Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Proposed addition to lead

At Donald Trump, MrX proposed adding the following to the lead:

"His administration has been characterized by high turnover of personnel, including two cabinet members. He has frequently disdained the mainstream media, regularly using Twitter to sidestep the press."

There was not consensus to add the material there, but several participants suggested they would support it here. @MrX, Scjessey, PackMecEng, MONGO, SPECIFICO, Mandruss, Volunteer Marek, Atsme, Winkelvi, Sphilbrick, JFG, LM2000, and Emir of Wikipedia: - courtesy ping of commenters there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's fair and accurate. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. One sentence is inaccurate and a judgemental POV editorial ("characterized by" is conclusive and absolute - there are a number of things that have characterized his presidency), the other is a non-sequitur and an attempt at WP:SYNTH with another judgmental POV editorial ("sidestep the press"). As to the above comment by Drmies, I suppose it's "fair and accurate" if it supports your political bias. Which proves my point here that the content as written is judgemental, POV, and editorializing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. Your erroneous supposition proves your point? I thought points were proven by comparison with reality, which for our suggested sentence holds up pretty well. There's plenty of other things that characterize his presidency, to be sure--but this is a relatively friendly one. We could add the telling of lies, the pissing off of longtime allies, a certain callousness, a mingling of business interests with the presidency. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Why so hostile, Drmies? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? I speak of love. It's all love. Like the immigration solution, a bill of love. Just love. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously I support this. These are significant, factual, and widely-covered points about the subject. We could actually add that his administration (not just him) has frequently disdained the media (e.g. Sarah Sanders, Sean Spicer).- MrX 🖋 18:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - to clarify: Ok with media mention in the lede but Oppose saying his administration is "characterized by high turnover of personnel" - that's just business as usual, much of which is attributable to Trump's Chief of Staff. I think what is happening within his DOJ is far more notable and lede worthy, especially considering it involves the top brass of the FBI, and the fact Peter Strzok was stripped of his security clearance and escorted off the grounds of FBI Hdqtrs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Did we not very recently have a discussion where it was made abundantly clear that the turnover was not business as usual?[1] PolitiFact: "the turnover in Trump’s White House is certainly unprecedented."[2] NY Times: "unprecedented"[3]. NPR: "A full 43 percent of top-level positions in the Trump White House have seen turnover. That is not normal."[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Atsme: Please provide sources that say that The Trump administration's high turnover is "business as usual". Not, some sideways interpretation of a source that has nothing to do with the administrations staffing, but one that actually says what you're claiming. Then we can compare those sources (Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge, or whatever) to source like these:[5][6][7]. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, Snoogans referenced the prior discussion so you can look there, but for convenience sake, I'll add a few diffs to my relevant comments: diff, diff, and to a few RS: Politifact stated: The speed of Trump’s hires and fires was surprising but not unprecedented, whereas the number of role changes shatters records. Role changes, not hires and fires. NPR quoted Trump "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." My position hasn't changed from what I said before, "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 I also referred to the following sources: USA Today, WaPo, Telegraph, etc. Let's not conflate his cabinet choices with staff when referring to "personnel" considering Chief of Staff is involved in that regard. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC) See update for Politifact article. Also WaPo says either "left or changed jobs". ^{20:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)}

You're confusing speed with quantity. Politifact states: "Whether chaos or great energy, the turnover in Trump’s White House is certainly unprecedented." End of story. And why the hell are you quoting Trump, a known liar[8]? I'm not going to waste my time pointing out each of various ways in which you fail to understand what sources actual say, because it's evident that most everyone else gets it. You're on your own. - MrX 🖋 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, you are making this personal, and I'm asking you to please stop. I am not confusing anything. I've already explained that "changing roles" is not "turnover", I've provided the RS, and that's all the explaining I'm required to do - it should not have resulted in your PAs against my credibility. You calling Trump a "known liar" serves no good purpose, and neither does your attempt to wrongfully portray me as not being among "most everyone else" who gets it. This discussion just started. And MrX, by what standard are you gaging "known liar"? There is a ubiquitous joke about politicians - How can you tell if a politician is lying? The answer: His lips are moving. Keep in mind that we now know some FBI agents have lied under oath and have demonstrated unacceptable bias resulting in their dismissal and/or demotion. The media occasionally publishes misinformation and when they make a correction, all is forgiven - does that not apply to everyone else? Past presidents have lied relentlessly - they've told BIG LIES - so on what basis are you categorizing Trump as a "known liar" that separates him from other past president or politicians who are "known liars"? Better yet, don't bother to answer - and in the future, when you address me, please just focus on content and stop attacking my comments based on your POV and misinterpretations. The project will be much better off. Thank you in advance for your consideration...^{Atsme📞📧} 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Quit pretending to be a victim. I am not making this personal. I'm criticizing your fallacious arguments, which is well within the boundaries of what is acceptable. If someone misinterprets sources, or frequently digresses into off-topic rambles, it's perfectly reasonable to point that out with the hope that it doesn't keep happening. - MrX 🖋 21:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you linked to? The first sentence says "All presidents lie". You justification is Donald Trump lied about something so its okay to tar and feather him in the lead of the article. The lead is already biased focusing on all negative things. I don't see anything in the lead about him being the first president to meet with the leader of north korea. There's barely a mention of tax cuts which does not mention the fact that marginal rates were lowered for all individual taxpayers. And nothing at all on trade. In fact you have read through half the article before there is even a mention of trade policy. Whether they are good or bad, his trade policies are dramatically different from any president in recent memory. Maybe that should be mentioned in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. We're discussing high turnover of personnel, frequently disdaining the mainstream media, and regularly using Twitter to sidestep the press. Nobody is suggesting putting anything in the lead because Trump lies. Congress passed the tax cut, by the way. Different branch of government. Yes, his trade policies are terrible. Do you want to put that in the lead too?- MrX 🖋 03:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

