Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

Removal of RS content

This edit [1] removes well-sourced content from the now-eviscerated section captioned "Russia". This matter is one of the central ongoing issues concerning Trump personally and officially. It is widely discussed every day in the global news media. This content and its citation and footnote should be restored unless consensus can be demonstrated to keep it out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You should mention who these people are and just summarize what they said rather than use extensive quotes which make reading more difficult. Also, you should mention that Trump denies the claim. TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We need to mention that Trump denies being a useful fool? I think that could be assumed. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

During the Cold War, a number of people confessed to being Russian dupes. Of course we know that Trump is unlikely to admit to anything, but not all readers may know that. TFD (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, as I've said on the Useful idiot talk page, it may ultimately be revealed that Trump is not currently being duped. His denials speak for themselves and I see no reason not to include them to the extent that they're specifically saying he is not a useful fool. His relationship to Russia may have evolved so that it's now something different. He may now be threatened with a whole range of ruinous outcomes on which observers are currently reluctant to speculate on the record, but that the Russians could help ensure. That would mean that his status evolved from fool to tool. Actually, looking at this now, I think the entire quote might appropriately be placed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Salient comments removed

I didn't realize the previous comments above were being written when I wrote the following. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This deletion by JFG removed this content:

• and both Michael Hayden and Michael Morell have expressed their belief that Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow" and an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

Note that the quotes are from the same source, where Hayden quotes Morell almost exactly. Here's the full context:

We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director Michael Morell says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- General Michael Hayden

This version uses the original sources and may be better to use:

• Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."

The removal's edit summary was: "Opinions from November 2016, when everybody was in panic mode over Trump's election, are undue today". Frankly, that's a BS excuse. Context and history says just the opposite. The secret knowledge shared by these top intelligence officials forms their opinions of Trump, and that knowledge has been proven even more true by subsequent events and revelations. Hayden went on to say: "That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now."

Therefore the very well-informed opinions of those top intelligence officials are even more, not less, salient now, so that "undue" edit summary is both misleading and dead wrong. Note the location in the article. It seemed to be on-topic there, but another location might be better.

The quotes should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Agree with User:BullRangifer and User:SPECIFICO. As it stands now, the entire section has to stand on one person's opinion (Clapper) and that is not enough. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary of "Opinions from November 2016, when everybody was in panic mode over Trump's election, are undue today" clearly indicated a personal, emotion-driven opinion, rather than a rationale supported by sound (claiming that the opinions of intelligence officials become undue over time is absurd) policy. TheValeyard (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, as I said above, you need to mention who Hayden and Morell are, since not everyone knows who they are, and there is no need for excessive text. Also, Trump's response should be included. TFD (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TFD, I totally agree. That info is above. If Trump responded, that too should be included. Clinton called him "Putin's puppet" during the debate. Is that included? It should be, because he vehemently denied it during the debate. She knew the same things that Hayden and Morell knew, and she must have been frustrated that she couldn't just blurt out the evidence that he was lying. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I just checked, and the "Putin's puppet" quote is not in the article. Do we have an article about Trump's "unique" relationship to Russia and Putin? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this article: United States presidential debates, 2016. It's also relevant here, but the strong deletionist/protectionist forces at work on this article will likely not allow its mention. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My opinion: These comments from more than a year ago may not be the most relevant opinions on the matter. They were made before he had any chance to take actions as president, which could have confirmed their opinion or could have disproven it. Can't we find any credible sources saying this about PRESIDENT Trump, as opposed to Candidate Trump? If not I'd be inclined to leave it out entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We can ADD such things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that those were seminal and historic remarks BullRangifer recently added. There are other follow-ons that speak to the same theme by intelligence officials and former White House staff of the Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras. We might add some of that commentary if it gets into more specifics or is widely noted and discussed. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good finds. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Still seem rather undue and minor over all, and never been a fan of cramming old opinion columns in. PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We now appear to have consensus to undo the removal of this RS content in the Russia section. SPECIFICO talk 04:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not particularly, could use more input. PackMecEng (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How so? We seem to have 7 editors favoring to restore it. SPECIFICO talk 04:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO. Restore, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We have not even had a reply from JFG, the person who removed it in the first place. Could at least get his input and rationel. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to know whether it's "snow minus one"? It was just a bad edit. Maybe a mistake. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe? What is the rush to add old opinion sources about a tiny factor of his life into his main BLP? It is not unreasonable to at least wait for his comment is it? PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1.Tiny: No, it is the central fact of his fame at this point. He tells us every day - no collusion 2. The editors above note the unprecedented concern and public warnings about this from the most senior intelligence officials. And the warnings are ongoing. Could we just close this and reinstate the RS text? SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The reports from these two are drown out in the what 10-20 stories per day on the same subject? What makes these two op-eds from a year ago any more special than the avalanche of others covering the same thing? Nothing really, and warning again come out multiple times a day of this or that against Trump. Until anything is actually know though, they mean less than nothing. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Like the reports that confirm that not only did Putin choose Trump, he even trumped Trump's choice of Romney and had him pick Tillerson? Tillerson hasn't even used any money to stop Russian interference, and Trump hasn't enforced the sanctions. It's pretty obvious both Trump and Tillerson are Putin's puppets. The buck seems to stop with Putin. Those reports you speak of confirm all of this.

This is just more evidence that Hayden's and Morell's statements are more true today than when they said them. That content should be restored. Because I'm the one who added it, I'm not going to do it...at least not now. Others can do it. We have a clear consensus to restore. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please keep WP:FORUM in mind here, while I am sure you think it is super important new info. It is not and has not lead to anything of note. If it has not been important enough to include in the past year, common sense says it still is not. Also keep in mind consensus is not a head count. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think it's clear we have consensus to put Hayden and Morrell back. My sense is that you are very familiar with this reference. I am not. So I hope you will put the text back in the most appropriate possible form. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see such consensus. I have challenged the recent insertion of this old news about Hayden and Morell's opinions, calling them undue by now, and I don't see a cogent policy-based rationale to insert them again, other than WP:ILIKEIT kind of statements. — JFG ^talk 01:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is that you and one other like your watered-down version whereas 8 editors prefer the full version. It doesn't reflect well on you to deny that. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am going to undo the removal of this, per consensus on this thread. Any adjustments or additions can of course be done without wholesale removal such as was rejected in this thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll chip in a belated support to this as well. It was a relevant opinion then, and the sourcing found above shows that it is relevant still. ValarianB (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added more info to this paragraph about his apparent friendliness with Moscow and willingness to do their bidding. I have removed the "cast doubt on his election" quote because it wasn't really related to the other content in the paragraph, and because that is not a widely shared opinion (most commentators say it is impossible to tell whether and to what extent the Russian interference influenced the outcome). --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the Russia connection is not just from the campaign; it is even more relevant now. What would you think about moving the "Russia" paragraph from the "Campaign" section to the "presidency" section? --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh maybe first 100 days. There really has not been anything new and current past then. Even the congress bill part is pretty weak, and the sanctions part sounds like gossip from anon sources again. PackMecEng (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have POTUS failure to implement Congressionally-mandated additional sanctions, we have failure to respond to various Russian provocations and propaganda, and most significantly failure to take specific countermeasures in the face of public disclosure of ongoing interference by intelligence officials. And other developments, commented on by RS media and commentators. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going on what is currently in the section pretty much all first 100 days and before. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The attempt to rescind the sanctions in January 2017 is not gossip and not anonymous, and it had real world consequences. It was first reported by Michael Isikoff[2] and cited to named sources from within the State Department. And the attempt to head it off included the actual introduction, on Feb. 7, of bipartisan legislation by senators Cardin and Graham. That attempt to lift the sanctions is as well established as it can be. As for Trump’s refusal to carry out the requirements of a bipartisan bill that had passed Congress almost unanimously, that was just six weeks ago.[3][4][5] --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN's suggestion to move this content is a good one, and I encourage her to implement it. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has an opinion. There's no rush. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a topic for Foreign policy of the Trump administration, not Trump's main biography. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. They didn't say that POTUS' policy is "foolish" -- that would not be appropriate. They stated that he, personally, is a useful fool. It was a national security warning about his having been compromised. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to MelanieN's suggestions about Russia sanctions. Please pay attention to the actual conversation. — JFG ^talk 19:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you're saying, actually. Very unclear. File wherever you wish. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Two edit requests

