Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Should we mention migrant family separations in the lede?

I think we should. This is something that this administration and the people in it will be renowned for in the long-term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, in the second paragraph.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Family separation is not limited to Trump. As "evil" as these separations may be made out to be by the press, that wants to manufacture anything to take away the mojo from the President after the first ever meeting between a US President and a leader of North Korea, there are actually compassionate reasons why the separations are done, not to mention legal reasons.MONGO 11:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

" there are actually compassionate reasons why the separations are done" <-- only a certain kind of person could say something like that with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. The press is the problem here.- MrX 🖋 11:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Partly yes they are. They seem to want to report the sensationalism about this affair without being explanatory. For the record I would prefer there be another way the incidence of child protection were handled, but if a person previously deported returns they are subject to felony prosecution by laws enacted prior to Trump's administration. The difference is the zero tolerance now employed which contrasts to the completely ineffective catch and release policy of the prior administration. Even then, children were detained separately for short periods from their adult parents since they were minors.MONGO 12:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't entertain a discussion about the faults and failing of the press. You can take that to WP:RSN if you like. Yes, the zero tolerance policy is the policy. Did anyone claim that this was a new law?- MrX 🖋 13:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Give it some time to see if it is just another flavor of the week as so many past controversies have been. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if the Republican party sees this as affecting the outcome of the midterms, and the policy is suddenly reversed, then we can write it off as 'berry berry strawberry'. Until then, this is a significant controversy for the Trump administration.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere. "Controversy of the week" dismissal is not a useful statement when we're discussing article sourcing and content, so repeating that whenever new content is proposed is contributing exactly nothing to constructive discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What it means with controversy of the week is undue and notnews. Sorry if that was not clear to you. Give it time to actually become something since this is basically a new 3 day old controversy at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

But it's not a new controversy. The policy has been in place for six weeks and the number of separated children are now at 2,000. I first added text on this to the article on 14 May[1]. It's blowing up right now because fantastic journalists and advocacy organizations are exposing what has precisely been going on for these six weeks, with pictures and first-hand stories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I saw when you added that, there was almost no coverage. Then around a month later it explodes on several RS all at one. I still say we should wait and see if it has anything lasting from it otherwise it should not be in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's first get some solid and complete article content about this and other mistreatment and derogation of Hispanic people, and the appropriate lead text, if any, will reflect the article. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That goes without saying. We have an full article and plenty of sources to draw from.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now -- recentism flavor of the month, and since the story hasn't been headlining for longer than a month it just does not show as DUE much by relatively low Google prominence due to the short timeframe -- certainly not LEAD second paragraph level. Also it's just not got content in the article to support it being LEAD, again because it basically started a couple weeks ago and seems just a partisan claim is all we have so far. As a partisan framing, the coverage by NPOV would only be another he-said-she-said level until perhaps more studies show up or events happen. Work on the article body first, and next month whether the content and prominence has become enough to be LEAD material can be working from actuals and not speculation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:RECENTISM. Once Congress passes immigration reform and builds the wall we'll have to rewrite this anyway. – Lionel^(talk) 10:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh this is ridiculous. It's the biggest story of the past two weeks, it's reported on everywhere, internationally, domestically, in conservative and liberal outlets, and yet... Wikipedia is not suppose to mention it because... a couple users realize that it's making the president look bad so they start with the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-policy based arguments can safely be discounted, or ignored entirely. Consensus is not a vote and WP:RECENTISM is not policy, nor is it reflective of our actual content practices. Claims of this being too new are contradicted by more than two months of sustained news coverage. I don't even know what to say about arguments like "hearsay" or "he-said/she-said". They are so bizarre as to not even merit a response.- MrX 🖋 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

'he-said/she-said' would be me -- referring to there not being much in the article and potential for it winding up a lot of not-much if forced by NPOV to a lot of both sides opposing quotes of vagueness and spin and posturing. Two spins are not necessarily better than one nor is truth in the middle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose putting it in the lede at this point. Let's see if it becomes a significant issue in the overall thrust of his presidency. In the meantime, somebody needs to clean up the "Immigration" section in the article. It mentions the separation of families in two places, October 2017 and May 2018, with duplication of material. I would like to eliminate the comment from an unnamed White House official, and add more reactions from actual Congresspeople, since the opposition is bipartisan and bills are being introduced to end the practice. Also, the coordinated response from the former first ladies might be worth a mention; that's unique in my experience. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lede. I expect that something will change by the end of next week, and even if nothing changes by then, that will also be noteworthy. Let's wait for that information before adding it to the lede. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This should be in the lede of the sub-page (sub-sub-page?) Immigration policy of Donald Trump. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support in the lead. This is major international news. Trump's nasty comments about Mexicans et al have been part of what made him unorthodox from the start. The rest of the world noticed this stuff, rather than more internal US matters. Now that world is seeing imagery of kids crying, kids in cages. It's big. It's part of a long term image thing for Trump and the USA. It's already long term. Leaving it out of the lead would like like whitewashing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 Actually not the BBC headline. A related story is on page 2 after the one about Canadian cannabis. Sonot a big thing as yet, and not a long image as yet, that would be speculation. For long term, well which of the stories for which president ? Who remembers the tens of thousands of children that Obama's administration put into shelters ? Who will note the law requires separating children since their parents are being prosecuted for illegal entry or confuse that with thinking Trump made a law ? Putting it into the lead without support is just creative writing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

" Who remembers the tens of thousands of children that Obama's administration put into shelters" <-- No one. Because it didn't happen.

" Who will note the law requires separating children" <-- No one. Because no such law exists.