On topic? You're the one who brought it into the discussion. Yes, I am very familiar with how the United States government works, don't patronize me. Congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law. But you cannot ignore the fact the president has some influence over what legislation congress takes up and his administration was involved with creating the bill that was ultimately pass, not to mention that Trump publicly advocated for its passage. And we're not going to put "his trade policies are terrible" in the lead, maybe something neutral like "Trump has advocated for what he calls "America First" trade policies, calling for renegotiating several trade deals and imposing tariffs on certain imports. His policies represent a departure from the policies of recent administrations."--Rusf10 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• High turnover is common in the first year, particularly in a party transition, and I would view Reagan and Carter as the better comparisons rather than say Bush senior. The causes of relying on business sector contacts and of unusual stresses of this first year are also somewhat the ‘why’ explanation to the statistic. But this all seems a side matter - - unless someone says otherwise, turnover being ‘business as normal’ seems to be a context debate and not a core argument to exclude or include?... Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Or we could just follow sources which don't seem to agree with your original research.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. I would however tweak the wording and say "He has disdained the mainstream media, frequently describing it as "fake news"." The "fake news" label is a crucial element to the presidency and the age we are in. I don't think anybody could reasonably dispute that it's a notable part of his presidency and one of long-term encyclopedic value (but I do expect to hear the same editors who frequently characterize RS as "fake news" argue that the "fake news" thing is not a major aspect of this presidency). I would prefer to have the frequent Twitter usage aspect of the presidency put in a different context, e.g. "Trump's Twitter usage stirred controversy with Trump frequently using it to propose policies" or something along those lines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your tweak is noncompliant with NPOV (not to mention bad grammar). If cherrypicked from a RS, then it could be considered for inclusion as in-text attribution in the body, not the lede. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - but I do think it's bad practice to combine the discussion for the two sentences. Some people might be ok with one but not the other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support if "high turnover" is supported by RS. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - see my response with cited source = The speed of Trump’s hires and fires was surprising but not unprecedented, whereas the number of role changes shatters records. I don't think role changes should apply. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support with slight changes - There are plenty of sources to support "high turnover" (NYT says "unprecedented", Fortune has "highest of any Presidency in decades"). I like what Snooganssnoogans said about adding "fake news" (a key phrase). I would also think about saying "The Trump administration" instead of "His administration", and "Trump has frequently..." instead of "He has frequently..." By the way, I am not watchlisting this page, so if you need a response from me please use a ping. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with Snooganssnoogans' WP:NPOV-compliant tweak as well.- MrX 🖋 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- Another attempt to add POV to the lead. The use of the word "characterized" should tell you that this is a WP:NPOV violation. Yes, there has been high-turnover and it can be appropriately mentioned in the article, but not in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  Please cite the policy or guideline that says the lead of any article should not include points of view. In what way does the word "characterized" violate WP:NPOV? Please be specific.- MrX 🖋 21:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I sure can! As per WP:LEAD "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." A characterization is always opinion-based. It also would be correct to say that the Trump administration has been characterized as a departure from control of the federal government by the Washington establishment. But that too doesn't belong in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Which part is "characterization" (sic)? That there's been high turn over? This is more than supported by reliable sources. No idea what "opinion-based" actually means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me if I don't accept some of your bare assertions. Are you able to substantiate your claim that "a characterization is always opinion-based"? I have never heard that before. Please tell me where to find this in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or even in a dictionary.- MrX 🖋 23:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced and extremely important for a reader to understand this administration.Casprings (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support with tweaks by Snooganssnoogans and supported by others. Definitely relevant to the presidency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - WP:UNDUE, a bit WP:POV, and kind of OFFTOPIC synth content. Seems somewhat a morph of a Brookings minor story, not LEAD level even without the issues of the phrasing shown being a mangle of it. The OFFTOPIC and synthetic part of the underlying bit is that this is a side-statistic at some oddly chosen timeframe that focuses on an abstract number unrelated to core Presidency acts, official statements, or major events during his term of office. I am more impressed that the side topic is overdone and could stand a bit of a haircut at the section level. Seriously, that Cabinet takes 1 screen is not too odd, that notable non-cabinet is there seems just a bit off. But that there are 4+ screens of a extra-prominent table going down to aides, speech writers, and sub-agency spokespeople BEFORE 2 paras about Flynn and Comey seems like to need a thread about reordering the section and a haircut. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  There are currently at least 20 paragraphs in the body of the article that back the proposed two sentence in the lead.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Staff turnover does not look exceedingly high when compared with prior administrations, it's just getting more attention because of the drama. For example, Paul H. O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman, Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman Jr. lasted less than 2 years under Bush 43; same for Rahm Emanuel, Peter R. Orszag and Christina Romer under Obama 44. If we go down that path, then we should also mention the exceptional delays in confirming Trump Cabinet members, but again that's not very significant in the long run. However, I would support a mention of Trump's love/hate relationship with the press, but that should be worded differently and included first in the article body. — JFG ^talk 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• it's just getting more attention because of the drama - Equivocation. RS reporting is "drama"? The RS reporting is due to the extraordinary nature of the resignations and dismissals and revolving door senior staff. This is amply described and discussed in RS Flynn, Mooch, Spicer, Cohn, Tillerson and many others - under circumstances that 1. relate to other significant narratives about Trump's conduct in office and 2. Are not in any way similar to the irrelevant fake comparisons to well-documented normal-course departures from the various previous administrations. To argue otherwise is a transparent and vacuous deflection. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Sources disagree with your original research. We have to follow sources. Besides, the proposed text is "characterized by high turnover of personnel" not "characterized by exceedingly high turnover of personnel". I hear the Dorothy is lookin' for someone to while away the hours with.- MrX 🖋 15:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support in some form. The general ideas of both the turnover and media are definitely very notable and distinctive elements of this presidency, but I can't ignore the genuine concerns raised above. If this proposal fails then it might be best to discuss the two issues separately as some may only agree that one of the two elements should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose First question: is this proposed information even in the article? If not, it should not be in the lede. I would say it is not well supported by the article text. The information about turnover is mentioned briefly in the intro to the Personnel section, although it does not say 2 cabinet officials (and isn’t it actually 3?) There is a good sized section called “Relationship with the media”, but it doesn’t say what this proposed sentence says (about his using Twitter to sidestep the press). But aside from that kind of nit-picking, which can be fixed, I oppose putting it in the lede. Everything else in the lede is straightforward reporting of the facts of his presidency, what actions he has taken, plus a paragraph about the investigation. This proposed addition is different; it is commentary or evaluation. I don’t find any comparable material in the lede sections of Presidency of Barack Obama or Presidency of George W. Bush. And I don't think it belongs here either. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• To reiterate the reason why this whataboutism argument falls flat: Only in the case of Trump's resignations and dismissals do RS tell us they arose from misconduct, open disagreements with POTUS, incompetence, and interpersonal failures. RS covers the Trump Administrations as unusual and significant and did not view the other administrations' turnover as evidence of underlying dysfunctions. If it needs to be in the article, that's a reason to write article text, not a reason to dismiss lead text. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "whataboutism". It's not like we're comparing apples to oranges here. I think it would be nice if wikipedia had the same exact standards for all presidential articles, but clearly it does not. There is absolutely not legit reason that the same type of information should be included in the this lead as was included in the leads of articles about previous presidents. You clearly don't like Trump and that's fine, but it doesn't mean you get to trash his article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO you are incorrect. Melanie presents a persuasive and convincing argument for exclusion firmly grounded on MOS:LEADREL (also WP:CREATELEAD#Rule of thumb). After her policy-based argument then she offers a comparison to other articles. This is allowable per WP:OTHERCONTENT "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement." – Lionel^(talk) 06:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A facile comparison of this article and subject to other articles and subjects will all but guarantee that we fail to produce an informative, accurate article that adheres to WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt:Now you can respond to the substantive differentiation I provided as to why this is not similar to your whatabouts. Please respond to the central point. I did not reject your false premise. I accepted your premise for the purpose of showing that... your position is still false and incorrect. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: per MOS:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article. There is little context in the article to support the proposed addition to the lead. Basically, per Melanie.– Lionel^(talk) 06:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  I don't understand your use of the word context in this context. Perhaps you mean content? There is a lot of content on the turnover (seven paragraphs and a large table), the relationship with the press (nine paragraphs), and the Twitter use (four paragraphs). More importantly, these are significant points which have been the subject of extensive reporting, analysis, and opinion around the world.- MrX 🖋 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I’m fine with it in this article. It is highly unusual, extensively covered by RS, concise and nonjudgmental. Passes DUE and NPOV. O3000 (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, though Snooganssnoogans' and MrX's copyedits should be considered; i.e., I support including these facts in the lead, and am not hung up on the exact wording. And I think I'm now going to flee the Trump-on-Wikipedia hellhole while my soul is still intact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is a good source for Trump's attacks on the press and his usage of the term "fake news".[9][10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Why are we saying disdained the press rather than the more straightforward attacked that is widely represented in RS discussion of his actions? SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Question - Do we use the more straightforward Donald Trump is attacked by the press or do we say the Donald Trump is disdained by the press? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We use neither because Trump is neither attacked nor disdained by the press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wink: 1. Time to de-snark on these talk pages. 2. Press, historians, political scientists, and citizens may have "attacked" some of Trump's actions. None has "attacked" Trump. But as you should be aware, Trump himself actually does make personal attacks quite frequently against the Press, ordinary citizens, and various ethnic/religious sectors. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Something about this in the lead. Only by chance, I came to this article today, after reading John Kelly, Scott Pruitt, and the Epic Turnover of the Trump Administration -- good or bad, these are "historic" hard numbers, and seem truly central to any topic known as, "administration". Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Public health analysis by Harvard scholars

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 following text be added to the "Environment and energy" sub-section?:

• In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people."