There should be two corrections made to this article, can someone please edit and correct them as I cannot due to the article being locked:

1 - The word "potential" should be used in the lead before the word "links" (no concrete links have been proven so far)

2 - Trump grew up in Jamaica Estates, Queens (not Jamaica, Queens) 158.222.189.226 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Watering of ODNI

This revert [6] waters down the statement in the ODNI (p.11) by placing "high confidence" as an afterthought in a separate sentence of the article text. @Prodego: has appeared at JFG's talk page asking him to undo his revert. [7]. Are we all in agreement that the revert should be undone? SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean this. Prodego obviously missed the later page number correction, so their comment is not support for your position. They are simply saying that the |quote= does not match the text on page 11. I'm an abstain. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the complaint here that one citation quote was chosen over another? I don't see that any article text was changed.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Is the complaint here that one citation quote was chosen over another? - Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. Can't we just put both, or neither, quotes in the citation? Should we even be selectively quoting it since it's a primary source? The only thing that matters is if the reference support the article text.- MrX 🖋 17:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not both, since they have about 80% overlap. Either or neither would work for me. I think it's a nit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct – I did not see the later edit to correct the page number. Thank you for pointing that out. Assuming the page number agrees with the quote, whichever quote has consensus is fine. Alternately, I don't see any problem with citing both quotes in the article if that is for some reason preferred. Prodego ^talk 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After I reverted Mandruss's edit, we discussed the issue at User talk:JFG#Trump revert, and settled by adjusting the page number for the longstanding quote. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I changed |page=7 to |page=ii.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Organisation of the page

Not sure about the way this article is organised. Most biographical articles are organised in chronological order, which seems to be a great way of summarising what a person has done over their life. It seems a bit disjointed being this way. Would be very interested to hear other editors thoughts. Mike Hocks Hucker (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The main sections are, in order:

1. Family and personal life
2. Business career
3. Media career
4. Public profile
5. Political career and affiliations up to 2015
6. 2016 presidential campaign
7. Presidency

Which re-ordering would you suggest? Everything is actually in chronological order except "Public profile", which could go to the end. "Family and personal life" could be split into younger years and family events, but that would dilute the information too much. Better keep it all together at the beginning of the article or push it all to the end. Is that what you had in mind, or do you have other suggestions? — JFG ^talk 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the sections are not in chronological order, but that's because his various activities (business, media, politics) overlap so much. IMO it makes more sense to organize his adult life by subject as we do (not just in this article, but in many other biographies). I agree that "Public profile" is a bit of an anomaly and we never did figure out the best place to put that. Possibly at the end, as we do "Popular culture" sections? For one thing, I'm not convinced that "Public profile" needs a Level 2 heading, but we couldn't figure out any larger section to put it under. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current order is just fine. We have discussed this at length recently, and no one has made a compelling case for moving the public profile content to the bottom, or for changing the order of major sections in the article. Trump's public profile began in the early 1970s, so keeping it where it is makes quite a bit of sense.- MrX 🖋 16:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

About the "Presidency" section

There is a problem with the Presidency section of this article. A lot of the material in the Domestic policy subsection is actually from 2016 or even earlier, quoting what he said on the campaign trail rather than what he has done as president. That stuff belongs in the Campaign section, if anywhere - probably under Political positions. Meanwhile significant things that he has done during his presidency are not included anywhere.

Under Domestic policy, the Economy and trade section should now be OK; I added the withdrawal from TPP and the new tariffs, and deleted as obsolete a paragraph about a tax plan he proposed during the campaign. The Education section is entirely from the campaign and says nothing at all about his presidency; IMO it should be deleted, maybe summarized briefly in the Campaign section. Energy and climate: again, all the content is from 2016, except for a single sentence about withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Government size and deregulation is OK; it actually focuses on his actions as president. Health care is OK. Immigration has way too much detail about the various iterations of his proposed "Muslim ban", while it doesn't even mention DACA. Social issues is entirely about things he said during the campaign, which IMO should be moved or deleted, while things he has actually done like the transgender military ban need to be added.

Under Foreign policy, the introductory three paragraphs are entirely about what he said during the campaign, except for a sentence about NATO and a sentence about a Syrian missile strike. But the subsections under Foreign policy are pretty much current and OK. We might want to add a subsection on the general subject of "Europe" or "European relations".

I encourage everyone who has a little time, to work on this problem. IMO the material in the Presidency section should actually be about his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these useful updates, MelanieN. I agree with your assessment and will take a look at what can be improved. Probably the "First 100 days" subsection should be removed, as an arbitrary breakpoint which has vanishingly little significance. Relevant events from that period can be integrated in the appropriate policy sections. — JFG ^talk 22:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the "First 100 days" section. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now trimmed the travel ban section and added a new section on DACA. What do you think? We need to find a citation for the current lack of DACA legislation after delay expired, even though that's somehow rendered moot by the legal blocks. — JFG ^talk 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG - much press attention seems to have gone onto other topics, so there's not much in Google for the short time since 5 March. Excluding bits speculating (unusable) where a deal might be inserted or next event might occur (e.g. 23 March budget), the emotion (unusable) pieces on feelings of a DACA individual, or the analytical pieces on the political mechanisms re actions by Democrats (offtopic), Google is showing me a few story lines in off track places. Here are some examples in case they help:

• DACA Limbo Creates Anxiety, Skepticism
• Asian DACA recipients, in limbo, await congressional action
• Dreams Deferred: A Look at DACA Renewals and Losses Post-March 5 - interesting link to uscis.gov on DACA renewals declined sharply in 2017
• Third federal judge rules on ending DACA; he says Trump acted legally

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Position statements regarding Women's Rights

Should Trump's main biography include a section documenting his record on Women's Rights? Only current discussion is with regards to sexual misconduct allegations.

For context, please see discussion at archive, whereby content was recently added, Domestic policy: Social issues (para. 3), then reverted for stated reasons of synthesis.

Seeking contributions circumventing issue of synthesis. — algocu (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No — UNDUE for his WP:BLP, this is not a big part of his life story. Anything of his Presidency belongs in that article, not here, and I doubt there was enough attention / mention there to be DUE coverage. Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  I believe you mean "Anything of his Presidency belongs in that section ...", not article? algocu (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Algocu: Markbassett is likely referring to Presidency of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  Correct - if it is something significant about his Presidency it belongs there; if it is about things significant to his life it belongs here. Nothing specific was mentioned, so unclear where it should go. It does not seem he has significant amounts either way, but for Presidency there are noted reactions on the topic. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  Just to clarify - there seems significant coverage re sexual misconduct in private life and women’s movements against his Presidency, but I am not aware of significant coverage of his life having participation in women’s rights. Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Need more research on significance of conduct/policy between life and presidency. In the same vein, assuming reference to Presidency of Donald Trump, and weight of life significance to a WP:BLP, then is not the current Presidency section in Donald Trump too long and detailed? Is it not overly subjective to include (or omit) a topic from this section? algocu (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  I haven't !voted here, and I doubt I will as I don't have much of an opinion on the issue. Did you mean to address Markbassett instead? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Algocu: Assuming you meant that for me, then: (a) yes the current Presidency section at ~13 screens seems long. One could contrast the length to Barak Obama having 5 screens for similar section; and (b) most things will not be subjective as most of his life was before 2015, and cites before then can be relied on to not be about his Presidency, while things after 2015 usually are about his Presidency -- and if it still seems subjective or one is unsure then one throws it into TALK.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is not something he has paid a lot of attention to, nor have the media. There are many, many issues of potential interest to a politician; in a biography we should only include the main/definitional issues. We do not make that decision subjectively, but rather based on the WP:WEIGHT of coverage an issue has received in Reliable Sources. In other words we only report on what Reliable Sources report, not on what we think they should be reporting more of. RE "need more research" - maybe so, but it is not up to us to do that research. See WP:OR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• No – Can't find much sourced content about this topic, and it would be undue for the main bio. Better address this in Presidency of Donald Trump if/when something notable happens on this front. — JFG ^talk 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

