Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

RfC about sharing sensitive info/classified info

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.

---

Should the discussion between Trump and the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting be presented in this article as A) inappropriate sharing of highly classified material, or (B) the sharing of sensitive information for US national defense and to combat the US' and Russia's common threats? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• B - as OP. I have also included a Discussion section below, so please include arguments in that section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• A - Cuz that's what the overwhelming weight of RS state. Does any RS state this was a little post-gas-attack chitchat between allies sharing intelligence? SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• A, as we already have it in the article. because that's how Reliable Sources are describing it. Plus B, Trump's own words, which we also already have in the article. We are mainly focusing on how it has been described by Reliable Sources, and per WP:BALANCE we are also citing how Trump himself described it. In other words the article is good as it is, and this should not be considered an either-or choice. (For my discussion, see the lengthy section above this one.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• B (or something in-between - just say it was shared and there was some controversy). It is a presidential prerogative to share whatever info with whomever he/she sees fits. This was attacked, per norm, from left leaning sources and defended, per norm, by right leaning sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, that's a false issue. RS do not dispute the legal authority of POTUS. RS discussion of this incident discuss its reckless disregard for longstanding intelligence protocols, the absence of US media, the indifference of POTUS to the violation of allies' confidence, etc. And let's not politicize editing decisions here. There were thousands of reports, and how many along what you call the "right-leaning" spin version? SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• B or Find A Different Option- As Icewhiz said, "It is a presidential prerogative to share whatever info with whomever he/she sees fits." I agree with that. I also agree with SPECIFICO said, that the RSs say that is was reckless to share. Option B does not seem as biased as option A. I think we should try to find a different option though.LakesideMiners (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Both or Neither - both of these are views and really the event is a 'reported by' without a confirmation or details, and no unified V opinion so these are just stating hypotheticals as if they are facts instead of WP reporting that two views have been stated. Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• A and B Same as MelaniaN. We of course have to report on how RS and various officials described it - which was that it was A, but should include Trump's view on it. Galobtter (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• A. Does "B" even have independent secondary sources? Or is it just something some Wikipedians made up?  Volunteer Marek  06:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reflect what reliable sources say - the dominant view is A. Maybe B was a defense raised by Trump or his allies, but that's certainly not how it should be stated in Wikipedia's own voice. If B was repeated often enough in reliable sources, then perhaps we can include it with attribution, while making clear that this was a response/defense. But certainly not to the exclusion of A, which is the mainstream view among analysts, scholars, etc. Neutrality^talk 03:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Mostly A in some cases B would be fine as well, although per Neutrality, it should be treated as defense only. Lorstaking (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Atsme, you haven't stated the choice neutrally? Sounds more like a Fox News anchor. Neutral would be like this:

(A) inappropriate sharing of highly classified material, or (B) the sharing of sensitive information for US national defense and to combat the US' and Russia's common threats?

Please consider neutering your wording. RfC's should be neutrally worded. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good, SPECIFICO - you have my blessings to change it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks podner. Will do. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

^{That would be spelled podnah. Atsme📞📧 14:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)}

Per WP:Summary style, I think we’re supposed to do whatever is done at Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We're actually supposed to get the article right before we concern ourselves about style, and it appears to me the article you mentioned also needs to be corrected. Unproven allegations originating from unnamed sources that were not even present at the meeting are questionable at best. PAGs require that we exercise caution in how unproven allegations cited to a primary source are presented, if they are to be presented at all. Common sense tells us that any information that was shared in that meeting would have been declassified first by the Commander In Chief who has the power to do so. With that in mind, the information that was shared could not possibly have been classified because whatever Trump shared was declassified first - common sense. The WH officials who attended that meeting denied allegations that classified information was shared and said the WaPo story was false. There is no denying that sensitive matters were discussed - it was a closed meeting with a counterterrorism partner - a common practice for presidents who are doing their job. Far too much emphasis is being placed on the misinformation that originated from unnamed sources, and has since been debunked. The way it's worded in the article is noncompliant with NPOV, BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE which is why I've challenged it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If the article I mentioned needs to be corrected, then I recommend you start there, not only because of WP:Summary style, but also because more information about the matter is available there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, lorty...one chore at a time for me. I can only do so much reviewing/copyediting/debating/challenging at one time while also trying to help reduce the backlog at NPP and AfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OK podcast. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

^{How sweet of you to acknowledge. You must be a subscriber. I'm probably more of a recruiter for volunteers to help out at NPP and/or AfC. Atsme📞📧 15:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)}

To those who only want B..........Are we going to completely ignore RSes and and and include only the administration's viewpoint? Also I'd like to point out, like Specifico, that while he has legal authority doesn't mean it isn't reckless. That's what some U.S. official described it (from reuters. That is especially true since the intelligence was from Israel and not America's own. (if I remember correctly it also means that israel has classified it, so America cannot really unilaterally unclassify it) Galobtter (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Galobtter, but that isn't how it works. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, basing our text on reliable sources rather than some rant/sentence that some Wikipedian just made up out of thin air is EXACTLY how it works. And it doesn't actually matter how many accounts want to go with the invented sentence. Local consensus cannot trump site wide consensus as captured by WP:RS. Volunteer Marek  21:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And that answer wasn't some rant/sentence that some Wikipedian just made up out of thin air? Local consensus has not only been trumping site-wide consensus, you can throw in a policy or two as icing on that big ole cake but that doesn't get us anywhere. If you want a broader consensus call an RfC, or accept local consensus and smile. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I was essentially quoting from WP:NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Could you explain how NPOV is "not how this works"? Or can you explain how reliable sources haven't been calling it an inappropriate disclosure? Or how it isn't at least a "significant view" among reliable sources? Galobtter (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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.

We should clarify to readers who H-1B visa holders are

One editor removed this piece of clarification for readers[1], describing it as "unnecessary commentary". It's obviously not unnecessary, as it simply explains who H-1B visa holders are (something that most Americans do not know and nearly all non-Americans do not know). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary commentary also, one could instead wikilink the H1B visa, or replace it with “worker visa”. I think googling shows RS using H1B so that should be used. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant that an opioid strategy was promised in February 2017

This is the edit that I want to do[2]. It is relevant and it's noted by the New York Times. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Snoo... No, that’s trivial coverage. Anything significant about the US Presidency would be headlined in dozens of papers and media sites. Come back if the London Times takes notice. Markbassett (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Popular vote

We should clarify, that the national popular vote difference was entirely in one state, California. If you remove California from the picture, Trump wins the national popular vote by about 1.5 million. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• If we include this, we should also clarify that the electoral vote difference was entirely in one state, Texas. If you remove Texas from the picture, neither candidate wins 270 electoral votes. Davey2116 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump would've still led in the EC vote though, 268-232, a majority out of 500. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's true. If Clinton won Texas, then she would win, 270-268. That represents a reversal of a 9-point Trump victory in Texas, while the California stat represents an elimination of a 30-point Clinton victory there. Davey2116 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If Trump won California, he'd win the EC vote 361-177. So again, California is the lone difference in the popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• He already won the EC vote. If Clinton won Texas, she'd win the popular vote. So again, Texas is the lone difference in the electoral vote. Davey2116 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

But that didn't happen. We're talking about what actually happened. Clinton won the national popular vote because of one state, California. That's why I suggesting it be added to this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, folks. It's up to ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And if my aunt had balls, I'd call her uncle. Encyclopedias don't deal in hypotheticals. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

To pile on; this discussion is very silly, and none of the proposals should be anywhere near the article text. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

GoodDay - there were reports talking re Trump won 2,626 of the 3,141 counties, or put another way Trump Won 3,084 of 3,141 Counties, the heartland, and Clinton Won 57 of the coastal elite (esp big cities). But the 'if you exclude California' is ahypothetical -- and WP avoids such. In any case, you'll have to propose any edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Whenever anyone argues about removing California from the picture, I'm reminded of this tweet: "Los Angeles County (red) has a larger population than each of the 43 individual states shown in blue." -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Repealed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Under the Abbreviated timeline for March 2017, it is claimed that the President "repealed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act." Any person understand what this is referring to (not supported in the references)? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A rule adopted by the Department of Education under the Obama administration regarding enforcing that law was disapproved by Congress. President Trump signed that disapproval into law, but that is far from repealing the ESEA. I have removed the repeal reference. SMP0328. (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the lead of this article so short?

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profane Username (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The answer is pretty simple. It's because no one has bothered to follow our rules for a lead section. A good rule of thumb is that every topic worthy of a section should receive short mention in the lead. A longer and more important section will receive longer mention. Here is my essay on the subject: How to create and manage a good lead section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So what can we do about it? I'll read your essay, thanks. Profane Username (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Per source"

9 in 10 readers don't know what Temporary Protected Status is. WaPo describes it as "provisional residency permits".[3] If we abide by the source while also keeping in mind readability, we ought to use "temporary residency permits" or "provisional residency permits" rather than "Temporary Protected Status". Unless, of course, the intent is to obfuscate and confuse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure the 9 people you know, but temporary protected status is very self explanatory. Yes WaPo says provisional once and TPS 16 times with TPS being the common term used in both sources listed. Also provisional is slightly different than temporary, with temporary more accurately describing the situation. Especially since it was subject to constant renewal. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind adding "which gave them provisional residency permits" after the first mention of TPS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I would be fine with that, sounds good. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Percentage who left Trump admin

I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I have reverted it on the basis that it was unsourced and rather inartfully added. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump re-election committee

@PackMecEng: - The text in my edit is supported by reference 16 [4]. I didn't duplicate the footnote. I'd appreciate it if you could review that source and reinstate my text, which accurately represents the source and gives background and context for the historic early announcement. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It is supported by that source in the sentence after the text you added. We would either have to add that ref to the first sentence or rewrite it to have the info in the second sentence. That is why I specified the text added was not supported by the refs in that sentence. Which would you rather do? PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be OK with removing the second sentence entirely or else I would be OK copying the reference to the first sentence as well. What do you think is better? SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine killing the second sentence to make way for your addition and just moving the ref up to the first. Want me to make the change or would you rather? PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take care of it thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans PackMecEng (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection Lock

Although the article is pending changes protected it does not have any indication on the main article and is missing a pp template. EstablishedCalculus 05:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Added and extended Coffee's protection, expiring next month, another three years because of obvious reasons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Tariffs on solar panel imports

Reading a Bloomberg source cited about tariffs on solar panel imports, I adjusted the text[5] to better represent the source's contents. Bloomberg cites a number of industry experts, who express balanced views about the tariffs, some of them even praising the decision. The article text was only focusing on the potential negative consequences. @Snooganssnoogans: I disagree with your revert. Let's open the discussion to other editors. — JFG ^talk 02:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit introduced false balance and OR. The Bloomberg source was clear in its description that this harmed the solar energy industry, which is overwhelmingly involved in installations, but also included some speculation by investors that it would be good for the small industry of American manufacturers (less than 1% of all solar jobs are in the manufacturing of panels). The Bloomberg source did not acknowledge that the tariffs would or be likely to improve outcomes for those in solar panel manufacturing. And they were correct to. Research shows that past tariffs of this kind had no effect on the industries that they were meant to protect[6]. The NYT source is even clearer than the Bloomberg source: "Energy experts say it is unlikely that the tariffs will create more than a small number of American solar manufacturing jobs... Solar manufacturing now represents just a fraction of the overall jobs that have developed around the solar industry. More than 260,000 Americans are employed in the sector, but fewer than 2,000 of those employed in the United States are manufacturing solar cells and modules, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, NY Times source focuses on criticism, and I left that part alone. The Bloomberg source is much more nuanced, please read it again. Here are all reactions quoted by the source:

• “We are inclined to view it as posing greater trade risk for all types of energy.
• Arizona-based manufacturer stands to gain as costs for competing, foreign panels rise.
• The Solar Energy Industries Association projected 23,000 job losses this year.
• The duties are lower than the 35 percent rate the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended in October.
• I don’t believe this decision will reverse the solar expansion in the U.S.
• Despite higher anticipated costs, American solar installers including Vivint Solar Inc. and Sunrun Inc. jumped in after-hours trading.
• The tariffs are “exactly what the solar industry asked for behind closed doors.”
• The duties won’t be entirely devastating for the U.S. solar industry.
• They will likely prove insufficient in magnitude and duration to attract many new factories.
• Suniva thanked Trump for “holding China and its proxies accountable”.
• SolarWorld said it “appreciates the hard work of” Trump and is “hopeful” the tariffs will be enough to rebuild solar manufacturing in the U.S.
• Sunrun said that while the decision lifts “a cloud of uncertainty,” it runs counter to “consumers, bipartisan elected officials, many military personnel, and the 99 percent of American solar workers whom this tariff will harm in the coming years.”
• Rooftop solar installer Sunnova Energy Corp. said the tariffs will not deter the industry.
• China’s JinkoSolar Holding Co. said the tariffs were “better than expected”.
• “recklessly irresponsible and a thinly veiled attack on clean energy.”
• The Solar Energy Industries Association warned the tariffs will delay or kill billions of dollars of solar investments.

Really, the reactions are mixed, and focusing only on the negative impact is POV. — JFG ^talk 03:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, what individual investors think or the dealings of one particular company is irrelevant and undue. Investors are not economists, and whether or not something increases the stock of one firm does not belong on a crowded Wikipedia page such as this one. Why you are pushing for some protectionist pseudoscience and false balance is beyond me. It's at least not consistent with the Bloomberg source or the far better and comprehensive NYT source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing for pseudoscience" (where the hell did you get that idea?), not even false balance, just balance. I was casually reading this article, the sentence looked one-sided, so I read the sources and discovered (even to my surprise) that reactions were mixed. It's POV to cherry-pick only negative reactions in our coverage. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no "reaction" in the existing version of Wikipedia article. What some random solar panel installers, investors and manufacturers are saying is of zero encyclopedic interest and value. The article describes NYT's and Bloomberg's descriptions, not the random reactions that are included in those articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, we trust journalists at NY Times and Bloomberg to do their job, and Bloomberg did take the trouble of publishing mixed reactions from many sources. Not for us Wikipedians to judge whether reaction X is more valuable than reaction Y. — JFG ^talk 13:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't cover any reaction. You are asking that we make an exception to this and cover what some random investors are speculating just to present WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We cover what RS cover. If a RS provides diverse opinions (which, as I wrote earlier, I was even surprised to read), we must reflect that in our summary: that's all I did. If you still disagree, we could take this to WP:NPOVN. — JFG ^talk 13:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We have literally never covered what random-ass individuals say to newspapers. Should we go ahead and add this white supremacist's theories on racism[7] as a rebuttal to all the research cited on Discrimination based on skin color? How about when RS talk to some diners in a West Virginia coaltown and they start talking nonsense about climate change - should we add that to the Climate change article? Why not? Apparently, we just cite random-ass opinions printed in newspapers. Unless, your position is just to do this when it suits your political biases... as is now the case when we should go out of our way to cite an investor's uninformed take on the economics of trade, so that Wikipedia can promote protectionist pseudoscience. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: (i) what a RS reports in its own words and descriptions is valid for inclusion (e.g. Bloomberg calling the action a blow to the renewables industry), (ii) experts on a given topic cited in RS on that topic are valid for inclusion (e.g. energy and trade experts describing the likely effects of an action related to trade and economics), (iii) non-experts talking trash (e.g. an investor speculating, the owner of a company saying something) is not valid for inclusion. Was this ever in doubt? It's especially egregious when a RS covers #1-#3 and Wikipedia editors want to insert #3 into text as a false balance to #1 and #2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to be vigilant to prevent cherrypicking to create false "neutrality" that ends up making Wikipedia an adjunct of the White House Press Office. The intention and the effect of this tarriff is to harm the US solar economy. Period. The overwhelming RS discussion of this gives detailed explanations of the complex mechanisms of this and its origins in the lobbying efforts of fossil fuels interests. I support Snoog's revert of the POV version. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New reporting on payments to Melania's friend

This needs to go in the article, I think. Inaugural Committee payments. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tax Cuts

I would argue that the statement in paragraph 2 that addresses the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 omits the fact that 80-90% of taxpayers will receive a tax cut. I feel that the current statement is biased in that it focuses on corporate and estate tax cuts while minimalizing personal tax cuts:

" In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut corporate and estate taxes, and increased some income taxes while cutting others" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Wester (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WaPo article about Don Jr. Conflict of Interest issue

Today's Washington Post carries a discussion of possible COI relating to real estate sales on a trip to India by DT Jr. here SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Notable Departures Table Warrant a Sub-Page of its Own

Rather than continuing to grow the table on the existing Presidency of Donald Trump page, is there a consensus if this table should be moved to its own sub-page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librariansomeday (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Librariansomeday TALK for the Donald Trump article just proposed something like this as a related article here -- and found there were already two lists: List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments and List of Donald Trump dismissals and resignations. (There may be more among the so much Trump coverage.) I'm thinking that the section is not an independent topic suitable to be an article page, but might make for a third list page in order to shorten this one up. More than that pruning would seem necessary for covering his second year in office but this seems a helpful idea. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would favor deleting the table from this page and just linking to List of Donald Trump dismissals and resignations. This article is getting too long already. Orser67 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"Most Hawkish in history"?

I feel like this is a pretty big stretch. Trump has proven to be surprisingly hawkish but the article cited here is talking about Bolton being hired- that doesn't inherently mean "one of the most hawkish in history". His most "hawkish" actions were two limited bombings in Syria, not exactly in the annals of most 20th century (or heck, many 19th century) presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.242.114 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans already removed it, and I agree. We can't have blanket statements like that based on just one single source. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A fresh approach

We're obviously dealing with different perspectives and a substantial number of editors at the round table trying to determine the best way to present the most notable aspects of Trump's presidency. The bigger question is how much of what we consider newsworthy today has what it takes to survive long term. I am still of the mind that we should maintain consistency across the board based on the precedent already set by prior Presidency of... articles; those articles have withstood the test of time. No one is denying that some of Trump's statements have been falsehoods/misstatements or that he exaggerates; however, not all people consider all of the covfefe to be falsehoods which is why we need to focus on the most notable. If you will, liken it to Obama's "you can keep your doctor" ^ubiquitous, G.W. Bush's "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction" ^{Bush's Address to the Nation, October 7, 2002, Ohio,} and Bill Clinton's, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ^{Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal}.

• Please read the following FiveThirtyEight article, dated Oct 5, 2017, as it supports what I have attempted to relay regarding reactive media coverage, et al: FiveThirtyEight, Does The Media Cover Trump Too Much? Too Harshly? Too Narrowly?

I would like to see the NPOV issues in this article resolved, but it doesn't matter where we begin or how long it takes to get the job the done - more importantly is getting the article right; WP has no deadline. Of particular note - the section "Notable departures" (which wikilinks to a list with more editorializing) - is among the first that belongs in the fixit column. The section, Reasons Behind Departure is noncompliant as it appears now. See the Politifact article titled, How does Trump White House turnover compare with Bush, Obama?, which states In context, the speed of Trump’s hires and fires have been surprising, but not unprecedented across the board. Trump's first year may well represent the highest turnover in decades but it is not unprecedented so what makes it notable? All I can think of without getting into speculation based on POV arguments is the manner in which some of the staff were fired; i.e. Tillison via a tweet. The editorialized/POV/speculated reasons need to be removed, including Trump fires chief diplomat Tillerson after clashes, taps Pompeo which shamefully reads like a breaking news headline. Taps Pompeo? Excuse me, but to "tap" someone is commonly used to mean something entirely different. Fact: the WH did not provide a reason for firing Tillerson.

What we can verify is the tweet by Trump, and the response by Goldstein who said Tillerson: "did not speak to the president and is unaware of the reason". The NYTimes corroborates that fact as do other news sources (excluding journalistic opinions and speculation which are debatable). We use in-text attribution when presenting contentious opinions, and we do not present opinions as statements of fact, especially in Wikivoice as was done in that table. I didn't find anything similar in any of the other "Presidency of..." articles, nor do those articles go into such detail about staff hiring/firing. Were they good decisions? Well, if we take into consideration the unprecedented progress with North Korea and what multiple RS have reported, it appears that it was a good decision: USA Today, WaPo, Telegraph, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The PolitiFact piece about turnover rate is only about the first six months of Trump's presidency and it's only about five positions. Here's PolitiFact in March 2018: "the turnover in Trump’s White House is certainly unprecedented."[8] NY Times: "unprecedented"[9]. NPR: "A full 43 percent of top-level positions in the Trump White House have seen turnover. That is not normal."[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree with removing the entire “notable departures” section, keeping only the section title, the hatnote “Main article: List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations”, and the opening, summary paragraph - hopefully updated with more recent data, as per Snooganssnoogans. (In fact, Snoogans, I'd encourage you to go ahead and update that paragraph right now.) We already have a whole article about this subject, we shouldn't reduplicate it here; that’s exactly what spinoff articles are for. Good suggestion.

But as for the falsehoods section - sorry. We needs to be reporting the PATTERN of his misstatements; they are too voluminous, and too much a notable characteristic of the man, to dismiss with a few examples. It’s not “he falsely said A, B, C, and D.” It’s “Making false statements is habitual with him and is the most noteworthy feature of the man’s speech.” We can’t follow precedent, because there is no precedent. No other president has had such a section, because no other president has been like Trump in this regard, as countless articles and academic papers have attested. There is already a discussion going on about this, as you well know. Please don’t try to create a metastasis of that discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: How important would say it is in relation to his presidency as a whole? PackMecEng (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I do think it’s important that we have the section “Leadership style and philosophy” (although some of the duplication and overciting in that section could be trimmed - and it could be called just “Leadership style”, we don’t really have anything about philosophy). Because his leadership style is SO different from other presidents. The misstatement issue absolutely has to be part of it. Possibly we could also have a subsection about his habit of “winging it” - nominating people without any vetting,[11] improvising policies from his gut without consulting the relevant agencies[12] or allies[13], and implementing changes without getting advice or considering the consequences.[14][15] Maybe not. But his unusual personality traits are key to how he is implementing his presidency, in a way that would not be important for a more disciplined and traditional executive. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not nessicarly have an issue with a section on his style or even "unusual personality trails". (hehe I will have to steal that line if you don't mind) I am just concerned that it is starting to overshadow other parts of the article that are more impactful as a whole. I get the feeling we head a little to much into the weeds with the falsehoods part, and still feel the original size of the section was more appropriate. Just to make clear my view, I am not saying there should be no mention or even a small section either I just want to find a way to give it proper weight in proportion to the rest of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question, PackMecEng - the time frame covers a few months more than the first year of Trump's presidency. The turnover comparison in the RS cited by Snoogans:

• Politifact includes the Bush, Obama administrations.
• The NYTimes states: A New York Times analysis of 21 top White House and cabinet positions back to President Bill Clinton’s first term shows how unusual the upheaval is through the first 14 months of a presidency.
• The NPR article quotes Trump as saying: "Yeah, there'll be people — I'm not going to be specific — but there'll be people that change," Trump said at a Tuesday afternoon press conference. "They always change. Sometimes they want to go out and do something else."