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. This is an analysis by recognized experts and published in a highly prestigious outlet. The analysis relies on regulatory impact studies by the EPA. The analysis is not peer-reviewed, but that has never been a requirement for WP:RS. The analysis has been covered by multiple secondary RS[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] This is precisely the kind of content Wikipedia needs more of: expert analyses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per my comments in the section further up this page. This is a noteworthy piece from significant scholars; properly has in-text attribution; one sentence is appropriate weight. This kind of broad-sweep summary perspectives (addressing the effects of a variety of different environmental policies collectively, rather than one or two piecemeal) is especially helpful here. Neutrality^talk 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. The research is from respected scientists and it has been cited by other reliable sources:[20][21][22] - MrX 🖋 15:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- politically motivated analysis, this is an opinion, not a fact. There is no way these things can reliably be predicted. It really is a WP:NPOV problem when we are trying to include every "expert" opinion that can be found that Trump is trying to destroy the world.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Do you want to elaborate on why this is a politically motivated analysis? On what basis are you saying that the impact of a particular regulation cannot be estimated? The authors are citing the EPA's own regulatory impact analyses as well as peer-reviewed research on the impact of specific regulations.[23][24] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious about this as well. Perhaps Rusf10 can cite some sources to support that claim.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek (a reliable source), calls it exactly what it is, an "opinion piece" [25] Also, Bloomberg (another reliable source), correctly points out that it is an "essay, which was not a formal peer-reviewed study" [26] There you have it two different reliable sources pointing out that this is not to be considered reliable, its just an opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't shown that the material is "politically motivated analysis". Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in what Newsweek writes. It used to be a somewhat reputable publication, but not so much now:[27],Newsweek#2018 scandals. I realize that the analysis is not peer-reviewed research, but I don't think we should adopt the EPA's talking points to discredit the conclusions of reputable scholars David Cutler and Francesca Dominici. - MrX 🖋 19:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you do not think Newsweek is a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN and I gave you two reliable sources, the other was Bloomberg. Regardless of whether it is politically-motivated (and I still think it is), it is an opinion piece that should not be given this type of weight. I also don't buy into this elitist attitude that because they are from Harvard that their opinions should be considered superior.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And it is definitely politically-motivated. Daivd Cutler worked in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, so don't try to act like be is some highly-respected non-partisan scholar.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So, Rusf10, a scientist who worked for this or that person isn't an objective scientist anymore? Or respected? Do you not believe in science? Objectivity? That the right would go post-truth, who could have thunk that two decades ago. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but some one who was Obama's Senior Health Care Advisor is probably not objective. And for the record, I don't believe in science, the earth is flat, and gravity doesn't exist. (any more stupid questions?)--Rusf10 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe that. And if the guy had worked for Bush I'd be fine with that too. Because reputable journals don't publish trash. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Rusf - We cover opinions and analysis as well as facts. This is given in-text attribution (as is true of most opinions), so the fact that it can be considered "opinion" is irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Attribution does not solve the problem of WP:UNDUE weight. The claim that 80,000 people are going to die each decade not only sounds ridiculous, but as I pointed out with the reliable sources above, its seriously lacks credibility. It sounds as ridiculous as Al Gore's claim the world would end in 2016 which turned out not to be true.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Sounds ridiculous" and "seriously lacks credibility" -- according to you. Not according to scholars and experts published in highly respected forums. It's the latter, not the former, that are relevant here. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It not even peer reviewed, how can you possibly accept this as true. Just because they are from Harvard does not mean we should automatically accept everything they say as true.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Accept that what is true? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood), Neutrality, and Drmies, this will not end good. Rusf10's comments on this page show he's NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For much the same reasons I mention in the previous discussion above on the talk page here. We have an essay composed by two professors in their free time,ie not related to their work for Harvard, that has gotten some coverage. But it is quite the claim to say Trump's policies are going to be responsible for the deaths of 80,000 people every decade. Such a out there guess, even if by two experts, does not belong in this article. Perhaps in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration a mention could be made somewhere there, but again I suspect the non-peer reviewed guesses of these two would not fit there either. PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "not related to their work for Harvard"--that you say that means you don't understand how academia works. That it's an "out there guess" is your personal, non-expert, unscientific opinion, and is contradicted by your recognition that these are experts. Experts who put their names under something don't go around spouting nonsense, and if it's published in one of the world's most notable medical journals, it's worth mentioning. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: "Not related to their work for Harvard" was in reference that it was not a commissioned study that would be published by Harvard the institution that would go though the peer review process. I would also appreciate your striking the personal comments about me, not helpful. But yes a paper written up by these twos in what is essentially a blog is a joke. A bad one at that and you should know better. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, it is now blatantly obvious you don't understand how this works. I'm reminded of that ad in which an old lady glues pictures to a wall, thinking it's Facebook. "Harvard the institution" doesn't publish. And Harvard is not a peer-reviewer, if that's what you think--that such a thing exists. (Harvard UP may, but that's different. Harvard scholars don't automatically get published by Harvard UP or something like that.) Scholars sometimes get commissioned to do studies, but usually not--and whether they do or not essentially means nothing, but if any studies are likely to be not neutral, it's commissioned studies, so that this wasn't is a good thing for all you folks who don't believe in objectivity. Now, JAMA is a peer-reviewed journal. They don't publish junk. That you would say that "these twos" published something in a blog means--well, it's hard for me to gauge the depths of your ignorance of the academic publication process. Let me just say that getting something published as an opinion piece in JAMA means it's solid, it's peer-reviewed, it's been vetted more than most other pieces of writing, and that because it is an opinion piece a whole bunch of other editors besides the usual reviewers have looked it over. Because this is not a blog, or like a blog. What did you want me to take back? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:Your assertion that this was a peer-reviewed study has already been debunked. It does not matter that it appeared in JAMA, it was not peer-reviewed as per Bloomberg. Just because they work for Harvard (or any other institution for that matter) or it was published in an academic journal does not give their opinions instant credibility. User:PackMecEng is not ignorant, he's using common sense. When someone makes an outrageous claim like 80,000 people are going to die, they don't just get a pass because they are from Harvard.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Drmies: No kidding Harvard does not do the peer review, that is not what I said or implied so no idea where that came from. Also when I said Harvard, the institution I was referring to Harvard as a whole, and yes they publish studies and papers, the peer-review part I mentioned would be done by the community in that area of expertise. Finally yes, the opinion section of JAMA is NOT peer reviewed, even the article itself says they take no responsibility for the article, maybe you missed that in bold type at the bottom of the article. So again we have two guys people making wild claims that Trump will kill 80k people in 10 years because of his environmental policies in a opinion article with no review or even editorial oversight fails the sniff test of RS. I think you also know what I meant with the striking part. Also a side note, I am not old yet dagnabbit! PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:Sorry, I have to correct you, but one of the authors of this piece of garbage was a woman.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, so here we have another editor referring to an article in JAMA as "piece of garbage". You have disqualified yourself for this discussion, and from any future RS discussion you partake in. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, corrected. PackMecEng (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I was trying to make sense of that odd comment, "that would be published by Harvard the institution that would go though the peer review process"--a run-on sentence whose logic is unclear and whose individual elements make little sense. It was not a "formal peer-reviewed study". That doesn't mean it wasn't peer-reviewed. Yet you jump, without any knowledge of the process or of this particular process, to "opinion article with no review or even editorial oversight". There is no way a journal like this will NOT review a highly inflammatory piece like this. Of course opinion pieces are reviewed, of course there is editorial oversight, especially for an article like this. I'm sorry, but you simply lack the knowledge and the understanding to continue this conversation: you are wrong on just about every issue. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you will understand in time, have a good night. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true which is really no more intelligent than saying "I read it on the internet, it must be true". If it were peer-review (which we already know it wasn't), why would JAMA feel it was necessary to add a disclaimer which says "Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." I may not have gone to Harvard or be an overpaid academic, but JAMA isn't the Bible and I have every right to critize an opinion piece that it published. I suggest Drmies strike his comment above about me (and I hope it was not a threat). BTW, I forgot to mention that I believe the guy who wrote this is an economist, not a environmental scientist, which gives him even less creditably.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true " - since Drmies never said anything like that, that sentence right there is a personal attack. I expect that Drmies, like many others but apparently not you, is under the correct impression that academic publications are considered reliable on Wikipedia, unlike "stuff on internet". You're basically rejecting one of Wikipedia's WP:5PILLARS here.

And you also don't appear to realize that the "expresses the opinions of the author" is just standard legal-ass-covering and nothing more. That actually DOES NOT make this "an opinion piece".

Finally, Cutler is an Applied Economist with a specialization in health policy and economics. This is actually exactly his area of expertise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"the guy who wrote this is an economist, not a environmental scientist, which gives him even less creditably" - this only demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. A lot of cutting edge research on environment and health is published by economists. David Cutler has not only published on matters of health and environment in the top econ journals, but has more than two dozen (!) publications in the three best medical journals (the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"we have another editor referring to an article in JAMA as "piece of garbage". You have disqualified yourself for this discussion, and from any future RS discussion you partake in." Can you explain your true intent here, Drmies? It seems you are saying that expressing an opinion, in a discussion where opinions are meant to be expressed in order to come to a consensus, is now a disqualifier for not just further comments in this discussion but also in all discussions at a particular noticeboard? I didn't realize admins were allow to unilaterally and individually institute topic bans, that is kind of what you're saying here, isn't it - or were you just being humorous? I'm seriously asking because I am, frankly, shocked you would say something like this because you don't like someone's expressed opinion. It's not as if he personally attacked anyone, after all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you want to talk? First stop gaslighting with your "don't like someone's expressed opinion". "It seems that you are expressing an opinion"--yes, I am, but it has nothing to do with politics. My opinion is that you are not capable of judging what is and what isn't a reliable source, given your comments here. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"My opinion is that you are not capable of judging what is and what isn't a reliable source, given your comments here." Now, that is very different than saying, "You have disqualified yourself for this discussion, and from any future RS discussion you partake in", wouldn't you agree? Especially when an administrator says it, the possibility of a chilling effect and all that. Regardless of how Rusf10 takes your comments, other editors reading "you have disqualified yourself" could see the statement as a warning and will stop contributing their comments in discussion, for fear of some kind of topic ban, even if they haven't violated policy (as Rusf10 did not violate policy). My concern is that your words could stifle and discourage discussion in addition to further contributing to the already toxic environment of the politically-related articles. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the wide coverage by secondary sources cited above. Summarizing expert takes on the impact of presidential actions (when widely-reported in reliable sources) is essential for a presidency article. The opposition above mostly seems to be based around second-guessing the sources that covered it, which isn't our place as an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Second-guessing the sources? I just proved the source is not creditable. Our place to not to gather far-out opinions and place them into articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You "proved"? You merely made an ipse dixit assertion. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I proved it's an opinion and not a peer-reviewed study. And I now know that David Cutler worked in the Clinton and Obama administrations, so he clearly has a bias. What other proof do you want? If you have a flux capacitor, I'll gladly take a trip with you into the future, until then the proof I provided should be sufficient.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, you didn't have to prove it was an opinion piece: everyone who understand publishing understands that already. So, because the dude worked for Clinton and Obama he's biased? And "the source" is one of the best-known journals in the fields, so if you want to call that not credible (a ridiculous assertion--please go and tell Jytdog and Doc James that they should go ahead and nominate WP:MEDRS for deletion) you might as well do away with all reliable sources. Can we at least have Breitbart left? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