General McCaffrey says Trump under Russian influence

Here [9] SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Gotta kick it to Presidency, although it's almost as big as this article and we're only 30% done. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Might only be 15% done. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Or 60% done. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that it is receiving wide attention at the moment hence per weight does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12] [13] SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to include this one comment into this bio without considering the many, many other comments about Trump, for example John Brennan's scathing rebuke. Now, if an active General or CIA Director made such a comment, that would be highly noteworthy for inclusion.- MrX 🖋 11:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Template include size is exceeded, again

Article is back in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and {{Subject bar}} and {{Authority control}} are broken at the bottom of the article. This edit put it over the line, so it's obviously MrX's fault (joke). Related past discussions include this and this. Information page at Wikipedia:Template limits. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Assuming those are the only such instances of this problem that have occurred in the past, it has been the better part of the year since this problem has arisen. Perhaps it is time to split off more material? Are there any excessively large sections that have unneeded information, perhaps? Master of Time (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't say for certain they are the only such instances. Our search engine and my memory leave a bit to be desired. No opinions on your questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Scanning the article now for size balance, I think we could trim the sections about the Trump Foundation, The Apprentice and "Racial views". All of them have pretty extensive main articles, so we can keep just the main points here per WP:Summary style. Will get to work. — JFG ^talk 11:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@JFG, Mandruss, and Master of Time: the article still may need trimming, but I've significantly reduced the post-expand size by removing the collapsed navboxes at the bottom - taking up 40% of that limit..and providing extremely limited navigational utility IMO - feel free to add back if any are useful though Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I think they would have to be pretty damned useful to justify 40% of the limit. Burn them at the stake! ―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The article also seems to load way faster too, comparing F5ing the older version and the newer version. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What is F5ing? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Refreshing the page. More offtopic but I checked on a website that shows how fast a page loads and it shows it loading 3 times faster.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior revisions always load quite a bit slower for whatever technical reason, so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. But I did perceive an improvement over recent experience as soon as you removed that stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: To test my theory you could compare load times for the current article and this prior revision, which was after the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Was very suspicious. Compared two prior revisions, not much difference, actually. That slow down is probably because the current version is cached. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

For us logged in it may be faster actually (there's some differences in caching or something), but for those logged out I checked and there's no difference ( within random variance) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Presidential image

There is an RFC about Presidential images here. I think that any here who remember discussions over Trump photos or prior Presidents could contribute. Markbassett (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Revolving door news

Just hours after Rex Tillerson said Russia was involved in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Trump has fired him (I'm sure it is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE). Mike Pompeo will run the State Department, and the tape-destroying queen of torture Gina Haspel will run the CIA. I guess all this will need to be added to this article and the presidency article. The internet is already littered with all the sources we could possibly need. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not much surprises me about the reign of Trump, but this one is pretty shocking. Yes, this will need to be added here.- MrX 🖋 13:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that was out of the blue, any word on the official reason he was fired? I heard Tillerson was not even told a reason yet. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The firing within hours of his "Russia did it" comment is suggestive - scary even - but may mean nothing. Several sources are saying that he was told on March 9 that he would be fired; that that is why he cut short his Russia trip; and that Trump wanted to wait until he was home (by just a few hours as it turned out) before announcing it (via Twitter, what a mensch). --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We should mention that the presidency has been characterized by high turnover. I don't think though it is helpful to suggest that he was fired on the orders of the Kremlin. Tillerson's departure has been rumored for months and Trump claimed there were policy differences, which observers had noticed.[14] TFD (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. That he was hired on orders from the Kremlin is pretty solid, but, until we have RS which show that his firing was also dictated by the Kremlin, we shouldn't state it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted) עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Which RS claim that Tillerson was "hired on orders from the Kremlin"? Sounds pretty speculative and conspirationist to me… — JFG ^talk 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we are going to go with an assumption Trump is influenced by Russia, there is not going to be any reliable source to say he was hired on orders lol. At best hired on recommendation or suggestion is the furthest I think any credible source will say, but this doesn't translate to on orders. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG and WikiVirusC, in a sense you're both right. I may be reading more into events than warranted. That Putin actually blocked Trump from choosing Romney as Secretary of State is reported by numerous RS, while Putin's "favoring" Tillerson is reported by fewer. Here's one: Report: Russia vetoed Romney, favored Tillerson for State Dept.. Tillerson is a real BFF with Putin, and both Trump and Tillerson are willing to help Putin by lifting the sanctions, IOW reward him for hacking us and invading Ukraine. Putin does pull Trump's strings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe

Also significant is the firing of Trump's personal assistant John McEntee, for an unspecified security issue. He was unceremoniously escorted out of the White House by security. As has been said earlier, the level of turnover in this administration is unprecedented. There are many reliable sources available that make this particular point, so perhaps our coverage of these hirings and firings should be presented in this context. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted)עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good place in this article to add Tillerson's firing; it's not "foreign policy", and the Cabinet is mentioned only in its formation. But it strikes me that one of the most notable features of Trump's presidency - the unprecedented turnover and departure of staff, especially within the White House [15] [16] [17] - is not mentioned anywhere. Should we add a paragraph about that to the Presidency section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point I think there is a solid case to be made to add the high turnover in the Presidency article with a mention here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I was actually thinking that a section titled "administration" in the presidency section would be useful, mention this and about his cabinet. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there should be a section about the turnover because it is an important aspect of his leadership style discussed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on some wording for this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and a whole article on the subject. Seriously. It's notable enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN -- It seems already done -- LibrarySomeday and Animalparty did a departures section 10-13 March at the Presidency article. There is a related section in the Political appointments article on the pace of appointments that you might add to. Seems a stats comparison though, not an actual event or 'real news', not much weight at this time. Also the WSJ seems better cite for this than NPR (So it's almost as high as Obamas 3rd year or Reagan's 2nd year ?). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now added a "Personnel" section to the presidency section of this article, summarizing the departures and the unfilled positions. I still think a lot of the material under "presidency" is excessively detailed and I will try to do some trimming. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