If the material is presented matter-of-factly in compliance with NPOV - great! But I have to ask, does a staff change meet the requirements of DUE when considering the big picture? Perhaps this information is better suited in the existing stand-alone list (without the editorializing). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should try to make this article more like the other presidency articles in terms of depth of coverage. Those articles don't cover minor issues and controversies, and neither should this article. If nothing changes, this article is going to end up at well over 200kb (it's currently at 109kb) of readable prose, which is gigantic per Wikipedia:Article size. The main issue with this article is that many sections go into far too much detail, but there are also unnecessary sections like the "first year" timeline and the "notable departures" table. Orser67 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy to meet your acquaintence, Orser67. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

My basic approach to editing is to let the available sources dictate the content. The sources tell me we are dealing with no ordinary person.

No two persons or presidents are the same, and the written documentation and sources available will not be the same either. With Trump we're dealing with a totally different type of person and president, and that is already evident in the amount of coverage, number of sources, amount of controversy, etc. which surrounds him, and he wouldn't have it any other way. If he doesn't get more coverage than anyone else in history, he'll be very disappointed. He seeks attention and gets it. That equals loads of more coverage.

He's a businessman, playboy, celebrity, and politician who broke nearly all the molds and did things no one else has done. He's very much bigger than life. He is the "most notable" person in many ways. That will automatically affect how we cover him, and we must not even think of trying to limit his coverage or try squeezing his life into the same smaller boxes used for more ordinary presidents. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well said. I have been thinking along those lines myself. As a non-American I wonder too if this is one case where sources need to significantly include those from countries outside the USA. This particular President has garnered far more attention outside his own country than most, and mot primarily for foreign affairs matters. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, material published in online news sources ≠ automatic inclusion. WP is not a complete exposition of all possible details. In fact, there's a note [1] in WP:NOTEVERYTHING that suggests a similar principal. We're supposed to summarize accepted knowledge, and while some news orgs are considered reputable for fact-checking, we still need to exercise caution regarding breaking news, RECENTISM, and be able to recognize that journalistic opinions are not statements of fact. There are also size limits that deserve consideration. Sound editorial judgement and good collaboration will make the right determinations. In fact, I'm looking forward to collaborating with Orser67 who has done excellent work on articles of past presidents, and Factchecker_atyourservice, another excellent writer who cites quality sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

All of which completely ignores the point some have been making here, that Trump is different, more different than any who have gone before. Nobody is arguing that we should ignore sources, or use poor ones. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not at this article, but there are issues at the dossier article with biased and in some cases crappy sourcing being used to justify reprinting sections of the dossier that, so far as it seems to me, haven't been discussed in high-quality sources. Specific accusations of treason that have been ignored by reputable sources should be ignored on WP.

Separately, a number of staunchly anti-Trump British journos are being used overwhelmingly for the fact sourcing, IMO presenting a more biased picture than is found even in reliably liberal mainstream US sources such as NYT/WaPo, which two sources I have used as the baseline of my own prose. For example Julian Borger of Guardian repeats dossier allegations that Carter Page orchestrated the Wikileaks data dump and I don't believe any U.S. newspaper, let alone a top one, dignified that in print. And of course as mentioned on the talk page there's the music website being used as a 7-time fact source for dossier allegations(!), which somebody graciously removed after I pointed it out but then it was reinstated, because, hey, discretionary sanctions. And there was the Cosmo sex and relationships writer whose bio literally said "I'm not that serious", those English words, as a fact source for a dossier allegation.

User:BullRangifer has since argued the section was "overlinked", suggesting that such things were actually supported by better sourcing which, for some reason, was allegedly removed while leaving the worse sourcing in place, but I have looked briefly for better sourcing on some of those claims and came up empty. Example using the case just cited above, when I google Carter Page "Wikileaks", the best source I see (note, that first NYT hit is talking about something else) is an article in Vox, a hard-left website founded in 2014, written by a former ThinkProgress blogger and someone who is admittedly a billed as "senior reporter", but, again, it's a hard-left website founded in 2014. So that's just one non-high quality source for a claim of treason which, if we were at war with Russia, Carter Page could be executed for. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no accusations of "treason" in the current article. So this can be put to bed. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I said we are not in a declared war with Russia and so it's not treason but that doesn't change the fact it would still be criminal if true and thus the fact it's not treason doesn't "put the issue to bed"—I'm not sure what you think that phrase means. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please state your concern as clearly and specifically as you are able, annotated with diffs and sources, and ask a specific question or suggest an edit. Otherwise nothing will be resolved or improved. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Obvious WP:EXCEPTIONAL violations are obvious. The specific ones I mentioned are specifically problematic, but there are probably others that I have not checked myself. What more would you like to know? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ronny Jackson flap

Noteworty nonsense. Needs coverage. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the withdraw from the VA position? PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good place for it in this article. There are several other articles where it could be mentioned, such as the Cabinet article, where it is already covered in detail. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that Jackson's antics around POTUS' check-up received undue coverage in Trump's bio and as you may recall I stated that content related, if anywhere, to the subject of his Presidency, not his health. Now I have suggested at the bio talk page that we remove part of the undue recentism relating to the physical. IMO that bit is purely political and unrelated to his personal health. It responds to media speculation of the sort we normally don't confuse with the underlying facts or subject.

Anyway, in terms of this article I thought this content might relate to what RS broadly call a recurring pattern of sycophantry and enablement on the part of aides and associates. We'd need to scope out the extent and sources on that. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, by chance do you have any extra time to see if there's a pattern of campaign promises he has/hasn't kept? For some reason, I'm thinking that would be far more interesting and relevant to his presidency than his staff selections...IOW, is he getting the job done? j/s ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I wouldn't consider that to be worth researching. For many reasons. Campaign promises are almost never kept exactly as advertised, because there is a legislative process to go through and nobody's promises emerge unscathed. SPECIFICO, I don't think "pattern of sycophancy" is worth doing either. All presidents are surrounded by kissups and enablers, it's the nature of the position. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN could you cite anyone from the Jimmy Carter Administration who said he would live to 200? Anyone video where the whole cabinet went around the table saying they were "blessed to be serving" Pres. Reagan? We needn't go down the list. Your statement is so broad as to be meaningless and any interpretation of it would rest on a false equivalence. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that this is worth covering on this page, except perhaps in a single sentence. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is an obscure position, and his nomination had little impact on policy. Even just a year from now, no one will care about this, and neither should we. Orser67 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Orser, this issue arose out of undue coverage of Trump's 2018 physical exam at the Donald Trump#Health section of his biography. The issue is whether, if any of that content is needed on WP, it belongs in his bio or whether instead it relates to his Presidency. The reason it might be appropriate for this article is that the commotion over his 2018 physical was one of a large class of incidents in which staff and associates displayed undue sycophancy and enablement of factual misrepresentation by Pres. Trump. If I have clearly stated the question, what do you think is appropriate? I think it's fair to say that RS report that the extent of such behavior under Pres. Trump is unprecedented and that it is politically and civically significant in shaping public opinion and American policy. SPECIFICO talk 12:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner. Thank you for the polite reply and explanation. My general viewpoint is that the flap over Trump's health is one of those minor controversies that isn't worthy of inclusion due reasons laid out by the Wikipedia:NOTNEWS policy. I could see a paragraph about Trump's alleged indulgence of sycophancy in the "leadership style and philosophy" section, assuming that it is presented in a neutral manner. But I definitely oppose a section devoted solely to Jackson's nomination. Orser67 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Declines in foreign enrollments

I decided not to remove the following newly added material by Snooganssnoogans at this time thinking perhaps the POV issue could be fixed, but then I wondered if the information itself, which is basically a snapshot in time that will fluctuate over time, has any longterm encyclopedic value. It may serve a better purpose in a US immigration chart or list of some sort.

Currently in the article: Under Trump, there was a decline in the number of foreign visitor visas (such as visas for tourists, students and temporary workers) that were issued compared to the last fiscal year under Obama. Analysts partially attributed the decline to increased procedural and legal hurdles imposed by the Trump administration.[390] According to a survey of American colleges, the number of newly enrolled international students declined by 7% in the fall of 2017.[390] The number of F1-visas (a type of visa commonly issued to foreign students) declined by 17% by the fall of 2017.[391]

Proposed text

Instead of starting a sentence with "Under Trump..." which is not the best grammar considering what's been under him, how about "During the first year..." and balance the material in compliance with NPOV:

During the first year of the Trump administration, fewer visas were issued for foreign visitors than were issued in the prior fiscal period, including visas for tourists, students and temporary workers. Analysts have attributed the decline in part to increased regulations and Trump's hardline stance on immigration. Research indicated a flattening of international student enrollment beginning in 2016, with the US losing its share of "educated immigrants" in part to affordability issues, and the lure of English speaking countries. While there are many variables that affect international student enrollment, some college administrators attribute the decline to Trump's restrictive views on immigration, including more closely scrutinized visa applications, and indefinite travel bans from some countries. In the Open Doors snapshot survey, the universities that responded indicated a 7% average decline in new international students by Fall 2017. It was also noted that the "most selective universities - those that admit less than a quarter of applicants - continued to report growth in new international student enrollments."