By "the sources that covered it", I was referring to the heavy coverage in reliable secondary sources. If we had just the original piece, with no secondary coverage, I might agree with you that it's tricky to rely on it (there would be WP:DUE issues, if nothing else.) But, in fact, it has had extensive coverage by a wide range of reliable sources. When you try to discredit the analysis itself, using your own personal reasoning, you are second-guessing those sources, which is not a valid argument. If you think that those sources should not have covered it, you can write letters to them demanding a retraction; and if and when they retract their coverage, we can remove it here. If you feel there's some controversy over it that the provided sources don't convey, you can find other sources disagreeing with them, and we can decide how to weigh each. But your simple bald assertion that the sources were wrong to quote and respect this expert opinion has no weight and is not a valid argument against inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose More ridiculous, POV, unencyclopedic, opinion-based (rather than fact- and/or evidence-based) nonsense. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, this is JAMA (journal). I know Trumpers don't like science, but you're talking about one of the most renowned medical journals in the world. So that may be an opinion piece, but it's opinion based on facts and evidence. Surely at some point you will accept facts and evidence presented by scholars. You know, scholars--people who studied and do science, unlike people who are not scholars. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hey, I guess you forgot that I've told you previously I have similar academic credentials as you. Which makes me a scholar. And I flew jets in the Navy. Which was me doing science. Unlike you, even though you are a scholar. Oh, and don't make the mistake of assuming I'm a "Trumper". You've done it before - will this instance be the last time? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - WP:UNDUE. It is not prominent in coverage, widely cited, famous, or commonly accepted. The goal is not too include every anti-trump article of no note that has made no impact. It seems just a story of the day and too recent to be trying to say it will be recognized longer. Come back when it has had time to get wider prominence and actual effects or to have shown that it was a one-day-wonder. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - high quality academic source. Not an "opinion piece" (???) or whatever else people came up with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – It's an opinion piece, as noted by JAMA themselves. Disingenuous to name-drop Harvard in there. — JFG ^talk 05:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"as noted by JAMA themselves" - where do you see that? (And it's not "disingenuous" seeing as how... it's from Harvard) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

From the source: Disclaimer: Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association. — JFG ^talk 08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This comment falsely suggests that the JAMA is itself in the business of conducting research or presenting opinions. As such, the comment promotes misinformation that would lead uninformed editors to conclude that the JAMA is for some reason rejecting the research as having failed some standard of methodology or truth. Like all professional scientific and scholarly publications, the JAMA is a vessel for well-formed discourse, under which this article surely and self-evidently qualifies. It is not accurate to present this standard boilerplate as if it disavowed or disparaged the investigation by WP:NOTABLE academic experts. Whoever closes this RfC, please note the straw man, uninformed, and/or disingenuous attempts to marginalize these scholars' attributed expert evaluation of a public policy issue with unsupportable !votes. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

JAMA does not appear to put that disclaimer on their regular work, just work from JAMA Forum. Since that is their opinion section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. So what? As I said in an earlier thread, these notable authors' attributed findings could be used even if they were delivered on a personal blog, a TV interview, or Congressional testimony. They are notable experts in the field. This is not personal judgment, it's considered, reasoned analysis. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

But that goes against WP:EXCEPTIONAL since it is a low quality source making a big claim that cannot be proven. It is a source that fails MEDRS, fails as a strong independent RS, and making a pie in the sky claim that really does not matter. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not exceptional. These calculations are made all the time in public policy analysis and in epidemiology. The numbers aren't "exceptional" either. This is a big country and a ten-year horizon is a long time. This is simply a best estimate of well-informed analysis from competent experts, attributed to them as experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: this is tantamount to calling Trump a genocidal mass murderer. I'm dumbfounded that this is even a serious proposal. WP:EXTRAORDINARY requires--and this is "extraordinary"--multiple high quality sources to substantiate this theory in a research setting, independent of Cutler/Dominici, that Trump is setting in motion genocide. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." – Lionel^(talk) 06:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"this is tantamount to calling Trump a genocidal mass murderer." - um, no, it's not. Your characterization is pure hyperbole and strawman. Please read our article on genocide for further illumination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Activist (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a medical claim as such so WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. The source is much better than the average newspaper article, which is what most of the article is based on. The idea that policy changes which impact healthcare provision can have a significant impact in life years lost is not even remotely controversial, virtually every health policy has similar discussions around it and most governments engage with that and put forward their own estimates with rationale and methodolgy. It's a perfectly routine discussion of health policy impact. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I am not sure who brought up the MEDRS part of the discussion but if you want to get technical it does apply here. Specifically from Wikipedia:Biomedical information a supplement on what qualifies for MEDRS. Under health effects "Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc." Which the purposed text is clearly making reference to with death of 80k people and 1 million with respiratory issues. That being the case the source would easily fail the MEDRS test. PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Per Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. Time will tell whether they were right or not. I suggest the word prediction or some form thereof be inserted into the statement, as that is what it is. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I asked for input from the RS noticeboard[28] and WikiProject Medicine[29] as to the RS status of the source and the quality of the analysis. Perhaps, it would be wise to get feedback from Wikipedia editors with expertise on the environment and science more broadly, as well (but I don't know where they hang). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem stipulating that Cutler/Dominici is RS. Here are the issues that I see per EXTRAORDINARY:

1. RS isn't good enough. Cutler/Dominici must be found to be "exceptional RS" and without peer review this source won't meet that standard
2. You need multiple exceptional RSs and mass media reportage regarding Cutler/Dominici doesn't count

What? No "scientific consensus?"– Lionel^(talk) 08:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "Found" is a WP:WTW. If the text makes it into the article, the word "found" should be changed to "said". See WP:CLAIM. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  "Said that they found" (or equivalent) would also do for me. This is a prediction, not a statement of measurable existing conditions. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• weak oppose any medically related claim should be of a higher standard(review, clearly this one is not[30]), however in this case...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This ref is better than most we use to support statements in politics. Should switch "found" to "state" as this is a prediction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per JzG. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comment in the earlier discussion re the source: JAMA would publish only articles that they believe to be suited to meet their reputation as a first class journal. Gandydancer (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, and was published in JAMA Forum, not JAMA proper. Natureium (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can you cite any Wikipedia policy (with specifics, not shortcuts) that content in this article must be peer-reviewed? - MrX 🖋 11:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That would come into play for establishing the strength of the source under a MEDRS requirement. Under a strict interpretation of MEDRS this would qualify but I can see both sides on why it might not. PackMecEng (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you an Natureium discuss this somewhere else? I'm not sure how you can answer for them given that they didn't cite WP:MEDRS, which I don't think would be a valid reason anyway.- MrX 🖋 13:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans posted this to WT:MED and they answered it there. Also I just assumed since that argument has been brought up a few times here and at RSN on the topic. Also I am not answering for them, just best guess. PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I do not get the attempts to disparage this as a mere "opinion piece" … it is the opinion of an expert in the field and is therefore both significant and reliable. Attribute it per WP:RSOPINION and be done. Jbh ^Talk 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I might substitute the word "found" for a more neutral term like "stated". The article also doesn't say that this is the "most conservative estimate", the authors describe it as an "extremely conservative estimate". It might make sense to state that this was an essay rather than a peer reviewed article in-text. This is a well-informed expert assessment, it doesn't reflect a scientific consensus, but it's also not wild conjecture. Nblund ^talk 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: a notable opinion by two experts in the field; professionally published. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Professionally published in a opinion column that takes no responsibility for what is written there, has no editorial oversight, and is not peer-reviewed for something that probably qualifies for a MEDRS requirement. PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

