decisions as Commander In Chief or National Defense policies, or something along that line. Perhaps you simply overlooked my suggestion, and no, it doesn't belong in Ties to Russia. Next, I am not going to dismiss the fact that the Commander In Chief did not share highly classified information. Who do you think classifies it, and who do you think has the authority to declassify it? Your response is not addressing that issue and your argument is not convincing. The president/Commander In Chief is as high as we go in our Constitutional Republic, and he is the one who says what is or isn't "highly classified" so I'm not quite sure where you're going with the misinformation, why, or what you're thinking with regards to what is and isn't classified or who it can be shared with, but I find it rather disconcerting that the facts are not being presented accurately. I can/will call an RfC if we cannot make a decision locally. It's up to you. 22:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The arguments above aside, it is true that the section is pretty messy. In particular the Mueller investigation and the material related to it needs to have its own subsection, separate from the disclosure of classified info etc. Volunteer Marek 05:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That's possible. Where in the article would you suggest putting it? Mueller is tasked with investigating Russian interference, and ties to Russia, and "related matters". Putting it under "Ties to Russia" focuses on just one of those things. But interference with the election relates to the election, not to his presidency which is the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the discussion between Trump and the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting be presented in this article as A) inappropriate sharing of highly classified material, or (B) the sharing of sensitive information for US national defense and to combat the US' and Russia's common threats? 23:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
B - as OP. I have also included a Discussion section below, so please include arguments in that section. 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A - Cuz that's what the overwhelming weight of RS state. Does any RS state this was a little post-gas-attack chitchat between allies sharing intelligence? SPECIFICOtalk23:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A, as we already have it in the article. because that's how Reliable Sources are describing it. Plus B, Trump's own words, which we also already have in the article. We are mainly focusing on how it has been described by Reliable Sources, and per WP:BALANCE we are also citing how Trump himself described it. In other words the article is good as it is, and this should not be considered an either-or choice. (For my discussion, see the lengthy section above this one.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
B (or something in-between - just say it was shared and there was some controversy). It is a presidential prerogative to share whatever info with whomever he/she sees fits. This was attacked, per norm, from left leaning sources and defended, per norm, by right leaning sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Icewhiz, that's a false issue. RS do not dispute the legal authority of POTUS. RS discussion of this incident discuss its reckless disregard for longstanding intelligence protocols, the absence of US media, the indifference of POTUS to the violation of allies' confidence, etc. And let's not politicize editing decisions here. There were thousands of reports, and how many along what you call the "right-leaning" spin version? SPECIFICOtalk14:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
B or Find A Different Option- As Icewhiz said, "It is a presidential prerogative to share whatever info with whomever he/she sees fits." I agree with that. I also agree with SPECIFICO said, that the RSs say that is was reckless to share. Option B does not seem as biased as option A. I think we should try to find a different option though.LakesideMiners (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Both or Neither - both of these are views and really the event is a 'reported by' without a confirmation or details, and no unified V opinion so these are just stating hypotheticals as if they are facts instead of WP reporting that two views have been stated. Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
A and B Same as MelaniaN. We of course have to report on how RS and various officials described it - which was that it was A, but should include Trump's view on it. Galobtter (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Reflect what reliable sources say - the dominant view is A. Maybe B was a defense raised by Trump or his allies, but that's certainly not how it should be stated in Misplaced Pages's own voice. If B was repeated often enough in reliable sources, then perhaps we can include it with attribution, while making clear that this was a response/defense. But certainly not to the exclusion of A, which is the mainstream view among analysts, scholars, etc. Neutrality03:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Atsme, you haven't stated the choice neutrally? Sounds more like a Fox News anchor. Neutral would be like this:
(A) inappropriate sharing of highly classified material, or (B) the sharing of sensitive information for US national defense and to combat the US' and Russia's common threats?