More on John McEntee. Apparently, he was booted out of the White House because the Department of Homeland Security is investigating him for "serious financial crimes". Despite this, he was immediately re-hired by the Trump reelection campaign as a "senior advisor". Apparently, "serious financial crimes" are no barrier to working for the Trump campaign, but then we already knew that because of Manafort and Gates. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between being investigated for something and being found guilty of it. Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush had a high number of indictments in their administrations.[18] 00:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the undersecretaries of state, Steve Goldstein, has been dismissed too, after 3 months on the job. TFD (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Those sources are reporting that Steele says that Kremlin/Putin blocked Romney, they aren't stating it as facts themselves. Steel has said a lot of things and RS's have reported what he has says, that doesn't mean if we can say Putin blocked Romney, it would have to be "according to Steele....", not just "Kremlin vetoed Romney" by itself. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course attribution is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless. Opinions, synthesis, arguments about what is a “fact” - but nothing that will be going in this article, which is a biography of Donald Trump, remember? Details about the firing of McCabe can go in the McCabe article. As long as we do attribute Sessions’ reasons to Sessions, it will be in that article. Unless somebody can provide a Reliable Source specifically connecting Sessions' recusal and his firing of McCabe, we will not be putting it in that or any other article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just some food for thought - conspiracy theorists are considered fringe on WP. I'm somewhat taken back by some of the comments I've read above - it reminds me a bit of the birther comments from the past. Hmmmm...surely our project is above that, right? Oh, and just a little FYI - there is no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump admin...but there is evidence McCabe was not being forthright in his testimony, which is where the encyclopedic information is concentrated. Can we please get our focus on factual and drop the conspiracy theories? Thank you. Atsme📞📧 22:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Your claim that there's no evidence of collusion, while pointing fingers at McCabe, is textbook conspiracy theorizing, straight from the alt-right playbook. TheValeyard (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Atsme, you believe that? Can I interest you in adopting a few billion $$ worth of Russian orphans? SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I'm surprised editors haven't flocked over to Andrew McCabe now that he's been fired. Oh, wait...noooo...it's not a conspiracy theory, TheValeyard...it's real... [19], [20]...and it's all over the news. This time it's a statement of fact...he really was fired. Atsme📞📧 02:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Atsme, in all seriousness, I'd like to ask you to take some time off from these Trump articles. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Your initial claim was ...but there is evidence McCabe was not being forthright in his testimony, which is an alt-right talking point, not an actual fact. You then shift the goalpost and gravedance over the man's firing, when reliable sources characterize said firing as vindictive, to deny him pension. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Allow me to clarify per the BBC (cited via the link) which happens to be an actual fact - verifiable, undeniable fact not opinion: Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the "extensive and fair investigation" had concluded that Mr McCabe "made an unauthorised disclosure to the news media and lacked candour - including under oath - on multiple occasions". Is that better? Atsme📞📧 03:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Oh well then that's different. Who could doubt anything that Jeff Sessions had to say? Gandydancer (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC) We report what RS say, provided it's determined to be encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. As a matter-of-fact, it's a matter-of-fact. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧 04:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC) I will await with interest links to the RS that says what Sessions said is verifiable, undeniable fact. But not while holding my breath. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Based on some of the responses I just read, there appears to be confusion over what constitutes a statement of fact, and what just happened regarding McCabe. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is head of the DOJ and the chief law officer of the federal government. Fact. The position Andrew McCabe once held as FBI Deputy Director is subordinate to the Attorney General. Fact. Sessions fired Andrew McCabe. Fact. The BBC quoted Sessions' reason for the dismissal. Fact. I quoted above what the BBC quoted. Fact. The BBC reported the facts of the incident. Fact. CNN's report corroborates the BBC report and Sessions' statement. Fact. The CNN report provides a bit more detail in that Inspector General Horowitz (an Obama appointee) had conducted an internal review of McCabe, and referred his undisclosed report to FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, who recommended the dismissal of McCabe. Fact. The fact that McCabe was fired and the reason for it were provided to the media in a statement by Sessions. Fact. Atsme📞📧 05:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Atsme, it's not that hard. That Sessions said something is indeed a fact. That what he said was true is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: - your CNN source says ... by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. That report -- the details of which have not been publicly released -- is said to conclude... That's where the facts aren't established. Did Sessions characterize that report properly, and also was that report itself based on facts? We don't know starship.paint ~ KO 07:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: Jeff Sessions recused himself from anything to do with the Clinton campaign and/or the Clinton Foundation. His firing of McCabe broke that recusal, so he's basically become another Nunes and simply does Trump's bidding. Fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC) I see no reason to start questioning motives now considering a substantial portion of Trump articles were created based primarily on allegations and the principal of writing what RS say. Why should that change now? Besides, the IG report is not available to the public, and it's not our job to play investigative reporter - so we write what the RS say. All we have to do is focus on the published facts which include the reasons AG Sessions provided for McCabe's firing. I'm actually surprised the other FBI firings or demotions haven't been brought to light considering they're all connected, and the actions taken against those agents were also the result of findings by the IG. As for the swirling allegations about AG Session's recusal, it's all still fringe at this point; i.e., conspiracy theories and speculation. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires in-text attribution. It's all pretty simple. Atsme📞📧 18:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC) It's not a "fringe" accusation. Sessions recused himself, but then fired McCabe for actions in the very thing he recused himself for. No theory, no speculation, just unvarnished fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC) And that is your ruling after hearing the merits of the case, your honor? Atsme📞📧 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC) It's irrelevant what McCabe did or did not do. My point is that Sessions broke the terms of his own recusal (a recusal he made in his Senate confirmation hearing) to do Trump's bidding. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2018

Change "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and former television personality who is the 45th and current President of the United States."

This change is suggested because this fits in more with the template used by Wikipedia when describing personalities (i.e. name (date) is a [demonym of country of citizenship] [occupation] who [designation/reason for being well-known], e.g. "Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017." Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the current consensus was reached after exhaustive, extensive and excruciating discussion. The tortuous, horrid form it is currently in exists largely because a significant number of editors objected to Trump being referred to as a "politician" (even though he is a politician). Good luck getting any change! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

Change "Donald John Trump" in body paragraph to "Donald John Trump, Sr." RAZ (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Any change to the first paragraph requires prior consensus, per #Current consensus item 17. You won't get consensus for that particular change, but you are free to try to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Why was this edit removed?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=831507448&oldid=831502299

User:Atsme, it would be helpful if users who make wholesale deletions of another user's edits would provide a specific reason for doing so in their edit summary rather than merely tossing it to the talk page.