”no editorial oversight”? There’s no evidence for that. I’m sure the JAMA Forum has editorial oversight. Neutrality^talk 01:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Neutrality, K.e.coffman, "Professionally published in a opinion column that takes no responsibility for what is written there, has no editorial oversight, and is not peer-reviewed for something that probably qualifies for a MEDRS requirement." It's like watching a bunch of school kids discuss quantum mechanics. Someone who says that just has no idea what academic, peer-review, editorial-oversighted publication is--they think that every opinion is of the same level. I'd like to see them try to get their opinion published in the JAMA; if there's no peer review etc., then surely the journal would publish their stuff. Doesn't matter whether they are qualified, have evidence, etc. Unless, of course, the scientific world is run by scientists who weight evidence and all that, even when they publish opinion pieces. I'm sure these Wikipedia editors would respond to their rejection letter by saying OHYOUDIDN'TLIKEMYOPINION (which is what they throw around here), or find a conspiracy involving biased scientists cause one of them worked for the Obama administration or whatever. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Is there a point to your comment or just complaining? PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And why do you think they put a disclaimer on it???--Rusf10 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If they had editorial oversight they wouldn't put at the bottom of the article in bold "Disclaimer: Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant. The editors of a journal, their opinion means nothing. Two notable experts who've conducted rigorous study in their field of acknowledged expertise -- their "opinion" is the sort of thing we cite on WP in thousands of articles, with attribution. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is correct here. To add, "oversight" doesn't mean "endorsement of everything that's written"; rather, it means that there is a degree of selectivity, editing, and quality control. Such is the case here. The about page expressly says "JAMA has assembled a team of leading scholars, including health economists, health policy experts, and legal scholars, to provide expert commentary and insight..." This is not like a Forbes or Huffington Post blog where just anyone can waltz in and get published Neutrality^talk 01:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Except that is not what we are doing here, there is no in text attribution for the claims they are making. As I mentioned above I still stick by the MEDRS and exceptional claims issues as well. After the section above purposing it and this now being pushed I have no idea why this is important for this article. Also there is no sign of selectivity, editing, or quality control though. That is the issue and the reason they have such large disclaimers. It follows standard procedure for an opinion piece and is not special in that regard. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do you continue to call this an "exceptional claim" -- We're dealing with 300,000,000-plus people. Everything is big numbers in such analysis. What's exceptional about it? What would you expect to project with a significant cut-back in health protections? Why do you think these policies were enacted in the first place?

It was not to hobble industry and commerce. It was to protect public health and reduce the social cost and suffering of disease and disability. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

80,000 additional US citizens dead and 1,000,000 new respiratory problems over 10 years. That is a lot of people. Heck that is close to the number of people per 10 years that die from suicide, leukemia, or liver cancer each year[31]. So a claiming that many people will die and a million will have major health problems is kind of a big deal. PackMecEng (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes sir. That's why rolling back 40+ years of environmental protection is a monumental policy shift, isn't it? You can't refute a detailed reasoned analysis of the consequences by arguing that its finding shocks you. That's like weighing an elephant and it's bigger than my cat so I conclude the scale is broken. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is being pushed into the article because it fits into the narrative that Donald Trump is evil. No one here actually cares the prediction fits into the category of WP:Fringe theories. The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump. And its was published in an academic journal. That's another fallacy, because something is published in a medical journal, it must be creditable. Believe me, if I found an expert opinion in favor of Trump's policy and tried to add it to the article, it would be thrown out as biased, even if it was published in a reliable source such as a newspaper or national magazine. Even the New York Times, publishes op-eds by conservatives from time to time. But because this guy is an academic (over 90% of which happen to be liberal), we're supposed to believe that is of high integrity and wouldn't just write a political piece (even though a look at his career shows he held political positions). I don't accept that his opinion is any better than those of pundits (left or right) I see on cable news. To illustrate this, take Jonathan Gruber (economist), an "expert" academic from MIT. After being caught on video actually telling the truth about Obamacare (which he helped craft), I wouldn't trust anything this guy says. Just because someone is an academic does not mean they can be trusted, especially when the are putting out claims that have not been reviewed and that they will never be held accountable for.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump." <-- This is a BLP violation and User:Rusf10, you need to strike it.

And again, your comment basically indicates that you have no intent of following Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (you dismiss academic and scholarly sources out of hand).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no violation, that's a true statement. You don't have to take my word for it though, there's plenty of anti-Trump material on his Twitter (I'd provide the link, but apparently I'm not allowed to do that). Comments like "Trump's health plan: Make America uninsured again!" and "What's the opposite of HUGE and GREAT? Need a word for the Trump health plan" make it pretty clear that he does not like him. Oh and btw his Twitter probably should be considered a reliable source too because after all he is a Harvard economist (I bet it's peer-reviewed too), so you should try to work on getting it removed from the blacklist. You don't have any intent to follow WP:NPOV, since its clear that you here to push a certain viewpoint, so don't lecture me on policies.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you calling me fat? That's not a very nice thing to do to a lady. But anyhow, it is still a large what if, full of disclaimers like hey this could be way off. It is best guess estimates of an economics professor and a biostatistics professor (which I will admit she has more weight than David in this situation, not sure what he has to do with the article). So yeah big claims based off of best guesses. PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you don't understand how scientists work and how policymakers work and how knowledge advances. Our best estimate is... our best estimate. Would you instead base decisions on worse estimates or random numbers? All this equivocation about opinion, estimates, and so forth is at its root denying the 5 Pillars. We go by the crux of mainstream knowledge. That's not perfect, it's simply the best we have. Folks are free to live their lives according to some other approach, but not while they're here discussing edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we are at an impasse here, I appreciate your thoughts on the policy side but I must disagree with your interpretation my friend. Agree to disagree? PackMecEng (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"This is being pushed into the article because it fits into the narrative that Donald Trump is evil. No one here actually cares the prediction fits into the category of WP:Fringe theories. The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump. And its was published in an academic journal."

^^^^This. A hundred times yes to this.^^^^ Thank you, Rusf10. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Some sources talking about the study are interesting.[32] Should be noted the EPA has commented on this study and the use of their statistics "This is not a scientific article, it’s a political article. The science is clear, under President Trump greenhouse gas emissions are down, Superfund sites are being cleaned up at a higher rate than under President Obama, and the federal government is investing more money to improve water infrastructure than ever before," with the EPA "dismissed the essay as rhetoric, not research,". Most of the sources listed above mirror the same concerns. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's incredible. And completely unexpected. Thanks for finding it, PackMecEng. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The current EPA is very anti-science, pro-pollution, so they aren't a RS in these matters. They are purely political. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird, people were saying the same kind of things about this essay. But seriously, we are going to say the EPA is not a reliable source for their own data? No you are mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

See, clear double standard by user:BullRangifer, the "experts" at the government are political and cannot be trusted, but the academic "experts" from Harvard are not political and must be trusted. I guess, the EPA was only a reliable source when it was being run by Obama.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, no "double standard", just more trust in real scientists than Scott Pruitt's EPA, which is a sorry shadow of itself. He does not allow it to do its job. He hated it before he was placed in charge, and that is exactly why he got the job. He has been dismantling and crippling it, but even more vigorously than other cabinet members with their agencies, who were put in their positions for much the same reasons, to dismantle and cripple them. His policies on pollution control were written by polluting industries, not scientists, even while he was governor.

The EPA has scientists he will not use, but other scientists are speaking out. Previous administrations, both GOP and Democratic, allowed the scientists and EPA to do their job. Those politicians were normal people who trusted experts. That is no longer the case. The current administration and GOP are no longer rational. The current EPA is a transformed, crippled, political agency, a Trump tool, not a scientific one allowed to protect the environment and citizens. The consequences will make America like Flint, Michigan with its water crisis. Pruitt is anti-science and has banned the use of the terms "global warming" and "climate change" at the EPA, and I suspect you think that's a good idea, but, if so, you're on the wrong side of science, history, and what RS say in our climate change articles. If true, that would make you a fringe and unreliable editor. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.

Time magazine has described the situation: "...this is an unprecedented attempt to delete or bury credible scientific information they find politically inconvenient,...The EPA’s site is now riddled with missing links, redirecting pages and buried information. Over the past year, terms like “fossil fuels”, “greenhouse gases” and “global warming” have been excised. Even the term “science” is no longer safe." "Here's What the EPA's Website Looks Like After a Year of Climate Change Censorship", Time