I cited the NYTimes and Inside Higher Ed using links. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Your version is worse. It's way longer, it misrepresents the source (it doesn't say anything about affordability issues for int students), contains trivial info (a flattening in 2016, continuing attractiveness of the most selective unis) and leaves out that F1-visas have plummeted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources corroborate what I’ve summarized - they both mention the 2016 drop and so do multiple other sources. Your version is a cherry picked POV using lesser quality sources and details that aren’t necessary because they fluctuate. Similar drops occurred in the Carter, Bush and Obama administrations. I’m leaning more toward removing the material because, like other surveys, it lacks long term encyclopedic value. MelanieN, what are your thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources say there was a flattening in 2016. My sources are CNN and Politico, and they essentially contain the same info as the two sources you cited. All four sources say that the decline in visas and foreign student enrollment can be partially attributed to the policies of the Trump administration. If newer figures and more comprehensive assessments dispute that or further support that, then those sources can be added to the article and our text updated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. IMO this is not worth mentioning at all. It's not really about the Trump presidency, and it has not been WIDELY covered. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like EvergreenFir reinstated the material after Atsme challenged it. EvergreenFir should self-revert since this is a consensus required article. PackMecEng (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted because the reason for removal was simply wrong. It was clearly related to the article. Not sure I'd call that a challenge, just a mistake. But I'll self revert pending discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wait, Atsme--you decided not to remove it but then you did? Melanie, I do think this has some place in the article: in the community of students, foreign and otherwise, and in the universities this is a big deal, and seen as related to the president. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• And by the way, the NYT article clearly puts the Trump policies front and center. It's not "some" administrators, but "many" administrators (that is really an unacceptable change), and that "other" reasons are mentioned doesn't mean that those other reasons are just as important. The Inside Higher Ed article takes the same tack: there are many reasons, but the ones cited by the majority are clear: "Among institutions that responded to the survey, 68 percent cited the visa application process or visa denials and delays as a reason for declining new enrollments, up 35 percentage points from last year, and 57 percent cited the social and political environment in the U.S., up 41 percentage points from last year. Other factors cited included the cost of tuition and fees (57 percent of respondents also cited this) and competition from universities in other countries (54 percent)." Now you may argue that these percentages are pretty close to each other, that does not take into account that the first two are significantly increased, as Inside Higher Ed notes. So I understand what you're doing, but I can't let you flatten everything into "there's so many factors it doesn't matter". Drmies (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• It's puzzling to remove this from the article. Mainly because it's not a POV issue. It relates to the effectiveness and consequences of a central Trump Administration policy and its messaging. This has been discussed in RS around the world since at one point there were well over half a million cash-customer higher education F-1 students in the USA. Presumably it's a feather in Trump's cap to put a damper on that. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - as I explained above, I was teetering on removal thinking we could make it fit, but Snoogans response and a bit more research contributed to my decision to go ahead and challenge the material per DS, and start a discussion. Quite frankly, the deeper I got into the research, the more it became clear that the material was UNDUE for this article. The variables are significant and RS have indicated several factors that contributed to the decline but the only comprehensive survey of the 2 was for 2016 (enrollment numbers on a 1-year delay), and the second is a preliminary survey based on fall 2017 enrollments. The NYTimes is a RS, and the budgetary cuts of the institutions they included are fact-based and real....however, it is speculation to say matter of factly that it was because of Trump's views on immigration. The NYT's article states: International enrollment began to flatten in 2016, partly because of changing conditions abroad and the increasing lure of schools in Canada, Australia and other English-speaking countries. They also said that the cutbacks being made by some colleges/universities this time around are brought on in large part, by a loss of international students. I am not convinced that the sources are sayingTrump's views on immigration are the main reason for the bulk of the decline of international enrollment in our universities nationwide, but I do believe it has some effect, and may be something to consider after he serves a full term. Inside Higher Ed stated: However, despite the 7 percent drop in new international students, the overall picture for this fall is mixed and suggests a divergence of trends depending on the selectivity, type and geographic location of a given university. Call it NOTNEWS or UNDUE, either way, based on a single prelim survey and RS that attribute other factors, the material doesn't belong in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• The topic does not really seem due a mention here - it's not directly an executive action or a specific major event the president responds to, it's just a note that foreign enrollments are down and of several reasons speculated, some undefined fraction may be some vague relationship to Donald Trump. This all would need a more professional study to sort out the factors and relative importance. I won't speculate for additional possible reasons in educational trends or home-country reasons, but I will note that big swings happened before at F_visa#Number_of_visas_issued_from_1997_onward, and this may be a better place to put the input. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The first year of Trump's presidency

The first year of Trump's presidency timeline misses lots of notable events[16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trimming session

I trimmed approximately 10% of the articles (measured in bytes).[17] Nearly all of the trimming seemed uncontroversial to me. A large part of the trim was removal of redundant sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I see you you trimed about 7kb from the readable prose. Currently with all the trimming it is at 102kb and 109kb before. Mostly removing reliable sources while inserting negative information. I am not sure I agree with the majority of the edits as an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The trimming seemed good to me. Do you have any specific concerns? Neutrality^talk 01:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Besides all the RS that were removed and the majority negative information added? PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you specifically identify portions that were removed that you want to keep, or portions that were added that you think should be removed (or reworded)? Neutrality^talk 02:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall adding much of substance beyond the AJPH study in my first edit (it's why I came to this article in the first place today)[18]. 90% of the reliable sources that were removed were redundant in terms of: a CNN source and a NYT source carried the same info and one of them was deleted in the trim (I don't see such removals as controversial, do you?). The rest of the RS were deleted because they sourced text that was mundane and trimmable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure the start would be the restoration of all RS. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But most of the RS are obviously redundant. Do we really need two-three sources for "On date X, Trump signed executive order Y"? All the non-obviously redundant sources are for text that was trimmed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

2-3 is fairly standard for just about anything in american politics areas, plus wasnt it you a while back that said after adding almost 20 sources to a sentence that readers might like more info on the topic? PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My position has always been that multiple sources are OK when: 1) there are no size constraints to an article, 2) the text is likely to be contested, 3) in particular when it concerns academic studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Lucky sources do not have an impact on size constraints since they are not part of the readable prose. PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you saying that additions in the form of sources do not contribute to slower upload speeds for readers and make it harder to edit the page? This is the clunkiest and slowest page I've edited on Wikipedia. I assumed that it had to do with the size of the article in the form of bytes. You're saying that's not the case? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally size issues are handled by WP:SIZE which has to do with readable prose. I personally don't have an issue loading the page but that is just anecdotal if I'm honest. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Then this edit the Pruitt stuff is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A study in a top public health journal assessing Pruitt's tenure is precisely the kind of stuff that should be included in this and other Wikipedia articles. I would actually say that the AJPH study is the single best source in this whole article. It's a comprehensive assessment authored by experts and published in a top journal. The study analyses all existing media reports, as well as conducts interviews with current and past EPA officials and experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And is still largely undue for the article. Yes it is well sources, that does not give it automatic inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next no reason to reorder out of chronological order and the meeting with sheriffs does not belong. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can go ahead and delete the sheriffs meeting if you want. Regarding the reordering, it's been my thinking that each section should preferably start with a comprehensive assessment and review by a high-quality RS of actions taken by this administration in a given sphere over its tenure. These assessments are then updated with more recent and comprehensive assessments. This seems fairly uncontroversial to me, but should maybe be the subject of a separate discussion on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah there is lots of reordering here so you are probably right that it should get it's own discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next no need to drop his stated support for medical marijuana. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a statement by Sean Spicer in early 2017. It's the only instance where a statement by the WH spokesperson is cited as a "position by the administration" (for what it's worth, there are not a lot of "WH says this is its position"-type content in this article - the focus is mostly on actions taken by the administration). The statement is then contradicted by Sessions' Jan 2018 action on enforcement of federal cannabis laws. According to the AP, this created uncertainty as to federal enforcement regarding medical marijuana, because Sessions' decision did "not preclude the possibility of medical-marijuana related prosecutions"[19]. If there are more recent sources on the administration's actions and positions regarding medical marijuana, you should add those. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Spicer statement was for supporting legalisation on the federal level, with Sessions enforcing current law. They do not contradict each other, and even if they did it could be argued that a position change is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not true. Per the CNN source, Spicer was talking about enforcement of federal marijuana laws, and he was saying that the fed gov would not go after medical marijuana. This is not the first time where you blatantly misrepresent a source. It's very tiring to have to re-read the sources that you bring to the table and explain their content to you[20]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup another situation where you cast aspersions instead of consider what people are saying. I will repeat what I said there, take it down a notch. Also if you read the source you posted from AP it confirms what I said. PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The AP source clearly states that the change adds uncertainty and confusion to the status of medical marijuana. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it says confusion but there was never uncertainty at the federal level if it was legal. No one is arguing that but that is what our article is implying. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Medical marijuana is illegal at the federal level. The Obama administration opted not to enforce federal marijuana laws (both recreational and medical). Sessions opted to enforce federal marijuana laws, and the AP noted that Sessions' memo did not preclude medical marijuana, which created uncertainty as to whether the federal government would enforce federal laws concerning medical marijuana. Why is it so difficult to find updated sources that take account of this? Why are we relying on a statement by a serial-lying, fired spokesperson that predates Sessions' enforcement actions? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh if you can find RS calling him a serial liar and why we should not cite what he says okay. Otherwise I refer back to what I said. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next seems okay actually. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next again with the reorder to bring negative info from chronological to top of section like the Pruitt and DeVos stuff. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no re-ordering of negative info in the DeVos section (that you claim it does is pretty good evidence of the bad faith with which you approach your review of my edits). The Pruitt section starts with an assessment of his tenure by high-quality RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep the accusations of bad faith to yourself, content not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next removal of information on his platform and congressional review act, expansion of hiring freeze stuff is undue, removal of Reuters analysis. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Reuters "analysis" (it's not an analysis) says upon the signing of a specific executive order that it "may be the most far reaching effort to pare back U.S. red tape in recent decades". We have more up-to-date sources (cited in the article) which reviewed what happened after the executive order and which did not find a meaningful impact on regulations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "Trump has strongly favored a smaller-sized federal government and deregulation through his policies as president" is unsourced. If there's a source for this, please include. But it's interesting that you want an unsourced assessment of his tenure, yet moan when the article includes sourced assessments of his tenure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have literally no clue what the text on the "Congressional Review Act Disapproval Resolution" refers to (the text does not explain it) and why it's notable. I couldn't find anything about in a Google search. It was a resolution that rolled back an Obama adm era ban on bribes by energy companies to foreign governments (this is already covered in the environment/energy section). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Steve Bannon's claims that deregulation is a "top priority" are noteworthy. We should preferably use assessments by quality RS of actions taken by the administration over the last 18 months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The hiring freeze appears to be notable to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying the hiring freeze is not notable, just that the expansion is POV. Well Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist is actually noteworthy, if he was not part of the administration you would be right though. I have no idea why you could not find info on Congressional Review Act seeing as it was linked in the article when you removed it. The smaller-sized is not unsourced, you just removed the source it was this. Yes the Reuters article was not an analysis, so what still notable. PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Independent source doesn't really say that, and the source is also only two months into his presidency, so it's a bit weird to say in Wiki voice that his presidency has revolved around deregulation and then cite this source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Reuters is dated, tentative and contradicted by more recent sources. I do not understand why anyone would want to keep it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no expansion of the text on the hiring freeze. It's a combining of two pre-existing paragraphs. You know, it's very tiring to go through every single source and edit like this when you seem to work on the assumption that every single edit is mischievous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying deregulation is not a big part of it? That is a rather odd thing to think. For Reuters, what has contradicted it? Nothing you have shown. Nope, I just covered each since I was asked to and you will note several I said were just fine. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that we need a high-quality RS to say: "The Trump administration has taken a lot of deregulatory steps" or something along those lines. The tentative claims in the Reuters article were contradicted by a Bloomberg BNA that assessed whether the executive order actually had any meaningful impact on regulations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Then here are some extra sources for derelguation themes The Hill and NY Times. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next removal of any mention of the groups that supported the congressional review act and background of the bump stop issue that Obama's ATF created for him. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed both opponents and supporters (as I did in several other sections). It's very rare that we list opponents and supporters of specific actions. Why do you want to keep supporters of a specific Trump action, but not opponents? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why we should mention ATF's rulings on bump stocks under previous administrations. These rulings also predate Obama, so it's unclear why Obama's name is specifically mentioned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I could go either way on the Obama stuff honestly, not a big one to me. I would still like to see the groups that endorsed it for balance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What balance? Why should we list supporters of Trump's actions but not opponents? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Because we already do list the opposition and negative about it while purposefully ignoring the other side. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a straight-up 100% falsehood. The gun section includes nothing about support or opposition to Trump's actions on guns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we list the issues and opposition to it right in there, just none of the support or reasons why. The gun section is not relevant to this issue. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next removed Tom Price's comments in regards to the ACA stuff, removed all mention of the appropriations issues for the ACA and Trump's statement on the issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Price's statements contradicting Trump don't seem valuable. Trump is on the record saying these things multiple times. Why should we keep statements by a HHS secretary who was fired a couple of weeks later? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's statement is still there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The text on the appropriations lawsuits regarding the ending of ACA subsidies seems very in-the-weeds. Is it really necessary to include a sentence saying that Republican congressional leaders believed the subsidies do be illegal (just like they believed every other part of ACA to be illegal)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Trump's statement is there without clarification or explanation, both are important. The rationale for ended subsidy payments is important, we cant just say he ended it while completely cutting out why and go right into "bla bla bla its bad!" PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's statement is exactly like it was prior to the trimming. Nothing has been added or removed from his quote. ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is nothing in the source that says that Trump ended the subsidies because he believed them to be illegal. Congressional republican leaders said that. The WaPo source says that Trump "has made clear that he detests the payments and sees them as a bailout for insurance companies". Maybe we can add that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