Please specify the problem with my edits.soibangla (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was reverted, but I know that editors are not allowed to use WP:ROLLBACK in content disputes. That in itself deserves an explantation.- MrX 🖋 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no content dispute. Look at the edits. I also explained the reverts. Twinkle does rollbacks, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't "explain the reverts", you just restated the fact that you reverted. That's not an explanation. And whether it's twinkle or rollback button, using it to undo non-vandalism edits is abuse of rollback.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, your response is rather dismissive. You're not allowed to use rollback to revert content that you don't like. If you want to lose the bit, just keep doing what you're doing.- MrX 🖋 01:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it again, as controversial and under discussion here. Atsme, seeing your self-revert - with the edit summary "undo, not vandalism" - I am more puzzled than ever about your reason for taking it out in the first place. You regarded it as vandalism???? --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, MelanieN - I did consider it vandalism at first but reverted my edit when a dialogue began on the TP. I initially responded to what I saw as a red flag BLP/NPOV vio - "worst president ever" cited to an op-ed piece that was added by an editor with 525 edits, and a TP with notices, disruptive editing warnings, a block/request denial, copyvios and various other warnings. I notified the editor on his/her TP, which was an appropriate action under the circumstances. You should know me well enough by now to know that I am always open to discussion, and while I may not be perfect, I am certainly not an asshat. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a shame I'll never live down the bad boy rep that I "earned" by attempting to move too fast through the minefield WP can be, because I have not dedicated my life to mastering all of it, especially since I quickly discovered that even WP has trolls. Oh, well. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla, it may help if you would archive your TP and get more edits under your belt before you jump in the deep end trying to edit BLPs that are loaded with DS that have restrictions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how I jumped into the deep end here. I do see how you responded injudiciously here. soibangla (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, there you go again - implying that he somehow violated DS with his edits. He did not. He added well-sourced material to the article, as permitted by the DS. You "challenged it by reverting", as permitted by the DS. He came to the talk page, as he should per the DS. There is nothing in his edit, or in his recent behavior, to justify your scolding that he should not be editing DS-limited articles. If anyone went over the line here, it was you - using rollback to remove it, and not explaining your reason, either at the time or later when asked. I'm not implying any DS violations on your part or anyone else's - just noting that he has just as much right to edit here as you do. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, his edit was a BLP vio - the source used to make that highly derogatory comment about a WP:BLP, was an opinion piece, an improper comparison against a 1st year president vs full-term presidents and clearly false and misleading (read the last para in that article) which did indeed raise concerns of vandalism. You know full well the Trump articles are plagued with vandalism so it was a natural reaction under the circumstances, and even if it wasn't vandalism, it was a clear violation of BLP. Perhaps Soibangla needs a refresher in BLP policy so it doesn't happen again: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. I probably should not have self-reverted but I did so in an effort to keep the peace - and I did notify that the edits were challenged, but probably should have explained that it was a BLP vio. Editors here should have seen that as well, yet I'm now seeing an attempt to include it despite BLP, and that may require further attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether it was or was not appropriate for a BLP will be discussed here. You were fully within your rights to remove it - we can challenge anything that we think is controversial - and in fact I agree with you that the material should not be in the article. Not because I think it violates BLP (I don't), but because I think it is UNDUE and that the whole question is infected with recentism and partisanship. Yes, you certainly should have explained why you removed it - in an edit summary at the time, or later when people asked you. It took a while for you to come up with "BLP violation" as your reason, but at least now you have given it. Now let's discuss whether or not to include the material and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It is no more "infected with recentism and partisanship" than are public opinion polls, which are routinely allowed all over the place. In this case, it is a survey of subject matter experts. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Although the referenced NYT article is an opinion piece, closer examination shows the underlying source was this survey, which the NYT links to and displays the results of. I did not reference that source because my understanding is that is an improper "primary source." My edit was not "unsourced or poorly sourced," as you assert. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for self-reverting. Now, on to the material itself - personally I think it belongs in Presidency of Donald Trump rather than here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I will take it there so it can be removed again there. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Soibangla, thank you for bringing this to the talk page. That was the right thing to do. Your two additions were 1) a section about various people rating Trump as one of the worst presidents ever. I think that is out of place in this biography; it's just the opinion of the people surveyed, and it is heavily tainted by recentism and (probably) partisanship. It seems to me we have discussed this kind of addition before, and while there was not a formal consensus, most people seemed to agree we shouldn't include it. And 2) some additional evidence in the "Trump is untruthful" section. IMO that section already has enough evidence and enough WEIGHT, and there is no need to pile on. So I would favor leaving out both of these additions. Or if we add newer material about the truthfulness issue, remove an equal weight of older material. Anyhow, IMO there was nothing wrong with adding this stuff; it is relevant to the article subject and well sourced; and it's too bad the reverter didn't explain (and still hasn't explained) why she reverted it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than "just the opinion of the people surveyed," it's a survey of subject matter experts, as opposed to a common public opinion poll. If my edit is inappropriate here, I suggest the public opinion polling that precedes it should also be removed, which would also mean removing the entire section because that's all that's there. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is important to show the unanimity of the three best-known fact-checkers on the web. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid point. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Build content. There is enough material for a fairly long, and extremely well-sourced separate article. It's a very notable subject, and we do not give it the due weight it deserves, according to RS coverage of the subject. A little more is far from enough, but it's something. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The only legitimate reason for not including it is that it more likely belongs in the presidency article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree about that. This has nothing to do with his presidency. This is about his character - about him personally - and it predates his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right about that. Then include it here. As content grows, if a section gets large enough to create an undue weight problem, we follow the normal procedure and WP:SPINOFF. We don't limit content or remove content to make room for more. That would violate WP:PRESERVE, a policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FactCheck.org characterized Trump as the "King of Whoppers" as a candidate in December 2015 seems too silly/trivial for this page. The Bill Adair remarks are probably fine; it's almost impossible to discuss Trump's chronic lying fairly here (mentioning his bragging about lying to Justin Trudeau [21] would probably be undue). The "worst president" survey probably is best handled on the Presidency page; there are too many caveats to include it here power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is this sorta like what's good for the goose is good for the gander? In other words, if we agree to Fact Check whoppers for Trump, we can apply that same principal to the BLPs of past presidents...such as Obama whoppers? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage that soibangla (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just note that untruthfulness is a defining characteristic of Trump - so much so that we have had for a long time, by consensus, well sourced information in this article that "many of his statements are controversial or false". It's so characteristic of him that even his lawyers realize it; they are afraid to let him talk to Mueller because they think he would almost certainly say some things that are not true and get nailed for lying under oath.[22] We could add a comparable paragraph for Obama for balance, if you like and if consensus accepts it at that page, but a paragraph is the most it could be. The link you give has some valid misstatements about policy - but untruthfulness is not a defining characteristic of Obama as it is universally recognized to be for Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on one's perspective...perhaps this article will jar your memory. A little refresher from time to time serves to make one a bit more appreciative of when BLPs are written from a NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One link, for one source discussing one other source? Speaking of perspective... I propose you look at the totality of reliable sources, not the one tiny fraction that supports your views. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Well, that op-ed is certainly not written from a NPOV. But the FactCheck thing you posted earlier is and it could be used. And there are multiple other articles that could be used,[23] some comparing the two (Trump loses badly), some simply listing falsehoods by Obama. It's a common understanding that "all politicians lie", but it is also universally recognized by Reliable Sources that Trump is in a class by himself. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this is just ye ol' whataboutism, it's just a silly op-ed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the same errors he's compounding over on the Mr. Wales talk page I see, an extremely simplistic "I will balance the negative facts about my guy by digging up negative facts about your guy". The outright fabrications that the current president has made truly are a world apart from the run of the mill truth-stretching (Obama's story of Ms. Dunham being denied for pre-existing conditions) or misstatements ("57 states"). Apples and oranges. TheValeyard (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I know full well that I'm talking to experienced editors who know, or should know, who James Bovard is, and that the article I linked to is chock full of links to multiple RS. Melanie, if "not written from a NPOV" was an auto-disqualifier, there would be far fewer Trump articles in WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A building where academia types belonging to the American Political Science Association meet.

FWIW, and in my humble opinion, the offending passage should stay removed. There are probably thousands of academic associations in the U.S. alone that meet in little ivy covered brick townhouses and which have members who are exceedingly disapproving of Trump. If one wants to fish for disapproving organizations and clubs in Europe to cite, the list likely grows to tens of thousands. The American Political Science Association is insufficiently noteworthy to merit mention of their opinion without pushing both WP:UNDUE and WP:Bias in sources to the breaking point. Greg L (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"The American Political Science Association is insufficiently noteworthy" — Founded in 1903, APSA publishes three academic journals (American Political Science Review, Perspectives on Politics, and PS: Political Science & Politics). APSA Organized Sections publish or are associated with 15 additional journals...Woodrow Wilson, who later became President of the United States, was APSA president in 1909. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, you all might as well desist with invoking the name and beliefs of Mr. Wales; he's like royalty in England: a figurehead with precious little practical power for minor issues like this one. The debate at hand is readily solvable merely by looking towards well established bedrock policy that is the product of decades of debate and consensus by a very large number of wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course you'd be right if they were the only ones espousing those views, or even members of small minority. They are clearly neither. But we can't say much without some kind of attribution, so we have to choose somebody whose viewpoint accurately reflects RS on the subject, and that is what has been attempted here. If you want to nominate somebody else for that role, go ahead, but don't say "well it's just their opinion, and who are they?" It's anything but "just their opinion". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