We're actually supposed to get the article right before we concern ourselves about style, and it appears to me the article you mentioned also needs to be corrected. Unproven allegations originating from unnamed sources that were not even present at the meeting are questionable at best. PAGs require that we exercise caution in how unproven allegations cited to a primary source are presented, if they are to be presented at all. Common sense tells us that any information that was shared in that meeting would have been declassified first by the Commander In Chief who has the power to do so. With that in mind, the information that was shared could not possibly have been classified because whatever Trump shared was declassified first - common sense. The WH officials who attended that meeting denied allegations that classified information was shared and said the WaPo story was false. There is no denying that sensitive matters were discussed - it was a closed meeting with a counterterrorism partner - a common practice for presidents who are doing their job. Far too much emphasis is being placed on the misinformation that originated from unnamed sources, and has since been debunked. The way it's worded in the article is noncompliant with NPOV, BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE which is why I've challenged it. 04:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, lorty...one chore at a time for me. I can only do so much reviewing/copyediting/debating/challenging at one time while also trying to help reduce the backlog at NPP and AfC. 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
To those who only want B..........Are we going to completely ignore RSes and and and include only the administration's viewpoint? Also I'd like to point out, like Specifico, that while he has legal authority doesn't mean it isn't reckless. That's what some U.S. official described it (from reuters. That is especially true since the intelligence was from Israel and not America's own. (if I remember correctly it also means that israel has classified it, so America cannot really unilaterally unclassify it) Galobtter (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No, basing our text on reliable sources rather than some rant/sentence that some Wikipedian just made up out of thin air is EXACTLY how it works. And it doesn't actually matter how many accounts want to go with the invented sentence. Local consensus cannot trump site wide consensus as captured by WP:RS. Volunteer Marek 21:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
And that answer wasn't some rant/sentence that some Wikipedian just made up out of thin air? Local consensus has not only been trumping site-wide consensus, you can throw in a policy or two as icing on that big ole cake but that doesn't get us anywhere. If you want a broader consensus call an RfC, or accept local consensus and smile. 21:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I was essentially quoting from WP:NPOVwhich means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Could you explain how NPOV is "not how this works"? Or can you explain how reliable sources haven't been calling it an inappropriate disclosure? Or how it isn't at least a "significant view" among reliable sources? Galobtter (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
False and misleading statements
Recently Neutrality added in Misplaced Pages's voice that Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks here. Which was against concensus on his main page here. WP:NPOV does state "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice." but basically goes against every other part of it. It should not be stated in Wikis voice and is possibly a BLP issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No, this material is directly supported by many high-quality, non-opinion sources, which are all appropriately cited - and does not run counter to any consensus. (The result of the prior discussion, to which you linked, deals with only the word "lie" - we do not use that term, as most of the sources do not use it. The discussion did not bar us from accurately reflecting the reliable sources, which do extensively describe the large number of falsehoods, misleading statements, etc.).
Moreover, my edit is not a "recent" one - it actually restores longstanding material. The change to "accused by the media" was only made on November 9 by a new editor (less than a dozen edits), and was falsely marked as a "minor edit" by that user. My edit restores the longstanding text.
Moreover, the "accused by the media" text is WP:OR - this is one editors' surmise. The sources do not say "accused by the media" - they make statements of fact which are not contested by other reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that counter this text, then they can be brought forth - but I am aware of none.
As far as BLP: no part of BLP is implicated here, and in fact the policy's own text supports inclusion: BLP expressly states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Neutrality02:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not arguing it be removed, it should not be Misplaced Pages's voice. The restoration of previous material and the wording "accused by the media" are not relevant to the issue either way it is a NPOV and BLP (see example 2) issue. As far as consensus only referring to lie, and not made a large number of false statements that is really splitting hairs. I am also unsure how you can claim this is not contested material? Yes RS report on it, that does not actually make it fact, others bring up counter points. Again mentioning of false statements is fine, just not in Misplaced Pages's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but:
(1) The difference between "X is a liar" and "X frequently makes false statements" is not splitting hairs. The reliable sources do say the latter, but they don't say the former (Lie also implies a level of intentionality that we can't know for sure; by contrast, whether something is false or true is a question of fact).
(2) If reliable sources consistently and routinely say something in their own voice, and it is not contradicted by other reliable sources saying the opposite in their own voice, then we too say it in our voice. Something less is usually improper distancing from the sources.
(3) As far as "others bring up counter points" - if you have sources or links, I would like to take a look.