When you're saying that the text goes into right into "bla bla bla its bad!", you are referring to CBO estimates of what ending the subsidies will do? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was a little blunt there, just a representation of presenting negative without the other sides reasons or input. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't conflate the CBO and other expert analyses with partisan rhetoric. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah no, we give both sides especially when they are equally weighted. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next again with the pointless reorder, the rest seemed fine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The reorder is not pointless. Content on Kellyanne Conway's opioid task force was in two separate paragraphs. I took the diffused content and put it into one paragraph specifically about Conway's opioid task force. Is this really controversial? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant it was a condense and move negative to the top again. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Move negative to the top"? Nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But that's what you did... PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next seemed just fine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next the expansion of the Arpaio stuff and the removal of information regarding why hurricane relief was an issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Arpaio pardon was briefly mentioned in the hurricane relief section. I took the bit on Arpaio and added it to the criminal justice section where I briefly mentioned what Arpaio was pardoned for: "Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio in August 2017. Arpaio had been convicted of contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders to stop racially profiling Hispanics" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the cut hurricane relief stuff as containing particularly notable info. Feel free to restore the "particularly in dealing with the thousands of containers of supplies that are stuck in port because of "red tape, lack of drivers, and a crippling power outage" if you want though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh not a biggy to me on Arpaio, but does seem to try to make a correlation between Arpaio and Trump. I do feel the red tape part is important as it is often portrayed as failure to act on the federal part vs issues on the ground. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump did pardon Arpaio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No one is debating that, I was comparing the inference created by going on what his was convicted for. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next promotion of negative again (seeing a theme here). PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what negative information was promoted. The only changes to substance was removal of a sentence about the bad impact that a border wall would have on the environment (i.e. there was removal of negative content). This is precisely why this is so tiring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It goes back to the reordering part again. Asigning more weight to something by moving it up instead of the chronological order the article has been at for most of it's life. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

? PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next promotion again and paring down the denouncing of white supremacists. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

When you say "promotion", are you referring to me combining diffused paragraphs on transgender rights into one paragraph? For what it's worth, I even removed two federal court's fairly long explanations of why the transgender military ban was illegal (i.e. I removed content that reflects poorly on the Trump administration). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why we mention in the 'Unite the Rally' section that Trump belatedly denounced David Duke in the 2016 campaign. It looks like WP:SYNTH. The cited source is a 2016 source. Do you want this in the article? This? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no, you removed the details on the negative but also the reasons they claimed as why they did it. I don't know, I'm always of the feeling the more denouncing of white supremacists the better but I would be willing to defer to others on that one. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Untrue on the first point. On the second, point it's beyond me why you're advocating for the removal of an on-point study from a prestigious journal while clinging onto a WP:SYNTH source on David Duke and casting aspersions about me for removing it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No aspirations cast or ment, sorry if it came off that way. I was not trying to imply anything about you or your content with it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next mostly good though a little promotion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

??? Please explain what the "little promotion" was. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Was just moving stuff again, but not actually a problem with this one. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Like with nearly every other edit, there was nothing controversial in the slightest with the edit, yet you had to glance at it for a second and come up with some faux problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next not sure why most of the ref removal but content did not change. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next same as before. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next nothing wrong here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next lots of refs removed here almost all RS but no content change. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Next eh seems okay getting rid of Washington comment. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That is just a first pass through looking at diffs only. Next would be looking at whole article and see what was done to it in the rest of the context. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead generally shouldn't contain any citations, but rather should be supported by the body. So those citations at least should not be restored. Orser67 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of LEADCITE. Read it more carefully. Yes, it's nice to avoid refs in the lead, but if any content there is challenged, it's best to then add (or restore) the ref(s). Only if one uses lead "section references" can one totally dispense with any refs in the lead, but that's my own invention, demonstrated in my essay: WP:CREATELEAD. See also Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#References in the lead? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I misrepresented anything, I simply said that leads are generally better without citations. Snooganssnoogans's edit summary pointed out that he/she left one citation in place because it seemed likely to be challenged, and I agree with that logic. But I don't see why anything else in the lead that would need citations right now. If anything in the lead is challenged, we can add citations back in. Orser67 (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally share the opinion that it's nicer to have a lead without refs, but "the lead generally shouldn't contain any citations" isn't "Per MOS:LEADCITE". "Shouldn't" is the key word here. Otherwise we agree. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, "shouldn't" is too strong given the text of the section, though it does call for "balance." From the essay you linked, I really like this: "The same rule which applies to content applies to references; there should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body." I will have to keep that one in mind. Orser67 (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that system is the out of sequence numbering. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed some additional content (primarily references) today on 14 May.[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You removed a hell of a lot more. If some random IP or newbie did that, we'd scream "vandalism". Since the effect is the same, what's the difference? Remember WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, I forgot about the paragraphs in the 'false and misleading statements' section. I did mention it in the edit summary though, and did start a talk about it ten days ago though[22]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you're citing WP:PRESERVE? It's clear that this is an article which is chock-full of content and it's only 18 months into a 4-8yr presidency. The article is already large enough so as to be laggy when I upload the page and maneuver on it. Are we supposed to keep redundant sources (i.e. sources that say the same thing as another source) and non-essential text despite these size constraints? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump and truth

I'm requesting that you restore this content. There are many types of untrue statements he utters, and including criticism of Obama and Hillary while doing so is one of them. This is a good example that should be kept. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer I've moved your comment to the article talk page. I agree that there are many types of untrue statements. My point is why is this one special enough to be called out. It does not seem particularly noteworthy (as compared to all of the other statements). I almost feel that listing such a minor statement actually weakens the strength of the prior statements which describe an overall pattern. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

When seen in light of other, much more notable false statements, often referred to by RS as lies, this one is indeed a relatively minor one:

In October 2017, Trump falsely claimed that President Obama and other past presidents had failed to write or call the families of U.S. troops who were killed in the line of duty during their tenures.

Now we have only ONE example.

The solution is to include several very notable examples. 3-5 should be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Considering the pitifully small size of this section, rather than just listing more examples, it would be better to add more varied content, such as reports from social scientists and their research on the subject of lying (yes, it's a real branch of research, with Trump forcing them to create new categories of lies), reports from major fact checkers, and journalistic investigations (David Fahrenthold won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Trump). Better coverage is the solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Better coverage is the solution, so I've done it. I just added a fully prepared and well-sourced authoritative improvement of this section. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. All the existing content is preserved. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your large addition as undue and a issues with the wording in areas and a couple sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to follow what RS say, but since you object to following the precedent in the sources being quoted, I'll put their words in quotes (I apparently missed five instances), and use synonyms a few other places, as needed. Here is the revised version. Although it is also our job to document opinions, I have not used a few hundred very notable ones because they do use plain language, the type that Wikipedia allows for anyone but Trump, whose content is controlled by editors who follow their own non-policy, policy-violating, Trump Exemption. To completely avoid entanglement in that trap, I have only used documented factual content, using statements from fact checkers and researchers, whose statements are based on actual numbers. This is a far higher bar than what our policies require for all other BLPs, especially for public figures, where the bar for inclusion of controversial content is much lower than for private persons.

The sources are impeccable and the subject is obviously not undue. It's only a tiny bit larger than the next section. The only serious difference of opinion would be which is his most notable character trait: his untruthfulness, his narcissism, or his bullying, and we're not going there. The research shows that they are intertwined, especially in what researchers call "cruel lies" and "self-serving lies".

The content is also varied and interesting. Rather than just making a long list of notable falsehoods, I placed a few of them in one sentence at the end. The rest is much more informative, as a mere listing doesn't give much information beyond what we already know.

Now I hope that we don't see a bunch of "I DON'T LIKE IT" obstructionist wikilawyering used to censor this content, in violation of NPOV. For once it would be nice if ONLY policy ruled here. (It would be a first on a Trump article.)

That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but keeping it out completely is uncalled for. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

False and misleading statements

Bolded content is already in the article.

As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

In a Scientific American article about "How the Science of 'Blue Lies' May Explain Trump's Support", Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Sources

Discussion

It comes down to way to much content coming off as POV and undue. I would like to get some input from others as well on this. Not a fan of the opinion pieces either. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, which opinion pieces?

Also, other angles can certainly be added to this while keeping in mind the actual subject of the section. By all means suggest some actual improvements. Such are always welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

For opinion sources, they are #7, #13, #18, #19, #20, #22, and #29. Oh and #28 is a primary source. That's just a quick look though reading the URLs, I wouldn't be surprised if there was more if I clicked though the sources. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... You do realize that we document opinions here, and that such are totally fair game, especially under WP:Publicfigure? I say that to make it clear that this is a matter of principle and policy here. Your argument on the basis of "it's opinion" is not policy-based.

In spite of the legitimacy of including opinions, in these cases I have not chosen willy nilly personal opinions, but expressions of the state of statistics and research on lying and Trump's untruths. These things have been measured. They aren't just a matter of opinion. I have studiously avoided "mere opinion" sources here. These aren't even controversial, except in some post-truth politics alternative facts universe where all mainstream media is considered fake news on the sole basis that it reflects poorly on Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well since you are clearly a gentleman of policy, then you would agree per WP:NEWSBLOG "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" that all of those opinion sources listed above should be to the writer and not in Wikipedia's voice. Which I will note you did with #7, #19, #20, and #22 but failed to do so with #13, #18, and #29.

I also disagree with the premiss that the opinions of all those listed are indeed noteworthy and thus the opinions of several are well and truly undue. WP:PUBLICFIGURE documents that we can and how it should be done with negative information about a high profile BLP, but does so under the premiss there is enough weight to do so. With that in mind the long standing material in the article was sufficient weight for the importance to his presidency, to add more is to run afoul of WP:NPOV as I am sure you know very well. Finally while this is just an essay, it does contain some useful insight into gossip and news of undue weight WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the clear and specific reply. I can work with that. I have to leave now, but will get to your points later, especially #13, #18, and #29. Thanks for pointing that out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, now I'm able to deal with this: "#13, #18, and #29". I have looked at them and attribution is not necessary for the way they are used. #13 and #18 are totally uncontroversial straight reporting of facts, not for interpretation or commentary. If we used them for their commentary, then of course we'd attribute them. #29 is exactly as it already is in the article. I copied it from there, and would just be keeping it, as is. I don't see any needed to attribute it either, as it too is straight reporting, without any interpretation. If there is still doubt about that, it can be attributed. It is in the article, and no one has objected. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I'm waiting for a response. It has been three days since the content was removed from the article and I have responded to your concerns. Let's move things along here. If there are no substantive policy-based objections, then we should be able to restore this.