“[A]nd who are they?” Well… at least you correctly identified the key Wikipedia principle as you trampled upon it. Greg L (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The "key Wikipedia principle" is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT, and I'm not the one trampling on Wikipedia principles. Nominate one or more "somebody else"s to represent overall RS if you like...as I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What’s with those debate skills of yours? With your Nominate one or more "somebody else"s to represent overall RS if you like...as I said, you keep trying to lay down the gauntlet in a lame attempt to put the onus on me to nominate a better source than the biased source that was deleted… and needs to stay deleted. If that displeases you, then you go find proper sources to quote and cite. Greg L (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in this article, but support inclusion at Presidency of Donald Trump. Disapprove of Atsme's behavior over the matter, and frankly part of a troubling pattern lately. When you're referencing James Bovard (a person who loudly espouses fringe opinions to sell books, often referred to as a "blowhard" by critics) to win an argument, you're doing it wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - poorly sourced one-time survey of 170 people to call the US President the worst despite a strong US economy, not to mention it's only his first year, it's dated, and it's noncompliant with RECENTISM - not sure it isn't a BLP violation because of the poor sourcing which is why I took the action I did. I dissapprove of Scjessey's blatant BLP violation - it should be deleted, not just a strike-thru. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk about content, please, not other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Atsme, just about everything in your "oppose" comment is either irrelevant or wrong. Purely disruptive. Your comment is a good illustration of what Scjessey objects to above. You often denigrate RS because you imbibe misinformation from unreliable sources on the pretext that "just wait", your conspiracy theory that Trump is innocent and this Russia business is all fake news designed to harm Trump. He's innocent as a choirboy and not a serial liar and serial adulterer. That pretty much sums up the gist of many of your comments and it's tiring and disruptive. That it's civil makes it even more insidious. Civil tendentious editors create endless discussions. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the original source, from subject matter experts who study these things for a living, as opposed to opinion polls of the ignorant masses. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla -- Poor survey group -- a survey of no particular impact of a side group does not belong. That Political Science professors indulged in emotionalistally calling him 'worst' seems hardly professional or particularly important -- general polls call Obama 2nd worst, it is just a result of recentism. Nor does it seem appropriate to label this group as teh only or even particularly important subject matter experts above say historians or military or businessmen or other candidates. We might equally well (i.e. bad idea) choose to get a rating (likely high) from surveying Miltary for the Foreign policy section or from the Business community for the Domestic section. This would only lead to more clutter of umpteen more paragraphs about minor transitory details in his personal BLP that belong in the Presidential article or not at all. Instead, note that the WP:WEIGHT in outside prominence is to look at broad "approval ratings" and that WP precedent in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States and BLP goes with much larger surveys of broad selection. Unless there is actual, enduring, and significant impact out of this -- it does not belong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asserting "this group as teh only or even particularly important." I have always maintained that the solution to perceived undue weight is not the deletion of content, but rather the addition of other content that provides balance. If another user can produce a survey of subject matter experts saying that Trump belongs on Mt. Rushmore, by all means, have at it. More information is better, let the user weigh the evidence. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• “Blatant BLP violation”? Atsme, get real. And read WP:BLP. The BLP restrictions are about "adding information about living persons" - for example, "serious allegations". It is not about calling someone a mildly insulting name on a talk page. As for James Bovard, you gave a link to indicate that he is an important person we should all know about. I followed the link and found an unreferenced stub. I suspect the only reason it hasn’t been AfDed is that it’s been here since 2008 and nobody has bothered. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, Bovard is an author and lecturer, and the fact that no one has bothered to expand his article is not unusual - we see it all the time in NPP. His Wikiquote article includes a bit more info about his writings, but I figured you are quite capable of finding sources. Perhaps if I said he is highly critical of Trump, there would be more incentive to work the Google. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Oppose"? "Support"? What specifically are you all talking about here - adding another reference for untruthfulness, adding truthfulness information to the Obama article, or adding the surveys about "worst president"? All three have been discussed in this thread and we seem unclear which we are talking about when we say "oppose". Bovard is cited about Obama dishonesty. "Survey of 170 people" is talking about "worst president". If somebody wants to start a survey, please make it into a separate section and clarify exactly what you are proposing to include or keep out. IMO the Obama suggestion should be discussed on that talk page, not here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC) P.S. I am going to set up two discussions below so we can keep straight what we are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, to begin, there actually is a clear BLP violation on this page with the name-calling of Bovard by Scjessey (perhaps you forgot the "common decency" warning I got from Bish for misspelling Papadopoulos?) Secondly, the survey is also a BLP vio: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. The peacock lead-in to the derogatory opinion by Bill Adair and the King of Whoppers is not NPOV. I am dismayed that it is even being considered, especially in light of the George Mason University study that studied the fact checkers: Whether this outcome is desirable depends on your own political predispositions and views of reality. Either way, it is certainly consequential, and therefore well worthy of serious study. In short, PolitiFact’s ratings of political reality cannot help but create their own political reality. And understanding the mediated reality of politics is central to understanding politics itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at who funds the source of that "George Mason University" study. GMU hosts a number of conservative/libertarian thinktanks that have been known to produce dubious "studies" soibangla (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to refer to a blowhard as a blowhard. His vocation is to quite literally spread his questionable views as loudly and as boastfully as possible in order to sell books, which is accurately summed up with the term "blowhard". And if you have reached the point where you are using obscure studies to question the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact to bolster your argument, then your argument is on shaky ground. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I have created sections below where you can present your arguments about the two different types of edit (rankings and truthfulness) under discussion here. Please stop trivializing the important and serious policy WP:BLP by claiming it is violated by a negative or unflattering comment at a talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm not trivializing...it is as serious as the following 2 diffs will demonstrate when a BLP is involved: Bish warned, I wasn't the only one misspelling the name so I joked about the misspellings and was warned, and you responded. Now what was that you were saying about "trivializing"? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to take this discussion to your talk page. It's getting to be clutter here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, stop trivializing BLP and using this as a platform for your grudges. Wikipedia is a reality based community where facts matter. Not 'alternate facts'. Though those can be presented, but as they should be presented. Donald Trump Barack Obama Dave Dial (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So they fact checked obama 599 times over 8 years in office and Trump 532 times over 15 months in office how is that not biased? עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The more lies one tells, the more times the statements must be factchecked. Trump lies a lot more than anyone ever encountered by factcheckers. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your focus on the numbers is revealing, as is claiming the fact checkers are biased. Honestly, if I could put a rule into Wikipedia by fiat, I would state that anyone that states that award winning fact checkers that are trusted sources are "biased", they are forbidden to edit any BLP on the project and banned from all American political articles post 1932. But to answer your question, obviously they fact check Trump more because Trump tells lies like each one earns another golden palace. Dave Dial (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Fact checkers don't check statements like "The sky is blue". O3000 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dang it is getting deep in here, going to have to get some waders, if those are the arguments. PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References
References

Ranking Trump in relation to other presidents

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

---

We are discussing this edit. It did two things. Let’s discuss them separately. In the "Political image" section, should we include this survey ranking Trump in comparison to other presidents? --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have consistently opposed citing public opinion polls in these articles, but this is a survey of accredited experts giving their professional evaluations. I think this is a good source and that it belongs in this biography article. Being worst US President in history is a pretty big deal. Certainly a more noteworthy and enduring personal achievement than Trump's failed career in real estate or the details of his appearances as an entertainer. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I Oppose adding anything about this. It's all opinion (even if it's informed opinion) and IMO it is way, way too early to be assessing his place in history. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• We document opinions here, especially expert opinion. There is no policy-based backing for excluding it, and NPOV requires that we often do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - for several reasons

1. The WP:WEIGHT and norm is about 'approval rating' rather than 'worst' for a Presidential page, personal page, or Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. A 'worst' rating gets into emotionalism and to point to 'the current' seems an observation of recentism from the same groups 2014 survey saying Obama was most wrst, or from the historical rankings page where Obama is now the 2nd worst ever.