You attacked me for having a "double standard". Really? I call BS. Look in the mirror for that attitude. Take it away from Wikipedia, because it will affect your editing. We base our content on RS and real science. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Professionally-published opinion by notable scholars. If there are countervailing opinions, they should also be included. That some people apparently think these scholars are "biased" is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Properly attributed opinion by recognized experts in the field covered by RS. Last I looked, arguments that we should exclude academic experts because they are somehow automatically biased isn’t policy. O3000 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the opinion, mainly because it is undue. Additionally the proposed text doesn’t convey the speculative nature of the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose UNDUE for this article. Its amusing when I see such leaps of faith in what is argued as "science" where the authors of this piece claim "41000 deaths premature deaths per decade" when the piece that supports that assumption states (with nary a piece of supporting evidence and is nothing more than an advocacy collective) "4100 in 2025 alone"[33] and that is based on "modeling" not an exact science by any means.MONGO 14:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• (conditional) Oppose - see Newsweek which provides the other highly relevant view that was excluded from the proposed text, making it a challenge to BALANCE and NPOV: The EPA called the essay a “political article” rather than a matter of science. “The science is clear, under President Trump greenhouse gas emissions are down, Superfund sites are being cleaned up at a higher rate than under President Obama, and the federal government is investing more money to improve water infrastructure than ever before,” the EPA told Bloomberg. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Why does this not include any counterpoints from the EPA?[34] It would be nice to present the other side of the story. PackMecEng (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Because when Bloomberg News, your source, asked the EPA to present data to support its self-interested dismissal of the expert research, the EPA declined to respond. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That would not invalidate their comments on it though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What would we write then? "A spokesman for the EPA rejected the conclusions of the study but declined to provide any further detail?" -- Wouldn't that just make them look bad without adding any information? SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably just their quote on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: The JAMA Forum calls itself a team of leading scholars, including health economists, health policy experts, and legal scholars, to provide expert commentary and insight into news that involves the intersection of health policy and politics, economics, and the law. The claim is attributed, is serious enough, the venue is good, and the author is a recognized economic expert. The sourcing is much better than much of the rest of the article, which is sourced to newspaper reports. Therefore, it passes a WP:DUE test, in my opinion. If required, the EPA response could be included for balance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral But if it will be decided to be included the EPA response should be included too.--Shrike (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Because of the nature of the source the word found should be replaced with the word wrote. (See also WP:SAID) ~Awilley (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is the professional opinion of recognized experts based on noncontroversial EPA findings. (To be clear, it is noncontroversial among expert sources. Controversy between Wiki editors doesn't count.) –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support but condense and paraphrase to clarify that this is an estimate, something to the effect that Cutler and Dominici "estimated that the Trump administration's proposed reversals of environmental rules could result in over 80 000 additional U.S. deaths and widespread respiratory ailments". Objections that this is merely an opinion are a non-starter. Properly attributed expert opinion is entirely valid, even preferred, as a source per WP:RS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have read the JAMA article and followed the discussion on this page. I do not find the claims OTT in the context of a decade and 300 million. It demonstrates the importance and impact of public policy. The authors, the publication are highly respected and the the rejection of the claims by the EPA are entirely predictable by an organisation that has been politically usurped. Jschnur (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I came to this RfC with an open mind. The publication in JAMA forum does not account for much in my eyes - yes, it is expert opinion in a reputable venue. No, it is not peer reviewed. The question in my mind, was whether anyone else (and given the nature and recentness - this would be news orgs) was mentioning this opinion. Doing a BEFORE, I see some coverage - [35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. I also see a fairly lengthy section in the article. So - seeing that this isn't a tree that fell in the middle of a forest without being heard, I lean inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Politics aside, this seems like a piece of source text which belongs in another article. It's unbelievably detailed and represents a speculation (albeit a notable speculation) on the outcome of policy and decisions. I read through the article, particularly the section on environment and noted the fact that the Environment and Energy section is burgeoning and has already forked. If any more detailed speculations and in-depth assessments on the subject are to be added to Wikipedia then it might be better to put uncontroversial facts and summaries of research efforts in this article, and in-depth examinations and on-going research/notable speculations etc into the spin-off articles rather than further expanding sections here, which already have articles of their own. Edaham (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Trump pressing advisors about invading Venezuela

The following text[42] was removed as "UNDUE", with the argument that Trump was "not actually planning any action" (the text never said he did). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Undue, yes. It's one of the many "reportedly" claims from an anonymous "administration official" (which could mean anything, really) that is about an unverified something said that turned into no action or further discussion. In other words, it's a giant nothingburger in the way of any encyclopedic value, now or in the future, and the addition of it on those merits alone equals WP:UNDUE as well as trivia that's actually unsourced (since it's from an anonymous individual and no verification can be performed). Definitely doesn't belong in this article. In my opinion, it doesn't belong in any article because it's something that ended up be a nothing, putting it squarely into the WP:FART category. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's remarkable how much about this "government by chaos" administration falls into that category. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to the general breadth of the sources I posted below, look at this one in particular. Trump's comments attracted international responses not just from President Maduro of Venezuela but from other leaders in the region. I'm not sure what else you would expect - it's an international incident. Is your position that we can't devote even a sentence to it unless an actual invasion occurs? Regarding your opinion that you don't believe the coverage, remember, we have to go with what the sources say, not with your gut feelings. They've reported it as fact (meaning they found the sources credible), so we're required to take the same position. If you don't like the fact that they trusted a source without naming them, you're free to send letters to the sources I listed below asking that they retract the story, but until / unless they do, at least a sentence in the article is required. But if you insist on trying to read tea leaves and performing your own WP:OR to try and discredit their coverage, I would point out that numerous people were at the meeting, and neither they nor the White House has denied any aspect of it, despite the international outcry it has caused. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It has had extensive coverage by mainstream and international sources: [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. On top of that, it got a reply from the President of Venezuela[52]. All of these reported it as fact (in other words, I don't think arguments based on individual users who don't believe it happened hold any weight) I don't see how anyone could argue that a single sentence devoted to it is WP:UNDUE in that situation - it has had an impact on US / Venezuela relations. I would suggest that we also mention Maduro's response. --Aquillion (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Clearly UNDUE does not apply here. Is there any reason why a brief mention would not be in the appropriate section? SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The recently-added text was mostly redundant with the previous sentence. An anonymous report that Trump "pressed" his advisors does not intrinsically say more than what was already known and stated in the article, i.e. that Trump was considering a military option. Also, Maduro's reaction is already in the article. — JFG ^talk 05:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You recently added info to the article about Trump's repeated talk about invading Venezuela but then self reverted JFG removed it. I think it belongs in the article. That was not just "thinking out loud"; he brought it up repeatedly, not just with members of his administration, but with leaders of other South American countries. I had been planning to add this myself but am out of town and limited to mobile editing so I can't easily do it. Would you consider re-adding this well sourced material? MelanieN alt (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) sorry, I misread the history. I hate mobile editing. I do think the material should be restored, and so do most of the commenters here. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The mention "thinking out loud" is in the CNN, it is WP:OR above to say no it isn't. The complete reject note [User:JFG]] said is "(Undid revision 849009273 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) UNDUE. Source itself says Trump was just "thinking out loud", not actually planning any action)"

Since there has been no further discussion here for several days, and those who have discussed seem to be 3-to-2 in favor of including it, I have restored it to the article. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think both WP:UNDUE and that the source is not properly represented source do apply somewhat. UNDUE bears a bit in this does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and in the "prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". The placement at the second line in the paragraph gives it a high prominence and is confusing the sequence of events -- it now reads as if the 2017 Venezuelan defense minister statements are in reply to a 2018 AP article, which is clearly invalid. I'll also point to WP:VOTE or WP:CONSENSUS that the resolution should be "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Personally I think it a bit WP:OFFTOPIC because its not a Presidential action or public statement, it's a story from someone else -- but I'll skip that part and try to address the other concerns as follows:

• Include something - a few folks advocate this or perhaps something similar, and there are a number of Google hits that say the 2018 article was mentioned a lot -- caveat that many covered it as an AP article event and not as a fact, and many simply reprint AP articles as AP articles without meaning the material is independently verified or agreed to. Articles reporting on the AP story included such as FoxNews, and UK press of Guardian, Independent, BBC, and Daily Mail,
• Move it to the end - to help UNDUE and make the chronological order clearer (maybe also say "2018")
• Rephrase "asked" - to help UNDUE, as a closer paraphrase and the characterization used most often in articles reporting on the AP story. The word "Pressed" even for AP is used only in the AP banner and not within the article body. (By google, I saw 172 thousand "asked", 40 thousand "considered", 14 thousand "raised" and 9 thousand "press".)
• Attribute more carefully with 'reported' - per -- ψλ mentioned it is a single anonymous source, and both external cites say it that way and this WP article prior conduct does do that for some such anonymous-source items. (e.g. The disclosure mention presents both sides; the Russian sanctions lifting says "reportedly"; though "shithole countries" does neither.) The Washington Post and NY Times typically want *two* anonymous sources before they'd print a story, or one on-record public statement -- so this one only having a single anonymous source seems to be a ccase of 'reportedly'.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit made - here. Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• p.s. Two oddities here: The article mentioned only asking of Trump advisors --- and oddly did not mention the asking of foreign governments ? ? Second oddity is that the 5 July AP report mentions Maduro responding Wednesday (4 July?) to an AP report and calling this a "criminal vision" -- but I do not see an AP report that was being responded to. Possibly some Spanish-language AP released a day earlier ? The other comments seem from Aug 12, 2017 (e.g. Mercosur "the only acceptable means" per actionnewsjax.com) but this one seems to be saying there were two AP reports rather than just one. Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The AP article does say that he brought it up with the President of Colombia and three other South American leaders. BTW I removed "in 2018" because it was confusing; it made it sound like a new development when in fact all the action was in August and September 2017. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. I added the South American leaders, and I made it clear that the Venezuelans (not Maduro himself) were responding to something Trump had said publicly. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a novel excuse

[53] - what's so "inappropriate" (sic) about it? This looks like a revenge revert for my comments here.