The only policy-based objection I can see is a judgment call, and that is the size, but it's perfectly appropriate in an article of this size. Rather than an argument for deletion, it points toward the need to create a spin off subarticle.

Since this is a very small portion of this very notable and extremely well-covered subject, we can also move in that direction, but that normally requires that we literally bloat this section until everyone is screaming that it's far too large. Then we create a separate article and leave a summary here with a "main" hatlink. That's how it works. I don't think we're there yet. We need to return this first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, been kind of bananas here lately. But I still say it gives undue weight to the subject. For reference it balloons the section to larger than the cabinet section, media section, twitter, and most of the policy sections (some of the most important parts of any presidency). All that on added to an article that is already over the recommended WP:SIZE which before the edit is at 105kB, so adding another 14.5kB would be excessive to say the least. Heck it's recommended to split at 50kB. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand the delay. The sections you mention are the summaries for spin off subarticles, except for "Relationship with the media". This is only a little bit larger. The media section could easily become larger and its own article, as could this, but we usually start with a section which balloons and then spins off. This subject is extremely notable and worthy of a fairly large section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable, which is why it already has it's own section of a fair size while being one of the early sections. If you feel that it is important enough to grow to section to a spin off perhaps that would be the way to go instead of just growing this section to dominate the article. On a side note, what is with the domestic economy and environment sections? Those things are gigantic! PackMecEng (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• General support per WP:DUE. A remarkable amount of consistent, widespread, and long-term coverage of the topic. Minor details can be worked out as part of the normal editing process. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have added bolding to the content which is already in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• General fluff as Yes, POV section of Opinion pieces - yes, this is unilateral POV section as shown by lack of space given to contrasting or opposing views, and yes opinion columns as shown by lack of retractions or variation in editor or evidentiary trail of journalism norms, and yes they are pretty much just creative writing some writers choosing to criticise for their market without individual notability, significance, or effect. Nothing wrong with them selling to the audience as Rush Limbaugh does to his and Rachel Maddow does to hers -- but it's a bit WP:OFFTOPIC as not an action of the Presidency nor an event that the powers of the President bear upon. I think it really should not be stated in wiki-voice as objective fact when the 'fact' is voiced opinion in media. Actually, the whole whole "Leadership style and philosophy" section it is in seems misnamed as it is all "Relationship with media" -- it's not expressing Leadership style items such as 'rallies of hyperbolic sound bites and gesturing', or 'transactional relationship to staff' or 'chaotic relationship with Congress'... this is just what the media says about him, he says about media, and what they say about him twittering around them with nothing about how he handles the office and powers of the Presidency. I don't think the material should be spun off into an article -- the topics of facts, truth, Truth, falsity, hyperbole, misleading, deceptive, misinformation, disinformation, dismediation, yellow journalism, fake news, etcetera have been educational since Swift Boat Veterans or 'depends on what your definition of is, is' -- but it's just a bit too fuzzy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• General support per K.e. Coffman - coverage is widespread, long-term, significant. I've seen no reasoned policy-based arguments against this content. Tweaks (such as in-text attribution where necessary or desirable) can be made as part of ordinary course of editing. Neutrality^talk 03:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality: The "reasoned policy-based arguments" listed above amount to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV especially when in relation to a BLP article care must be taken to adhere to police for obvious reasons. The only argument for inclusion, policy wise, given so far is WP:PUBLICFIGURE which this text does not even follow given there is no counter argument from anyone or the BLP in question. Markbassett also makes a strong point just above that a good portion of these sources are just POV opinion pieces, most from non-notable people just giving their thoughts. Which of course would not have enough weight for an encyclopedia. The undue comes into it from not needing to over double the size of the existing section with a bunch of opinion pieces, and ballon it larger than most sections (even ones that do not have their own sub article). I hope you will reconsider your vote. PackMecEng (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Neutrality and K.e.coffman are correct. I have also replied below. Few of the arguments above are actually true or accurate.

"POV opinion pieces"? Descriptions of measurable research by subject experts is not an "opinion". I studiously avoided such content, and even if I had included the myriad very notable persons who have straight out called Trump a "liar", which is their opinion, that would still be allowed under our policies, but I haven't even gone there.

"Counterargument"? Feel free to add it. That type of content would be most relevant for specific allegations of lying. I think that would only apply to paragraph five and the last sentence. With the content here, which is largely based on very notable fact checked false statements, this would mean using sources which claim their opinion trumps professional fact checkers, IOW very fringe sources with little or no weight, and I know that many fringe sources do that. In the face of incontrovertible evidence, they still defend Trump. Including them would be embarrassing, but go ahead and try. I suspect it would be reject on "fringe" and undue weight grounds, but you can always surprise me. Go for it.

The size argument is fatuous. This content is very due, largely because it is very notable and widely covered (I have over 300 VERY RS, and I gave up a year ago), and we're being very restrained with this amount. If it grows larger, then we can start talking about splitting off into a SPINOFF subarticle. We aren't there yet.

The delete arguments don't hold any weight. They are fatuous. The content should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As undue POV edits that fail weight, NPOV, and even RS given low value of most of the opinion sources. As for the "very due" and such yes 300 sources are a lot. But on his presidency? A drop in the bucket, given the hundreds of sources per day. If it took over a year to reach the 300 point you know it is largely undue, especially if you have to scrape the barrel with blogs of people that are dubious on their best day as experts. Also WP:SIZE is a concern seeing as the article if over that limit already. Doubling the size of a section would basically eclipse the rest of the article and give way to much weight to something that by your own admission does not get a lot of coverage. So far the only argument for inclusion boils down to "look I found some sources" which of course is not the only requirement for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support--see argument in section below. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump has been president for less than 18 months and this article is already too long. Though there are a couple sections I favor outright removing, the primary issue is that people aren't using summary style and are instead loading the article down with extraneous details and (cited afaik) opinions. The section as it stands now is much closer to the appropriate level of detail than it would be with the proposed additions. To be clear, I have no opposition to a spin-off article on the topic. Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose stuff that predates Trump presidency – per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I have not seen any compelling policy-based arguments for including material that is not directly related to Trump presidency. Additional comments below. Politrukki (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  The only part which predates his presidency is this part: "David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Wot? When do you think Trump became president? In August 2016 or before? Politrukki (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support section (or at least a paragraph) in some form, although I would avoid the laundry-list of opinion-pieces - go for something that condenses these views and ideally finds reliable, non-opinion secondary sources reporting on them to summarize and establish relevance. I would also want to dig for more sources, as I suspect better ones exist. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Aquillion, "opinion pieces"? Where are we using mere opinions? A description of the factual numbers from research and fact checking is not "opinion", regardless of where it's found. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here, here, here, those are all opinion pieces. Beyond that, too much of the proposed section is structured as a bunch of disconnected statements, X said Y, etc. We have better sources that can be used to write a more in-depth section - see the sources I dug up below. "Here's a bunch of examples of Trump lying" isn't the way to go about something like this. Some of the sources up top are good, but we need to rely mainly on secondary sources that take a step back and discuss lies and the Trump administration from a broader scope. --Aquillion (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• There have been some edit conflicts here, so you may not have read my comments. I largely agree with you, but a larger and more in-depth section would not be allowed here. This whole section is about dealing with an attempt to squash this subject and reduce it to a couple paragraphs, if not get rid of it altogether. I suggest you read the comments by Drmies in this whole thread. They are good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - why would we want to include something derogatory about former president Obama in this article? It makes no sense - it is not compliant with UNDUE or BALANCE - and it does not benefit our readers one iota. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• What? Where? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• The comparisons...^{Atsme📞📧} 23:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme, what "comparisons"? Where are they located? I really have no idea what you're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced NPOV text. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I was torn on this one, because on the one hand the content does seem to be reliably sourced, but big picture, WP:DUE and WP:POV problems are too significant to ignore. Almost by definition, politicians utter falsehoods constantly in order to further their goals and narratives. This president in particular is famous for embellishment and superlatives ("tremendous," "amazing," "the best you've ever seen," "largest," "A+" as it goes). Such a section is not encyclopedic. Agree with over-use of opinion articles. You can give any impression that you want to the reader by selecting several opinions you want, and eliminating the others that do not give the desired outcome. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• But Daniel, it's not editors cherrypicking isolated events. It's RS summarizing a pattern and history of Trump lying. Please explain how that fits your objection? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the sources are reliable, but they are isolated opinions taken from a handful of writers who clearly are no fans of Trump. I don't think there was any purposeful intention by editors to portray a certain narrative, but that's how it comes off now. The NYT and WaPo "fact checkers" are possibly worthy of inclusion, although I am personally very dubious of anyone who claims to be a final authority on what's true and what's not. So that leaves the opinions of Maria Konnikova, Bella DePaulo (a psychologist who has not treated Trump), Dara Lind, Jeremy Adam Smith, David Fahrenthold (who couldn't verify charitable contributions by Trump), and either a miscommunication or PR messaging breakdown regarding the trade deficit. If I were so inclined, it would be quite easy to come up with five opposing opinions for each opinion that Trump tells falsehoods on purpose. The last bit about fact-checkers lists unproven or subjective claims, but not necessarily falsehoods (Hillary Clinton's role in the spread of birtherism, whether his victory meets the bar for "landslide" status, the unproven claim that Hillary Clinton received millions of illegal votes, and whether he was against the Iraq War). Narrowing the section down to a few sentences about the complaints of "fact checkers," broadly mentioning accusations of falsehoods/lying and the rebuttals from Trump and his supporters, and retitling the section "Criticism from fact-checking divisions of newspapers" would do wonders for the POV problems. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Actually this is not what is meant by fact or by false. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. One of the most notable aspects of this presidency. Text is reliably sourced and neutrally written. The text has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Heads up: Most of this is already resolved. Actually look at the content and history. We should close this thread. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note: Struck comments by sock puppet of community banned user. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

No policy-based arguments have been presented for excluding this material, so I suggest it be added to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Several have been given above on why to exclude the new content. So given the DS on this article I would advice against that. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the ones given do not apply to this content. The content and sources comply with all of them. Flag waving of policy acronyms is not evidence that those policies are violated. When a policy violation is alleged, a specific example must be provided as evidence. That has not happened. If the evidence shows there is a legitimate concern, we can work on bringing the content into compliance. Complete deletion or keeping it all out is not proper.

General allegations of NPOV violations are pretty much worse than useless here, as the way they have been raised amounts to poorly disguised I DON'T LIKE IT. Neutrality's comment above reveals they also do not see any violations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately you are mistaken. Undue and NPOV certainly do apply to this content and your defense of public figure are at best cherry picked and wrong. Also running around waving WP:IDONTLIKEIT can easily be applied to WP:ILIKEIT if your corner, please keep that in mind for the future, just trying to help you there. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Then provide specific evidence. Barring that you're just making accusations. They have no weight without evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is of course subjective, as with all Undue and NPOV as you know, what type of evidence would be acceptable to you? Rather odd request. PackMecEng (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the evidence should not be subjective. There is a limited amount of material. Pick a specific statement and show why it's improper to include it. Vague and subjective accusations are the refuge of those who have no case. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain it to you. For WP:UNDUE from the policy page "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." and "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Which is what I have been saying, on the second quote there you will find reference to what I said above. That yes 300+ sources over a year is a lot for a average article, this is the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Hundreds of quality RS come out daily on this man with his perceived relationship with the truth being a small fraction of the over all coverage of his presidency. Given that is the case it leads to quote one here, since the addition is not in line with the prevalence in RS adding all that would violate the depth of detail and quantity of text listed. Now undue falls under the pillar policy of WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to something that in the grand scheme of things not that big is a violation of neutrality.