   Huh? Did you read your own source? Their 2014 scholarly poll did not rank Obama "most worst"; it ranked him 18th - in other words in the top half. And our "Historical rankings" article shows that in public polling, Obama ranks both second best AND second worst in popular opinion. Please let's keep the discussion here fact-based and not make up our own statistics. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN and aggregate is what the main message is -- but about WORST, that 2014 poll showed 33% viewed Obama as the worst, and thse who view him as the worst outnumber 3 to 1 the next highest (Bush). Again -- the aggregate is the normal or most common and main message, going underneath the aggregate gets into a fringe that is hard to describe and subject to emotionalism and recentism. Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Too WP:NPOV a small/picked group. Generally only overall survey from large numbers and broad groups is prominent, not a select group of Political Science one of many small surveys that run about. This is citing an Opinion piece that indicates the author selected the population to ask. It is already a minor add to the historical ranking article with caveat asterisk for 'during', but this article should not cover each and every survey taken on the Presidency of Donald Trump or even the multiples of prominent surveys (WSJ, Siena, Newsweek, C-SPAN...) as they each go by.
2. Poorly reviewed. That a secondary review of it occurred is taken as reflection of some notability, but the comments by the individual are a criticism of the poll value.
3. WP:OFFTOPIC - there's already too much clutter in here that is not about significant events and actions of Donald Trump. Neither the survey nor the reviewer of it have had demonstrated an effect on Donald Trump's life enough to go in here. If it has has a major and enduring impact about the Presidency, it goes to that article. The only way to stop this article being trivia du jour is to stop putting in trivia du jour -- just stop putting in EvErY item that appears in the morning web.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE, doesn't serve any real purpose for readers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Non-encyclopedic due to lack of compliance with WP:UNDUE and WP:Bias in sources. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Greg L, you really shouldn't post policy acronyms without understanding them. WP:Bias in sources expressly "allows" biased sources. Similarly, people often cite BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE as a reason to exclude negative content about public figures, not realizing that it actually requires inclusion of properly sourced scandals and allegations, even if they are not true, with certainly qualifications. They "should be in" the article. Rather than a protection for public figures, BLP actually provides public figures with less protection than others, just as libel laws do in real life. So know what you're posting. Your objection, just as most others here, is just wikilawyering. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, dear sir; please dismount from your high horse, for you blocketh the sunlight for the mere peons down below. I didn’t know that you were The One who truly understands all on Wikipedia.

  I know full well about BLP and such. I’ve been on Wikipedia quite some time so please desist with your posturing and pontificating. BLP and what it permits for public figures has nothing to do with anything. The issue at hand is whether or not the inclusion of a biased point of view by a biased source was done in an encyclopedic manner to bring balance to the article. Its inclusion was not for that purpose. It was POV pushing. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Greg L: - Its inclusion was not for that purpose. It was POV pushing. May I ask how you know that? (Great Wikipedia stinging riposte, by the way, very impressive.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Thanks for the pat on the back; I’m glad you enjoyed it. How do I know the purpose of that paragraph was for POV pushing? Well, other than our Race and intelligence article, is there another article besides Trump on Wikipedia that is more rife with POV pushing? Pondering the motive behind authoring something that has the effect of POV pushing reminds me of the defense attorney who asked a witness whether he “saw” the defendant bite the ear off the victim. “Well, no,” the witness confessed. “Then how can you possibly conclude my client bit off the victims ear,” the attorney asked? “Because I saw him spit it out,” the witness replied. The paragraph in question was an ear on the floor. Greg L (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Greg L: Sorry, I'm not buying. First, claims of POV pushing here have been about evenly split between claims of pro-Trump POV pushing and claims of anti-Trump POV pushing. I personally think this particular article has less than its share of POV-pushing, and that's supported by the fact that we rarely see anything go from here to AE. But even if your premise were true, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that something that happens to be Trump-negative is POV pushing until proven otherwise, for no other reason than that the article has a lot of POV-pushing. Could be an attempt to balance, if probably not the best of attempts. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Sure; POV pushing is a two-way street. No Wikipedia article should read like a tit-for-tat where someone transcribed Koko, the sign language gorilla: “Trump bad stinky. Koko good.” Greg L (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L:, so under what conditions would you allow properly sourced content which has a biased POV? Are there any policies which would allow or forbid doing so? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The article already reads like "dueling banjos,” BullRangifer. The best solution isn’t to find ever more clever ways to POV-push-left to counter someone else’s POV-push-right. Instead, it is better to invite a small group of well respected and talented wikipedians to collaborate on someone’s sandbox somewhere, start with transplanted content from the current article, and do some military-grade rewriting to produce a new version of the article that is informative and interesting while maintaining a far more encyclopedic tone. Once done, you put it into articlespace. The challenge, insofar as citations go, will be double-tough on Trump because the RSs tend to be just as polarized as the wikipedians that inhabit Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but not the way I approach article writing. I try to let RS determine content and weight. Our job is to document that, and personally I also allow that to form my thinking and beliefs. I shared some of my philosophy on that subject on MastCell's page yesterday. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In 5 years I've never seen such a thing proposed, let alone attempted, let alone work. Just for starters, who decides who's well-respected and talented? Unless you want to actually try something like that, let's do the best we can the way it's always been done—with a small group of Wikipedians with varied respect and talent, most of whom are making a good faith attempt to edit the article per Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The other way has never worked, and it's not based on a broad consensus, but on a cabal of editors who create an article based on their artificial ideas of an "ideal article". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Five years of experience and that informs you that a practice doesn’t exist and isn’t good because you haven’t seen it? Wow. You two seem to enjoy blalthering here on a forgone conclusion (the consensus was clear long ago on this RFC) merely to inflate your self esteem by pretending you know all about how Wikipedia works and feeling like a big fish in a small pond. Goodbye. I have no more need for useless wikidrama. Try LiveLeak. Greg L (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Respondents from the source study are heavily biased politically with 57% identifying as Democrats, 13% as Republicans and 27% as independents. Another breakdown of respondents (self-assessed) is 32% liberal, 26% "somewhat liberal", 24% "moderate", 12% "somewhat conservative" and just 5% conservative. Given that Trump is considered (by himself and Congress) as the most effective President to implement a conservative agenda, there is little wonder that a group of people calling themselves 83% opposed to conservative policies would rank him extremely poorly. For the same reason, I oppose inclusion in the Presidency article. — JFG ^talk 05:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  JFG, please point us to the policy forbidding inclusion because of bias. Is it somewhere in NPOV? Or is it in the new "Trump exemption" policy, being applied liberally on this page, which forbids bias and RS, but only if the bias and RS reflect poorly on Trump? (Outside of Trump-related articles, the normal policies apply to everyone else.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  It's called WP:Common sense. I do not see any "Trump exemption": similar debates consistently yield similar results on other political figures, left, right or center. — JFG ^talk 05:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  BTW, nothing is "forbidden", you've been editing long enough to understand that consensus of editors is the ultimate arbiter of what gets included or not. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, and consensus can violate multiple policies. Now where is the policy forbidding inclusion because of bias? If you can't provide it, you're admitting you're supporting a policy violating censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Policy neither forbids nor forces inclusion of anything. Content is determined by consensus of editors after a reasoned discussion illuminated by policy — JFG ^talk 08:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  !Votes that are not policy-based should not be counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  BTW, thanks for providing proof that you do follow the WP:Trump exemption and literally ignore/violate PAG. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  @BullRangifer: You are misrepresenting my statements. In my comment you just referred to, I wrote specifically that I don't see any exemption for Trump vs any other political figure. And I've been critical of editors claiming any "exemption" for any politician. Your creation of a redirect Wikipedia:Trump exemption pointing to WP:IAR is disruptive and I will nominate it for deletion per WP:POINT. — JFG ^talk 07:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  @JFG:, ???? You are the one who linked to IAR in your rely. WP:Common sense redirects to IAR. Maybe you didn't realize that? You should nominate that redirect for deletion as well, because it is not common sense to IAR in relation to Trump. Your use creates an exemption for him not given to others.

  My point is that multiple policies are being ignored and violated by refusal to add negative material to the article, and you confirmed that view by then using WP:Common sense, IOW, appearing to say that you were comfortable ignoring those policies because you think it's "common sense" to IAR by making an exemption for Trump and thus sparing his thin skin.

  Now does that sound a bit extreme when I really spell it out? YES! (Were you making a WP:POINT violation?? No, because you really believe it.)

  Do you really go that far in your thinking? I doubt it (although your track record of protecting Trump tends strongly in that direction), but the effect of most of the opposes here is the same. They use spurious, non policy-based arguments, to block the addition of properly sourced negative material to this article. That violates BLP, NPOV, and PUBLICFIGURE. That's a sad situation. Trump gets away with far more horrible behavior in real life than any other president would get away with, and that practice of giving him a free card/exemption is happening here, contrary to actual "common sense" and our policies. Don't you see how using the "common sense" redirect doesn't make sense? It's not common sense to spare him.