More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Rusf10.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the one participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND right now. Rather explain why you think a picture of a balloon is appropriate for an article with the broad topic of "Presidency of Donald Trump", you decide to attack me. You're the one trying to add a politically charged photo into this article, you need to explain yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you're the one who claimed it was "inappropriate", which could mean, well, basically anything. Like "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". So it's up to you to explain your revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I just did, there is absolutely no reason why this belongs here that I can think of. A balloon flown by people in another country is a defining moment of his presidency, I think not. So let me ask you again, what caused you to think that this should be added to the article?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It illustrates the reception that the President, Donald Trump, received when he visited UK. Which is what this article is about and what that section is about. The section is about people in another country! Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that section of the article is about foreign policy. Protests against Donald Trump has its own article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support including the iconic image File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg in the UK section. The image cannot be adequately described in text and is highly significant. It aids readers' understanding of the public perception of Trump's presidency by citizens of the UK. There is nothing inappropriate about it and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.- MrX 🖋 01:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! But seriously no. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"No" what? Try to participate constructively.- MrX 🖋 02:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No to basically everything you wrote. I tried to be as simple as possible. Highly significant is incorrect on the face of it. If the reader wants to find more about the balloon or public perception (which the balloon obviously does not illustrate btw) they are welcome to go to that article for all the information they could want. Not censored has nothing to do with this, and you know that. So yeah, no, is all that was required. PackMecEng (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You got that right, Mr. X made a strawman's arguement. No one is debating whether or not the image can be on wikipedia (it is in other articles), so WP:NOTCENSORED is not even applicable to this discussion. To be clear, the use of the image in this article is inappropriate, not the image itself. The section of the article is "Foreign Policy", so I'd like to know what the hell this balloon has to with foreign policy?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It illustrates the response to Trump's foreign policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it illustrates childish attempts to ridicule the sitting president of an allied country. And it's not working very well at that, either; some outrage fatigue is setting in. — JFG ^talk 13:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's working pretty well. It's coming to America.- MrX 🖋 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This will be fun. — JFG ^talk 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Something that's been in existence for all of three days is suddenly, "iconic"? I think not. It's part of popular culture and just another incidence of WP:FART. Is not at all defining to Trump's presidency but could be seen as defining to the protesters in the UK who created it. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in its own ridiculous, unencyclopedic-of-no-long-lasting-value article and the protests article. Not here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a highly noteworthy symbol of significant opposition to Trump, according to a huge number of sources. Citing a humorous essay and repeating the same bloviation used in the failed AfD makes it clear that your entire line of reasoning is not to be taken seriously.- MrX 🖋 02:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but my reasons are clearly stated and need to be taken just as seriously as any other experienced, longtime editor. Doesn't matter if you like my reasoning, it's still sound and, as it turns out, pretty much the same reasoning for 'no' as two other editors above. IDLI is what's not to be taken seriously, if you want to get down to it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE and SOAPBOX, and just no relevance bit of snark. It’s too brief and not much import to have gathered enoughWP:WEIGHT for even coverage in the article, let alone the prominence an image gets. This is novel as a crowdfunded bit, but in the end it is just a short term protestor PR prop that has not truly been affecting the course of the presidency or been about for long is simply trivia. To give that UK group special promotion would be aWP:SOAPBOX issue. And finally, it does not suit WP:IMAGE of having MOS:PERTINENCE by clarifying some article text or representative of a section, because it is not part of presidential activity. In short ... cute crowdsource to do balloon snark, ignore for now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't make sense of this comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – The right place is Protests against Donald Trump. This balloon is no more and no less notable than the hundred other attempts to ridicule this president. — JFG ^talk 13:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent mention. It already got included there on 6 July, and also got its own article. (The Greenpeace paraglider did not get a mention though, nor did the inflatable trump in KKK garb or the recent Rise and Resist climber of the Statue of Liberty.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Just to make clear my point from above. "No". Protests against Donald Trump is the proper home for this if anywhere. It has nothing to do with his foreign policy as mentioned above. It is just silly. PackMecEng (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose floating this image in this article. I don’t want to poke a hole in this “iconic” characterization of this balloon, but to see this somewhat ridiculous float called a symbol of Trump opposition leaves me a bit deflated. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Obfuscating drivel about Helsinki summit

Winkelvi changed a concise summary of what happened at the Helsinki summit into obfuscating drivel[54]. Apparently, this disaster of a summit was met with "mixed commentary" as to its success, and Trump did not refuse to condemn Russian interference, per Winkelvi's changes. Winkelvi's changes were, as seems to be the case with most, if not all, of Winkelvi's edits on this article, unconstructive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you are close to WP:PA territory on Winkelvi. Please address content, not contributors. No opinion on the edits. — JFG ^talk 21:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He IS addressing content. Winklevi turned constructive text into obfuscating drivel. THE CONTENT was made into obfuscating drivel. In fact, changing the text to read that it was met with "mixed commentary", without sources to boot, is a straight up WP:TENDENTIOUS POV violation and since it effectively falsifies sources (since virtually all reliable sources say the responses have been negative), should be subject to a sanction under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Snooganssnoogans, if you notice, I changed "mixed" to "much of it unfavorable." And that was well before I knew you had posted your commentary above. I'm interested to know what part of my edits you are identifying specifically as "obfuscating drivel" and "unconstructive". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

??? Not seeing what the thread wants to have folks talk about. This edit does seem a bit 'Bold'. Surely a revert or substantial edits as others jumped in could not have been so unexpected ? Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If by bold you might mean opinionated commentary, then yes, bold it was. My purpose was to take it back to NPOV and get rid of content that wasn't germaine to the facts: They met, they talked, there was a press conference, people were displeased. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by 'opinionated commentary'? Snooganssnoogans seems to have been attempting to summarize this sentence from the CBS source: "Offered multiple chances to denounce Russia's actions, Mr. Trump instead placed blame on the FBI and said that he had "confidence" in both parties -- the intelligence community and Russia", which seems to be very central to the event and its reactions (so, we need a proper summary.) You removed this sentence: Offered multiple opportunities to unequivocally condemn Russia for its election interference, Trump attacked the FBI and said that he had "confidence" in both Putin and the American intelligence community ...which is a pretty close paraphrase of it. I assume your objection was to the word 'attacked'? The original source talks about 'blame', which is a bit different. But the fact that he blamed the FBI (despite being offered multiple opportunities to condemn Russia) is significant and obviously needs to be in that section for the rest to make sense. I think Snooganssnoogans might have gone a bit too far with "attacked", but they're correct in that you drastically over-cut to the point where the current version makes little sense. The fact that Trump was directly siding with Russia against the FBI is important and emphasized in nearly all sources - see eg. the BBC headline, Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit. You also removed the sentence that the meeting took place a few days after Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents for interference in the 2016 election, which is obviously vital context whose relevance is well-attested to in the sources. (Without it, the questions Trump was asked and his response to them make little sense.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Aquillon - it seems worse than ‘opinionated commentary’, seems factually off. Having a day to look, it’s not “Offered multiple chances”, it was the final questioner from AP gave a common long framing setup of assertions (about election etc) and then asked two questions of who do you believe and will you here and now denounce Putin, and Trump gave a common politician reaction of talking in the area but declining to be led response of saying some stock material. (Including ‘No collusion’). And while that was dramatically portrayed as throwing the DNI under the bus or attacking the FBI, literally he led with saying confidence for both and otherwise seemed not dancing to the reporters bait for reversing his prior positions plus simple diplomatic behavior at a summit. A question does not seem well portrayed as “offered” nor “multiple” nor “chances”, might better be “asked” if he would denounce Putin. A “President Trump instead” seems a usable start for the next line, followed by “said he had confidence in both DNI and Putin” following the actual order of events, and then whatever about the later FBI “no collusion” and “witch hunt”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

p.s. And yes I am obfuscated by the text.... The article at the moment is not really clear about events. It has a paragraph line about the CBS interview then a line about the 3 agenda items (not including Elections) -- was that from the interview or from something at the summit ? Then it goes to elections -- could use wording to be clear if that's press conference material. Then a paragraph of various dramatic quoted complaints is below that -- but context is missing on what aspect(s) are they complaining of, and not sure what/if there are missing positive comments. There's not really coverage of the press conference -- can we get something with cites saying what was said and done rather than just saying various gossipy bits on what adjective folks reviewed it as or felt was missing so they would get quoted ? (Maybe Vox? or Express? or Time ? BBC ??) Seems almost like the summit followed the agenda and it was the press conference that ran off the rails ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