When the difference is either he is a liar vs he is either a liar or ignorant, that is not an improvement in POV. I am not sure another way to interpret X frequently makes false statements other than they are lies or ignorance. Yes the sources support it, but the sources also say tons of BLP vio material that we, correctly, do not add to the articles in Misplaced Pages's voice. It's also hard to find sources to prove a negative. But here are a few he turned out to be right, , , and . Again it is a bit of proving a negative, you could say any time he is not called a liar? I don't know on that one though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality is right. PackMecEng's arguments are bizarre. I'm pretty sure that this was something that was duked out on the 'Donald Trump' page in 2016 and we agreed to make note of Trump's propensity for lying (as substantiated by a large number of RS). Misplaced Pages shouldn't say that Trump is a "liar" and I'm pretty sure that no Misplaced Pages editors and no RS have used that term. Trump's propensity for telling blatant lies repeatedly is one of the notable aspects of this presidency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality is 100% correct. It is an incontrovertible fact that Trump lies, and frequently so. He lies about dumb things. He lies about small things. His lies have been meticulously documented by numerous impeccable sources. Yes, we can and should say that Trump has made a large number of false statements, in Misplaced Pages's voice. PackMecEng's arguments to the contrary are rather ludicrous.- MrX19:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Not according to WP:LABEL which states that value laden labels (see my underline) may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. That does not mean simply citing a RS, rather it means attributing such a statement to whoever said it in the source you are citing. 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The statement in Wiki voice that says "Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks". See words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Another option would be to include the false statement(s) and cite it/them - using the most notable false statements, of course. 20:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The sentence is directly supported by a number of high-quality cited sources, and is a statement of fact.... A value-laden label is something like “terrorist” or “freedom fighter” or “heretic” (the types of things that the guideline points out). I feel like you’re grasping at straws here. Neutrality21:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
If it is indeed a statement of fact, it should be easy to find at least one falsity and cite it to a RS, correct? Nothing prevents us from quoting at least two falsities and then we have no problem stating it in Wiki voice as actual fact cited to at least 3 RS. That way, we eliminate potential challenges, and have strictly adhered to policy per NPOV and BLP. 21:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you seriously disputing that Trump has made many false statements? Is anyone? There is no benefit to citing specific examples when the content being discussed is a general statement, nor is there a requirement to do so. I have no idea why you mentioned WP:LABEL since it obviously has nothing to do with what we're discussing. - MrX21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Step out of the bubble, MrX. Our readers comprise a broad spectrum of views, the majority of which may not necessarily support your own, which is why NPOV is essential. We are an encyclopedia, NOTNEWS, so everything we publish must be stated in a dispassionate tone, cited to RS with proper WEIGHT and BALANCE. We don't pick sides, we don't jump up on a SOAPBOX, we simply publish the facts. If Trump made false statements, then it should be easy to attribute them using in-text attribution. There is no reason for us to argue with each other over what is or isn't worthy of inclusion. If it's worthy, there will be plenty of 2nd and 3rd party sources we can use as references. 21:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That the President defends an accused child molester is notable
Include on the Roy Moore page, maybe, but in no way does it belong here. I don't know much about the Moore situation, but I totally fail to see how it is especially relevant- presidential endorsements are common and you can't include them all. Being accused of molestation is more relevant to Moore personally. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia15:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that all of President Trump's endorsements should be listed. The reason why this endorsement should be mentioned is due to egregious crimes that Moore is being credibly accused of. No national Republican leaders have defended Moore after these revelations, except the President. That makes this notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think it does. It is an endorsement; just because it is an controversial or unpopular one doesn't make it notable. Unless it's proven Moore committed these crimes and Trump continues to support him, I don't think you can say it's especially important to a term of a U.S. President. But I guess that's my opinion, I'll let others form consensus --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I could see mention in the Moore article as well. Also what is with the "Doug Jones - a prosecutor known for successfully prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan who killed four girls in a Church bombing" that you tried to add in that section and Trump's attacks on him? It is not even related to the Moore endorsement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Trump both defended Moore and attacked his opponent. Both are notable and part of the endorsement. Defends the credibly accused pedophile while in the next breath attacking someone who prosecuted KKK terrorists for being "soft on crime". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This is identity politics run amok. What may be noteworthy for an encyclopedia is Trump's pattern of asserting false equivalencies in a variety of contexts, and he used it yesterday to undermine Moore's critics and accusers. But consider what hundreds of articles would look like if we featured every similar statement or political endorsement? We really need to maintain some historical and encyclopedic perspective on these issues. SPECIFICOtalk16:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I would see leave it out for now but see how the coverage continues. At the moment definitely not worthy of the lead, but may be notable for the body in the upcoming days. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
— JFG 22:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
-- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Just curious...do you think perhaps the best place to gauge reception and arguments for or against would be to add RS information to the Presidency of Bill Clinton re: the firing of FBI Director Sessions, and provide more information about his impeachment? Do you think such information would be as readily accepted as what is being added here per your argument? 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough 00:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
17:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