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE (which means "less" protection) applies to Trump more than to any other living human being, because he is the most notable and public (boastful, etc.) of any president, and therefore, in all justice, he should get less protection than anyone else. He lives that way, and should be treated that way. Although that would be the just thing to do, I'm just asking that PAG be applied to him in the same way as to any other other public figure, and that is not what's happening. A cabal of editors consistently wikilawyer to protect him. They IAR in the ridiculousness of their arguments to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I'm somewhere between BullRangifer and JFG. "Policy requires inclusion" is a step too far in my opinion; on the other hand I've long felt that many of the editors whom I respect allow editorial judgment with loose and vague connection to policy to override reasoning with a clearer connection to policy. BullRangifer has a point: If editorial judgment can weigh that much, who needs policy?
  I feel that, if the instructions at WP:NHC were being followed, we should see some significant fraction of closes go against the numbers; but we don't. That concerns me since it directly affects the connection between article content and content policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is impossible to discuss fairly in the space available here. It might fit at Presidency of Donald Trump, but I haven't looked enough to know for sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. I can't put much weight on a "worst ever" ranking when we're barely a year into his presidency. This sort of punditry needs to wait for the fuller passage of time, and solid reflection. TheValeyard (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Pile-on oppose In spite of my strong opinions on where Trump's presidency ranks out of the 45, the real grade it should get is incomplete for no other reason than it isn't over yet. There is no way to fairly judge his administration against completed ones, especially without any passage of time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose too soon when he hasn't left office yet and perception of him is still highly subject to change based on his activity. Wait at the very least until someone else has been inaugurated before going into such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Additional material about untruthfulness

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

---

We are discussing this edit. It did two things. Let’s discuss them separately. Should we expand the "False and misleading statements" section with additional material from PolitiFact and factcheck.org.? --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We need to avoid cherrypicking primary sources that say he is a liar. So The best source would be a summary article or study about his F&MS. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Factcheckers are as good as it gets. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, but we need DUE WEIGHT as well. Otherwise we could just post a webcam of POTUS and watch him lie in real time. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

^{Now that was funny!! Atsme📞📧 23:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)}

There should be plenty of official videos in secondary sources about his lying. Anything over 30 seconds will have at least one lie. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose adding this additional material. What we have in the article now is factual, numerical evidence, and it comes from the most reliable possible sources (NYT and WaPo). The proposed additions are quotes rather than evidence, and while they add color to the paragraph, they detract from its neutrality. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Undue - serves no purpose. Come back in 4 years and see if he fulfilled his campaign promises. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  His campaign promises are not the issue. No politician is able to carry out all of his/her campaign promises, and some do the opposite of what they promised. That is not what people mean about Trump's dishonesty. They mean he habitually says things that are simply not true - things that are factually inaccurate, contradicted by the record, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  It's such a general statement by his detractors & the resistence - prolly the same ones who said he lied about Trump Tower being bugged and his phones tapped - or when he kept telling people there was no collusion. The point I was making is that the things that matter are whether or not a president keeps his campaign promises...the famous lies we can call-up from memory, like "Read my lips! No new taxes!", "I did not have sex with that woman" or "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." I somehow doubt such derogatory statements are included in their bios. smh ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - He lies autonomically. Let the press document this. Trying to add this here at this point in time will just result in lost hours of debate. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• No - reduce to summary and pointer - This is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC again, and if these go anywhere they should go to the Presidency article with what goes in this article becoming a summary of generic criticised by Fact-check websites and a wiki link to the Presidential article rather than all the quote farm details in both places. The opinion pieces are just not a significant action by or effect on BLP the life of Donald Trump, so simply do not belong here. They look like opinion articles to me anyway without the normally looked-for RS quality indicators or matching to each other, but they do have a general alignment between themselves and some modest WP:WEIGHT for the Presidency. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would oppose putting anything about dishonesty in the Presidency article. This has nothing to do with his presidency. It is about him personally, a character trait, a habitual action - and it long predates his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  MelanieN, while most of it does belong in this article, some mention also belongs in the presidency article, because it's a basic, defining, characteristic of his presidency (more than any other president), just as much as of his personality. "Trump is Nixon on steroids and stilts" (John Dean) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - you're really off today -- the text proposed starts "As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks" and is entirely during and about his presidency. SO a Presidency article item, not a personal life item. There is no text or cite to support the character assassination you are describing, just factual observations of reports from fact-checkers prominently say -- and it's unwise to go into character unless you're willing to include per NPOV that other folks say otherwise or that he's been faithful to campaign pledges and character -- you got exactly the same sort of person he was when he campaigned. Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – This was settled by RfC long ago. The intensity and frequency of misleading statements by Trump has not changed much since he was elected. If anything, it has slowed down a bit. Some media will regularly run a fresh compilation of old and new "whoppers", that doesn't make them any more encyclopedic than they were last time. — JFG ^talk 05:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Add-on: I totally agree about including specific lies from this President, or any other political figure, that have had serious impact or relevance on world affairs (for example, Dubya's dubious justification for the invasion of Iraq), but I don't think there is much encyclopedic value to calling a particular politician a liar or a traitor. Almost all high-ranking politicians have been labeled that way at some point in their career, it just isn't the job of an encyclopedia to pass moral judgment on article subjects, living or dead (see for example how we bend over backwards to avoid calling notorious dictators exactly that). Readers can figure out for themselves how they would evaluate a person, by reading well-documented history of their deeds and misdeeds. — JFG ^talk 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right that it isn't Wikipedia's job to "pass moral judgment". It is our job to document how RS do it, and they do it abundantly. It is a policy violation to fail to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  calling a particular politician a liar or a traitor. May I point out that we do not call Trump a liar or a traitor. We carefully avoid using the word lie or liar; we say "untrue" or "false" instead. That's because "lie" implies a deliberate misstatement which the speaker knows to be false, while untrue or false statements can also result from ignorance or misinformation. We report that he says a remarkable lot of untrue things, because Reliable Sources report that - and they say that his quantity and frequency of misstatements, and his persistence in repeating them even after debunking, are pretty much unprecedented. We do not speculate about whether they are lies (even though some Reliable Sources have used that word). And we have never countenanced any of the occasional suggestions to quote somebody or other calling him a traitor. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I see nothing nearly that strong in wiki voice. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  In fact, see consensus #22 above which specifically says we do not say "lie" or "liar". --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry for being unclear. We say nothing nearly as strong as he says a remarkable lot of untrue things - his quantity and frequency of misstatements, and his persistence in repeating them even after debunking, are pretty much unprecedented - in wiki voice. So it's inaccurate to say that "we report that". Our wiki voice on the subject consists of one sentence in the lead: "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." Much weaker than what you said, and past tense. I do not propose a violation of or modification of #22. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)True, we only bring up the point about false statements in 4 different sections of the article, need to really drive it home. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Since when do we allow a local consensus (#22) to trump policy? (I can't read it on my phone.) I hope it's referring to statements in wikivoice, and not being used to refuse to document quotes which use those words, because lots of very notable persons have said it, with evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  For your phone, #22 says: "Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent." I submit that serious Wikipedia editing can't be done from your phone if it (or Wikipedia's support of it) has that limitation. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I save the complicated stuff for home. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the sub-page that details would be included on? It may not exist due to the ease at which it would become a BLP concern. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Motion A clear consensus exists on a relatively simple matter that isn’t about changing Wikipedia's policies on how one chooses sources to cite, but is a straightforward issue about applying Wikipedia's current guidelines and whether the deleted paragraph was POV pushing or was bringing balance to the article by citing a seemingly biased source. I motion that this RFC be closed. Greg L (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - wildly different reasonings seem to wind up at the same conclusion to not include, do you want more than a couple days discussion or is it time for a WP:SNOW close ? Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: We might as well snowball for oppose; interest in this issue has waned, and the chances of the community converging on a single reason—or set of reasons—for opposing inclusion of the paragraph is nil. So too is the chances a consensus will ever develop to restore the paragraph in question. Greg L (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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