Next lets look at the objections to the opinion sources, we will say most fall under the higher bar of WP:NEWSBLOG just for this example, though some are of lower quality than even that. " These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." News blogs as a general rule are not subject to oversight or fact-checking, which makes them dubious for statements of facts and requires in text attribution to the author rather than the site that published them. But even then higher quality sources are required for BLP accusations. Now all of that falls under the umbrella policy WP:V. With that it could also fall under WP:BLPREMOVE, specifically item #4 "relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Which news blogs and other non-notable opinion columns certainly could.

Finally lets look at the only reason given for inclusion besides "hey here are sources" WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the issue I have with this is the last part which has not been satisfied even by the current existing text "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Besides the last part being covered the purposed addition adds nothing new to the existing allegations. So exclusion, does not violate public figure since the accusations are already prominently in the article.

I hope that clearly illustrates the policy based reasons for exclusion and why they apply. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Get specific. For example, what "blogs" are used, and if used, are they used improperly? Keep in mind that the word "blog" on the page or in the URL doesn't always mean it's a blog in the disparaged sense. Just sayin'... So, provide example(s). Then we can actually improve the content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTGETTINGIT, specifically the second paragraph. PackMecEng (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? Disruptive editor? Really? Please AGF.

Now what's wrong with the second paragraph? Glenn Kessler is the lead fact checker at The Washington Post. Which policy forbids including his summary of the actual statistics from what are arguably the most RS we ever use? (BTW, other fact checkers get similar results, so his observations are not an outlier.) Fact checkers are extremely valuable resources. Of all things to object to, why this? Even if it were a mere opinion from him, it would be notable, allowed, and attributed, but this is a summary of actual fact checking results. Me thinks you're really grabbing at straws to block this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference I made to the second paragraph is the second paragraph of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Specifically "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." PackMecEng (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to me the content is concise and properly verified; some vetting by editors here is appreciated and does not take away from the validity of the content as a whole. In other words, I don't think the objections are valid and policy-based, nor do I think that the proposer is incompetent or wasting time. Reliable sources (and there's tons more beyond the ones cited) do think that this is a big deal, and adding 15k to a 345k article makes this not undue (and if size is a concern, find some other place to trim the article, lest you want a spinoff called "Falsehoods uttered by Trump" or something like that). Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:Just for clarification on size the article as it sits is 106 kB readable prose, so adding over 10% more to the article. Also a section on it currently exists which is appropriate weight, adding to it is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, et al, the bolded portion is already used, so we're not adding all that much, so I agree that size is not an issue here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you say "which is appropriate weight [sic]", but that's just like your opinion dude, and I beg to differ. Given the plethora of sources that argue that Trump and the truth have irreconcilable differences, given the frequency of the tweets that according to reliable sources are full of lies and half-truths, and given the importance formerly attached to truth by all kinds of humans (including those who read encyclopedias...), I think that the current six sentences are not sufficient. And BTW, that last sentence, which simply drops in one specific example, is evidence of poor organization, and the proposed version is much better. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:Well bro I respectfully disagree with your assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and Drmies, two of our most experienced admins, and K.e.coffman, are all correct, and the only one dragging this out is PackMecEng. I have patiently and civilly explained, discussed, and requested specific examples of policy violations, but not gotten anything but a spurious accusation of "not getting the point".

Accusations accompanied by policy acronyms, especially what are often the most vague, such as NPOV (as important as it is), are worthless without evidence. Accusations are not evidence, and, as noted by others, these accusations are not valid. No policy is being violated.

The content is soberly written, well-sourced, precisely on-topic for that section, and is a quality improvement to the pitifully small entry there now. It's also definitely very due weight, considering the subject is so notable and worthy of much more coverage. This is a very modest addition.

This obstruction by one editor needs to be broken. When DS restrictions are being used by one editor to prevent proper editing and article improvement, then, deliberately or not, they are being used to game the system, and that's not right. Since DS restrictions are in place, I don't want to be the one to boldly restore this improved content. The proposed content would replace what's there now, as the existing content is included in the addition. We've given this more than enough time, and continued resistance really is tendentious. It's time for PackMecEng to drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Then start an RFC if you want a clear view of consensus. Because the way I see it, right now it is 4 agree and 3 disagree. Far from condenses, especially since none of the concerns listed above have been addressed. Also as a side note, I like how you ping the people that agree with you and not the people that disagree. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"None of the concerns listed above" can be "addressed" without the requested evidence. They just stand there as spurious accusations. They have rightly been rejected by others. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

And supported by others, the crux of the argument is such a large addition would upset the balance and create a NPOV situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

But you're not even correct in your assertion that the sourcing is invalid. "Opinion pieces"--well, first of all there's a TON of obvious non-opinion pieces. Second, take a look at this "opinion"--trigger warning: it contains factual statements about the president of the United States lying (he lied about a phone call with the Boy Scouts???). You could argue easily that part of the title ("Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication") is opinion, but any careful reader will see that the article as a whole is really quite rigorously organized and presents well-documented facts (about Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, etc.) in order to conclude--well, it doesn't actually draw some high-falutin' opinionated conclusion. And given that it is NOT "such a large addition", and given that, ahem, one of your motives here seems to be to whitewash the prez and his reputation, I'm just not impressed. BullRangifer, maybe start an RfC; your sourcing, those 30+ articles, is fine, it will pass the test. And maybe consider putting a separate spin-off in a sandbox. After all, Lies told by President Trump and the Trump government can be voluminous with rigorous sourcing without much of a problem. And yeah, we could have one for Obama too--but there, after "you can keep your doctor" (I kept mine, BTW), there isn't that much to put in there, so SIZE does apply for him. Haha, Trump's is bigger: size matters! :) Drmies (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you are agreeing with my earlier suggestions about an RFC or spin off article. Leaving aside the bad faith accusation of white washing I am personally glad you were able to keep your doctor, good to hear. So I guess we are good here until one of those two things happens. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A spinoff article requires we first include the content here, and then, as the section balloons too much, resolve the undue weight problem by creating a spinoff. That's the normal procedure. Starting with the spinoff article risks running into accusations of an improper POV fork.

Drmies, we may have to start an RfC, but, as you may have noticed by the cheerful agreement to that suggestion, this just plays into the refusal to do the right thing by simply adding the content. An RfC would be part of the gaming the system and obstruction going on here. It would be a step worse than mere wikilawyering. Should this disruptive behavior be rewarded? From experience on Trump articles, we know that a ton of Trump defenders will descend here and do all they can to buy time to prevent inclusion of this properly sourced content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The proposal includes some good content, but some does not belong to this article.

Material that predates Trump presidency has been struck

Bolded content is already in the article. As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. In a Scientific American article about "How the Science of 'Blue Lies' May Explain Trump's Support", Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada. Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

1. The paragraph about Trump foundation is mostly about campaign statements that predate presidency. I don't think a Pulitzer Prize awarded during the presidency justifies including the paragraph here. Donald J. Trump Foundation seems to cover the controversy thoroughly.
2. The paragraphs about alternative facts and the one attributed to DePaulo seem solid and appears to adhere to neutral point of view.
3. The paragraph attributed to Smith is probably okay, but as Smith is writing a guest blog, everything before Jeremy Adam Smith seems superfluous.
4. Whether claims about "landslide" or illegal votes are relevant to presidency is debatable, but the "Here are a few of Trump's notable claims" construct looks rather awkward, and hence I would perhaps also leave those two out.

After the cuts I have proposed, length should not be an issue no more. Politrukki (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the only part that predates the presidency is the David Fahrenthold part, and maybe we could leave out Dara Lind, but for no good reason, as size really isn't an issue with this content, as noted by Drmies. Fact checkers should not be cut. Likewise there is no good reason to shorten the last sentence. Those are very notable falsehoods, and by listing them in one sentence, the size has already been reduced to a minimum.

We should do the right thing here and resist this obvious attempt to whitewash Trump of what is arguably his most notable character flaw, after his narcissism and bullying. This subject is extremely notable and should not be diminished. We base our content on RS, and this is an extremely well-covered subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the addition of the contested text: Its subject (every single one of the quoted statements) is evidently notable. But I strongly believe that a change in the section title is necessary, since the current one is non-neutral. My recommendation would be something like "Controversial claims," or "Statements claimed to be false," or "Accusations of misleading statements & falsehoods," etc. -The Gnome (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources

Since I objected to using too many opinion pieces, here's some additional sources that could be substituted for them. Not all of these are necessarily usable here (I collected them pretty quickly, just as a starting point), but they seem worth sifting through. Notably, a lot of the academic papers on the topic go into more detail on why he lies, what political purpose it serves, why it works, etc, which seems like it'd be more useful to putting together a coherent section rather than just a laundry-list of accusations from op-eds. Two of them also draw a distinction between "lying" and "bullshitting", which might be worth discussing. -Aquillion (talk) 18:34, April 22, 2018‎ (UTC)

Sources

I totally agree that there is much more to this subject, but it's much more than a short section (not short enough for some) can contain here. Trump and his falsehoods have been examined and researched from every conceivable angle. It's a very interesting, and frightening, subject.

BTW, there is no "laundry-list of accusations from op-eds" above. Only one sentence has a very short list of his more notable falsehoods, and that's the last sentence. That list is not opinions, but fact checked items. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the "Trump exemption" in practice

....followed by an appeal.

"Do the right thing"? Forget it here. That is not allowed. Practice on Trump articles and talk pages show a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by an editor with this comment, which contains a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. It appears that Trumpipedia is part of Wikipedia, with its own rules.

Drmies recognizes that a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have radically different understandings and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. Whether one agrees with Obama or not, he at least recognizes that truth is important, whereas Trump has never given it the time of day. He is the most extreme example of affluenza.

I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in any Trump article is pretty much forbidden. I have enough (over 300 very RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that such an article would never be allowed. His supporters here would successfully game the system through wikilawyering, exploiting the DS requirement for a consensus to restore contested content, RfCs, and AfDs.

Such an article would be labeled an "attack page", even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here, used successfully to violate numerous policies.

The consensus among RS is that Trump is a "serial liar" in a class by himself, far beyond anything they've ever encountered before. It's a very well-documented character flaw, not just opinions, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. These articles should be monitored by numerous admins who are willing to promptly issue DS warnings and topic bans for such obstruction.

An appeal: Are there any editors here who will prove me wrong and just follow policy? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have recently said the same thing, less eloquently and at not in such gripping detail, on the Trump bio page. We need to stop parroting primary promotion and nonsense where RS identify it as such. And we need to be frank in calling out content and sources that promote this nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What you need is AE. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, they are gun shy at AE. I'm afraid that we need AP3, but nobody wants to do the prep work. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No no, the new arbs are much more, what's the word, ballsy than the old crowd from last year. :) Plus, we got some hardcore admins just waiting to apply policy; I hear GoldenRing is getting tired of the obfuscation and obstruction in the American Politics area. Right on, GR! Drmies (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

God no, that's the last thing we need.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We seem to have a systemic bias that says all opinions are equal, and that fringe editors who are misinformed by unreliable sources (and can't vet sources) deserve just as much rope as mainstream editors who depend on RS and know how to vet sources. We really need to cut them off at the pass and force them to toe the RS line and show a positive learning curve. ) If they still insist on filling talk pages with circular arguments, IDHT behavior, and fringe conspiracy theories which obviously come from places like Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Infowars, they should be given topic bans from political subjects. Let them use their talents on other topics.