See my comments above. I feel that some of Winkelvi's removals (probably prompted by a few relatively minor wording issues, like 'attacked' vs. 'blame') have caused this confusion. The key points in virtually all sources are: 1. The meeting came shortly after 12 Russian agents were indicted for interference in the 2016 election, and 2. When this topic was raised, Trump sided with or trusted Russia and Putin over the FBI. Those two things are the most noteworthy aspects of this meeting and need to be mentioned in the first sentence or so. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

On July 16, 2018, former CIA Director John O. Brennan tweeted his reaction to Trump's comments at the Helsinki summit:

John O. Brennan

@JohnBrennan

Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

16 Jul 2018

Sources

Needless to say, myriad very RS have commented on this remarkable statement. Keep in mind that Brennan knows far more than we do, so his comment is conservative, yet revealing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need the Brennan quote, Brennan is highly partisan and has basically been outspoken about Trump since the day he took office, so no surprise there. Regardless of whether it was the right thing to do or not, criticizing the intelligence community is far from High crimes and misdemeanors. In general, we really need to look at cutting down the quotes in this article. If for no other reason, just for the purpose of conciseness> It like everything Trump says or does anything, we add five opinions about what he did to the article. No wonder why there is a tag on the article that it is too long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Brennan is highly partisan and has basically been outspoken about Trump" So what? It doesn't matter whether he's "highly partisan" but whether he's notable and reliable. And as a former CIA director he most certainly is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rusf10 here, that in no way qualifies for this or possibly any article. Perhaps Brennan's article, but even then. Starting to go off the deep end there. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The next days coverage featured Rand Paul praising Trump and describing such crazy talk as Trump Derangement Syndrome. By day 3 it all may have faded away, too early to tell yet. Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• For the most part, I don't have a problem with the original edit by Snooganssnoogans, but attacked should not be used. The source that was used doesn't say attack, it said blame as pointed out above. But if you really want to know the context of this you have to look at other sources or better yet the transcript [55] After he said he had "confidence in both parties." then he said "I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer." The last sentence also deserves a brief mention, here's a source you can use [56] (its an AP article)--Rusf10 (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think quoting Brennan improves this article. Nobody cares about Rand Paul's praising Trump. No, this will not "fade away". - MrX 🖋 11:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX Can agree on Brennan being OFFTOPIC, but “nobody cares” is false. CNN, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Fox, The Guardian, Times Herald, ... positive views have RS and substantial WEIGHT, so NPOV requires both or neither. The Trump Derangement Syndrome got tweeted yesterday so now that story is being covered by BBC, The Telegraph, NY Times, Fox ... I’ll ask — are you are wanting to trim out criticisms as well, or if it is just the Brennan bit, or what? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We should be able to summarize the relevant point without detailing every reaction. Brennan is not off-topic; it's just that his criticism of Trump is very routine. I would have to see sources and the argument for including Rand Paul's praise, but I doubt it would be worthy of inclusion. The so-called Trump derangement syndrome is made up thing for hard-core partisan hacks to dismiss any examination or criticism of a President who is out of control in just about every conceivable way. It got tweeted. So what? Was the tweet covered internationally in dozens of news sources? If so, let's look at it. If not, leave it at the bottom of the bird cage.- MrX 🖋 01:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, "very routine"? Really? Far from it. This is a highly unusual and significant step above and beyond anything he's ever said before. Here he uses the words "high crimes & misdemeanors", IOW an impeachable offense, and also uses the word "treasonous". It's extremely notable and significant, especially coming from someone of his stature and who knows so much. He chooses his words carefully, so it's not hyperbole. Its removal is disturbing, to say the least. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Leave out Brennan. His comments are over the top, accusing Trump of crimes, by far the most extreme reaction of any I've seen. There is enough criticism of Trump to quote, without going to this extreme. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it belongs here and in the summit article. Brennan is a major figure, and his comment was representative of plenty other voices on social media this week, it was an absolute firestorm, and it appears that Trump's performance has elevated the controversy of his presidency to a whole new level. Paraphrasing Bill Kristol (of all people): not only is Trump not the leader of the free world now, it's even questionable if he's on our side. This is a BFD. soibangla (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As Melanie said Brennan's comments are over the top, not to mention how far-left he is (he once voted for a communist). As for Bill Kristol, his reaction is not surprising either. Although he's claimed to be a Republican for many years, he is also a "never-Trumper" and opposed Trump in 2016.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a single word in that comment is a policy based reasons for inclusion or exclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, now I'm even more disturbed and concerned. I would expect that response from the two topic banned editors, but not from you. This is sad and my faith in you is shaken, and Wikipedia is endangered by your attitude. The seriousness of the charges he levels count toward inclusion, rather than deletion.

soibangla is right. This is indeed a BFD. This isn't content that's usable just because it's covered in myriad RS, which is generally a basic inclusion criteria, it's far more. It's notable in about every way imaginable. Leaving it out creates an elephant in the room. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Side track on "wrongthink"

MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that really the road you want to go down BullRangifer? Those are personal attacks you know... PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, those are personal concerns. This worries me. Let me reword that to make it clear.

When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: No editor "keeps company" by merely agreeing with another editor on a particular issue. You are going down a path of personalizing discussions instead of simply discussing the merits of each editor's statements. Are you suggesting that an editor should "revise her thinking" because she does not "think" the way she is supposed to think? Just because an editor you consider "fringe and partisan" has expressed the same opinion? Do you realize that such an attitude not only goes against Wikipedian values and freedom of speech, but is also a central tenet of several destructive ideologies? I would advise you to apologize to MelanieN and stop digging this particular hole. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of saying more unless really necessary. I said what needs to be said. Those who know me and my history here will know how to deal with it, and those who don't won't. C'est la vie. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe that I know enough of your history as a Wikipedian, and I still can't parse your cryptic message here that we should "know how to deal with it". The way I deal with it is I'm shocked and I'm telling you to be careful. You are usually quite articulate and expressive when presenting your arguments or responding to requests for clarification. Why refrain from engaging into a discussion that your own comments provoked? Or simply apologize and drop it? — JFG ^talk 06:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I just noticed the WP:AE thread that Rusf10 opened against you, which may be why you intend to remain silent here. Accordingly I have commented there. — JFG ^talk 07:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

JFG, that's exactly why I don't even dare say more. The spurious AE thread chills the atmosphere and inhibits free speech, even in self-defense.

I certainly apologize to User:MelanieN and User:Rusf10 for causing offense by the unwise wording of my concerns, but I still have the concerns. That's still allowed. I should probably have worded them differently, but am uncertain what is allowed in this situation. Am I even allowed to refactor my comments? I'm a bit paralyzed by the highly unusual threat leveled at me. Not even a warning (which is the worst that normally would happen in this situation), or a 24 hr. block, but straight to a topic ban for an offense totally unrelated to any pattern of offenses in the topic area. This is uncharted territory and I don't recall seeing this even for repeat offenders of the worst type. It's very chilling. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"I should probably have worded them differently, but am uncertain what is allowed in this situation." You shouldn't have posted it here to begin with, no matter how you word it. This kind of discussion isn't appropriate on an article's talk page and should have happened at MelanieN's talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm arriving at this discussion a day late and it looks like things have escalated beyond this page. But come on, BR. I’m very surprised at your reaction and I suspect you must have been having a bad day. You know me better than this and you know I am not a partisan on either side. There is nothing partisan about wanting to keep out extreme or accusatory language like Brennan’s. As a matter of fact this was the second article at which I objected to including his tweet.[57] “The seriousness of the charges he levels counts toward inclusion rather than deletion”? Really? I suggest you reread WP:BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And I accept your apology. After reading the AE case I realize that there is a significant backstory between you and Rusf10 which caused you to overreact. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mueller indictments as conflicts of interest?

Volunteer Marek added a paragraph about the July 12 Mueller indictments to the "Conflicts of interest" section, with edit summary "he knew".[58] This rationale is original research, as we have no way of knowing what Trump knew about Russian operatives during his campaign until Mueller publishes any conclusions about him. Besides, even if Trump was briefed about GRU interference before taking office (per a cited source), that is still not a conflict of interest (again, unless the Grand Collusion Theory some day becomes proven). Accordingly, I removed this section as off-topic but accidentally went over 1RR, so I have self-reverted. Seeking consensus to remove it from this section. The new indictments could be added to the Ethics/Russia section instead, without any innuendo about Trump being somehow complicit. — JFG ^talk 05:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"This rationale is original research" - feel free to remove my edit summary. As for the text itself, it's well sourced and there's no original research in it. It is also NOT "off-topic". How in the world does that work? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will consider your editsum retracted. Re: How in the world does that work? The content is off-topic for conflicts of interest, it's on-topic for Russian interference and the Mueller investigations. Simple, really. Stick it where it belongs. — JFG ^talk 07:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just move it, and try a better edit summary while you're at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have moved it to the "Russia" subsection of "Ethics" where it obviously belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)