I have even written a personal essay for them: A message for fringe political editors. (I'd appreciate comments and suggestions on it.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt the Arbs would sort it out, but nobody will provide them the data because its a lot of work and a nasty ordeal. It's not that any new findings are needed, it's that Admins have not kept things on track over the past 2+ years. Very few enforcement sanctions are being applied, except after a trip to AE. Even there, plenty slipped through the cracks and plenty more wasn't ever reported. Admins are volunteers, so they can do as they please, but way too many of them act like little league coaches who give everyone a A for effort and end up enabling some very bad editing and bad behavior. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the current proposed text? I would be happy to add it to the article, as I'm seeing a rough consensus for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's here: Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements. The bolding would have to be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying you see consensus when the ratio has not change for agree to disagree. I am not sure I understand it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman and others, how can you justify including material for example from Milbank's opinion piece, published on August 1, 2016, before Trump became president (and the material does not make expert predictions and so on)? Politrukki (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I added the content; I don't believe the objections to be policy-based. In fact, there probably should be an article on Trump's relationship with truth as the coverage has been voluminous and consistent. The present content can always be improved upon. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, you have a point, and I have removed a significant portion after carefully looking at the source dates. He made some statements after he was elected, and he's also repeated them, so they remain, but that's a very small portion. While all the content would be appropriate for the Donald Trump article, this article is limited to his presidency, so your point is well-taken. I got a bit confused and muddled in my thinking there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Konnikova quote that remains is about campaign statements though. Why is that relevant to presidency? Politrukki (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to get super technical, we're in a borderline situation, but it certainly bears on his presidency, and the wording is about him as candidate and president. Is there any evidence that he has changed? On the contrary. One thing not even his fans claim, is that "he's known for being truthful". No one ever makes that claim. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, do we have an article that is just about his candidacy? I have to run now, so can't look. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, obviously. Politrukki (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes! There is a short section there: Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Campaign_misstatements. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Better heading

I think it would be appropriate to tweak the heading to something like "Relationship to truth and falsehood". That more accurately describes the content. Suggestions please. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, do you have any suggestions, or should I just try this one? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The current heading "False and misleading statements" looks like a coat rack, which the paragraph about trade deficit with Canada is proof of, but I really don't have a better idea. "Relationship to truth and falsehood" is the same circus. With weasels. Politrukki (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, in trying to answer your question, I went back two presidencies to see how such a section was titled, you know - for consistency. Guess what? No such section exists, but not because there weren't falsehoods as evidenced by Politifact: Obama and Bush. I'm interested in learning what justifies inclusion of such a section here, and not in the others. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should there be such a section in those articles when RS have not covered the 'truthiness' of those presidents at all? Should we also remove the Watergate section from Nixon's article because there is no Watergate section in the articles for any other presidents? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Watergate is a non sequitur. Surely you jest about RS not having covered it. There is more than enough media and even books that cover it, not just Politifact: WaPo, Snopes, The Hill, Boston Herald...to name a few (using the same level of sources used in this article). The point I'm trying to make is that we should at least try to maintain consistency in the parameters, or I should say section titles, for our "Presidency of..." articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"to name a few"... good job, you obviously only brought up the finest and most on-point of sources. You named a WaPo list of ten lies Obama told, a Snopes debunking of a random-ass forwards-from-grandma list of purported Obama lies, a Hill op-ed by a climate change denier who says that Obama made some lies, and then a Boston Herald op-ed which isn't even about lies (the op-ed describes the Obama administration as "this most corrupt of all regimes in American history, modern or otherwise"). This is frankly embarrassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, don't go all dramatic on this. To say other presidents are not known for their falsehoods is not even up for debate. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans, the falsehoods are corroborated in multiple sources, and editors are free to do their own research if they're planning on adding sections like this one to the other articles, but before you come down too hard on the sources I used as examples, you might want to take a look at the sources cited in this article which includes some of those same sources - Politifact & Snopes for example. If you want better sources, I suggest a trip to the library where you may be able to find some scholarly sources. FYI, the author of the op-ed in The Hill, James Bovard, is also a USA Today columnist, so if you're accustomed to dismissing columnists simply because their views contradict/oppose yours, that isn't what our PAGs suggest. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Trump presidency is renowned for ceaseless lying about everything, no matter how large or small, on a daily basis. That's what RS say, and what should be apparent to everyone whose head is not in the sand. That a president, politician or any person has told untruths is not news to anyone. Why you guys are unable to understand the difference between "person told a lie" and "person is renowned for lying" is beyond me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans - quick question, and I'm done with this discussion - The Boston Herald article was news, not an opinion piece, and it actually was about the lies told. The article is archived, so did you have to pay $3.95 to download it? I'm Just curious... because I've been trying to get more attention on the growing paywall situation, and have commented about it at Jimbos page hoping TWL and maybe WMF can find a way editors can continue using those sources without having to pay for it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Herald link is literally titled "Carr: Obama legacy a big lie, let me count the ways" and is in the "columnists" section. You either did not read the link (if you're linking to random gated articles that you can't read, here's what you were linking to if you want to read it[23]) or your reading comprehension is so bad that you can't distinguish opinion from news. The op-ed literally calls the Obama administration "this most corrupt of all regimes in American history, modern or otherwise". For what its worth, the columnist is a birther[24] and the op-ed repeatedly calls Obama "Barry Soetaro". This should give some ideas about what a non-biased Wikipedia looks in the eyes of the same group of Wikipedia editors who run around complaining about a bias against conservatives: a Wikipedia where we source ludicrous op-eds by climate change deniers and birthers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Boston Herald - 8 Pulitzers - on iPhone today so not sure what you're critizing - not seeing it.

@Atsme: WP:CIR. That's "news"? It doesn't claim to be any such thing, even if you didn't read it. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the existing heading is better. To reply to those who don't see why we need this, or who think we should have similar sections for other presidents: It's true that "all politicians lie" is a common belief. But we have never seen a politician like Trump. I don't think we have ever seen someone in public life like Trump. Here is how most politicians "lie": they make campaign promises they can't keep; they describe a bill or policy falsely; they make false accusations against an opponent; they exaggerate their own accomplishments (although if they outright falsify them they are subject to public shaming). Trump goes way, way beyond that. He makes simple misstatements of fact, over and over, and continues to repeat them after they are debunked.

A few examples - I think all are from his presidency, not earlier
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sometimes it's a case of simply not knowing history or current situations. Examples: the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada;[25] the Electoral College favors Democrats;[26] "Amazon is causing the Postal Service to lose a fortune".[27] Sometimes it's a case of saying what his base wants to hear, whether or not it's true. Example: "We've started building the wall".[28] Sometimes he lies about science - not scientific theories but actual scientific facts. Example: It's been getting cooler, not hotter, and "the ice caps are at a record level."[29] Sometimes he flatly denies saying things that he provably did say. Example: "I never said Russia did not meddle in the election."[30] Sometimes he lies to promote his conspiracy theories. Example: "Millions and millions of people vote many times";[31] He lies about his own achievements. Example: "We have signed more legislation than anybody. We broke the record of Harry Truman."[32] He lies about his own finances. Example: "I don't benefit from the tax bill."[33]

I, or anyone, could go on and on. Trump is a completely unique type of politician when it comes to untruthfulness, it is one of his most noteworthy characteristics, and that is why there should be something about it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well dang at this rate he is almost on track to beat George W Bush's record of 935 for 8 years.[34] He will have to kick it up at a bit since it took Trump a year to reach 103. [35] PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

All politicians lie exaggerate/misstate/misinform but what made Trump different is his relentless war with media, and how his statements were perceived (per RS that I read, Vox I think) - someone mentioned above about the "you can keep your doctor" falsehood - some could keep their doctor, others couldn't - some interpreted it as a lie and some didn't. I suggest focusing on the most notable and use in-text attribution instead of generalizations so readers can make their own determinations per NPOV. I'm not suggesting that we leave it out, anymore than I would suggest leaving it out of past presidents' articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, what makes Trump different is not that he attacks the media. It's that he misstates so many FACTS. Obama is constantly getting battered for "you can keep your doctor" (he may well have been describing an earlier version of the bill, and it doesn't come close to the false promises Trump made about "his" health plan: it would cover everyone, cost less, etc.[36]). That claim is the kind of thing that all politicians say, as I describe above. That doesn't make it OK, that just makes it what passes for normal. Trump has done plenty of that too; remember all his insistence that the tax bill would mostly benefit the middle class? What makes Trump different from other politicians is the things he says that JUST AREN'T SO, provably not factual: "I never said that", "Amazon is making the postal service lose a fortune" (and he claimed the taxpayers were picking up the tab, which is also false), "the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years", etc. And of course sometimes he says things which are not so much false, as completely out of touch with reality. One of my favorites: "So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, ‘I want my insurance.’"[37] --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng provides a good example of how ill-founded the pro-Trump arguments are in this thread. Per PackMecEng's source, Bush made 232 false statements, all of which were variations of untruths over the course of a two-term presidency related to (A) Saddam possessing WMDs and (B) Saddam being connected to Al Qaeda.[38] These are two famous lies from the Bush administration and both are described as such in the Wikipedia article for the 'Presidency of GWB'. The NY Times article that PME links to are 103 separate untruths that Trump told in just ten months (which means that all of his repeated lying about a specific thing is only counted once). So, not only is the lying by the Bush administration already covered in his article (as they should), but the links that are cited show just insanely unprecedented Trump's lying is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The source shows 232 for Iraq, with a total of 935 total. So even discounting that, which wouldn't be proper since yes they are Iraq related but different parts of it, would still be 703. Which in the grand scheme of things is not much different than what Trump is currently on track for. What it illustrates is that it is actually not far out of the norm and at this point Trump's could arguably be considered less impactful and by that less important. PackMecEng (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you're not reading the sources you're linking to (this seems to be a habit with you and Atsme). Eight members of the Bush administration told 935 lies about the Iraq War, of which Bush told 232. Why am I reading all the links that you guys are posting while you barely glance at them? Do you just pick the first thing that you find from a google search? Do you just copy-paste things you read on 4chan or /r/the_donald? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the points here. Also tone it down a notch there with the accusations, especially on an article like this. Yes I was counting lies from the administration for one incident, something that was done for the Trump number as well. So if we go by Bush himself, are you trying to say the 232 number are the only falsehoods for the whole 8 years? Seems like a shaky argument. PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Silly fun PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I never stayed overnight in Moscow." SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) LMAO!! An alibi undone in at least four different ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "I never heard of Stormy Daniels." SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Ha yeah, I didn't say there were not some silly whoopers. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "No collusion." SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• The current heading ("False and misleading statements") is clearly composed by non-neutral and dispassionate wording. We need to change it. I already recommended something along these lines: "Controversial claims", "Statements claimed to be false", "Accusations of misleading statements & falsehoods," etc. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)