" Who will confuse that with thinking Trump made a law" <-- Not a "confusion". This is Trump's policy, plain and simple.

"Putting it into the lead without support is just creative writing" <-- There's literally dozens of sources that give it "support", so no, it's not.

I'm going to say it again. It's simply impossible to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS with people who live in an alternative delusional reality and refuse to even agree on some basic facts, or who refuse to respect the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources. It's simply idiotic to give such individuals veto power over any edit made to the article in the way that the "consensus required to restore" provision does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek - actually, tone aside, thank you for that. The mis-reading and mis-quotes are illustrative and I see a couple good links in the cites you used. User:HiLo48 note - see, long-term memory is poor -- here's someone who forgot the larger item of 2014. Then did not read the full line, and .. well, no he's right that its rare anyone confused policy to be law or think Trump wrote law, the phrase "Trump law" seen is just a far-left sarcasm (e.g. PoliticalJack).

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what that post is saying. Please try plain English. And leave out sarcasm, if that's what it was. It doesn't work well on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• " Who remembers the tens of thousands of children that Obama's administration put into shelters" - shutting them down was mentioned in the Reality Check that my sentence ended with, and is slightly mentioned in the current article you linked to, showing it fades from discussions so much folks deny it ever existed or misread what I typed. Here's another link from June 2014 Mother Jones that gives some idea of the numbers and drug smuggling and other tidbits from a leftist source you may be open to.
• "Who will note the law requires separating children" you have to include the rest of it "since their parents are being prosecuted for illegal entry". I think I got that one from factchecker.com, but am pleasantly surprised to see there is a Dallas factchecker opinion-ater, and note your cite here mention the same point.
• Bonus was the editorials ("factcheckers") put in a couple interesting information items and source cites otherwise hard to find in all the tumult -- Politifact at "By law, when adults are detained and criminally prosecuted, their children cannot be housed with them in jail." links to the Flores case. The Washington Post at "This “zero-tolerance policy” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children." links to a DOJ announcement.

So thanks for the illustration of POV- or anger- blindness, the correction on nobody being confused, and for the few bonus sites. No sweat over thethe ranting -- it was much nastier when I psted at the gaming side about somebody's faovorite game, and the Evolution folks are almost as religious/scatalogical. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Or abuse? Or insults? Or what? Please just discuss the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Absurd comment from start to finish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

BBC content is tailored to you "personally". I would get a different view. This is not an isolated event in which Trump has played no part. I say again "Trump's nasty comments about Mexicans et al have been part of what made him unorthodox from the start." And it appealed to the racists and ignorant. And he got elected. Now the news is telling me his wishes are coming to pass. And you really have to stop blaming everyone else for what he has created. It's not a good look. As for Obama, that's another flaw in the behaviour of Trump lovers. I have news. He has retired. This article is about Trump. Trump used being nasty to immigrants as a major policy platform. It's happening. And you want it to be someone else's fault? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 I was also not seeing it as the lead for Times, or Daily Mail, or Independent, or Telegraph... Just saying that the UK leads with UK stories - Brexit, a footballer, whatever -- and then things like Melania's dress or Canadian Cannabis or Tarriffs may come in coverage before some article related to this. It is present so perhaps "internationally noted", rather than "major international news", and "long-term" is subject to folks have very weak memory out 5 or 10 yes from now. No idea what you mean about blaming others, the Obama example was in a discussion of "leng-term" memorable, to show the shortness of folks memory. For the rest of it -- The tradition of blaming the prior administration might be in there too as pretty much all opposing parties do that, LOL back that you said it as if that's new or was said by me. But you'd have to look at foxnews.com or hannity show to get perspective on that, I would have guessed 'enforcing the law' and 'good of the nation' as being mentioned. I recommend flop the channels back and forth sometimes and see the POV differences are amazing, plus each side says things the other does not even acknowledge exists and uses their own dog-whistle terms. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of other views. I am also aware of my own biases. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support; a sentence or so in the lead seems WP:DUE given the breadth and level of sustained coverage. At this point it's reasonable to call it one of the administration's most prominent actions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that CIS is not a reliable source, and incarceration rates aren't the only source supporting the fact that illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at much much lower rates than natives [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I note numerous incorrect statements re this policy made by some of the editors that voted to not include this in the lead. They should take the time to read our article. IMO there is no question that it belongs in the lead. This practice is historically unique in that I know of no other case of migrant children being separated from their parent. It has been called the least popular piece of legislation in recent history. It generated the largest protests since Trump's Women's protest. Seventeen states have sued the Federal Government. I can't remember ever seeing such an outpouring of the medical and religious communities, and aide groups in my life. This administration will forever be known as the one that caged children and separated them from their parents without plans to ever reunite them until a Federal Judge ruled that it was not legal. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Zero tolerance policy and family separations

I believe that the Trump administration new "zero tolerance" policy and the resulting separation of families is significant enough to be included in the lead. A few reasons include:

• The American Academy of Pediatrics called the policy child abuse, saying it was causing “irreparable harm” to children. I should think that government-approved child abuse would be worthy of lead-inclusion. If not, how far have we sunk into a new type of acceptance of the most extreme bizarre as just another form of "normal"?
• According to our article, the policy is, "extremely unpopular, more so than any major piece of legislation in recent memory."
• In June hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated against the policy in over 600 cities.
• In June the ACLU filed a class action and at the hearing Federal Judge Sabraw wrote, "The news media is saturated with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice." [3] Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Moreover, recent RS reports make clear that the Administration had no plan to reunite children with their parents, lied about it, and has now failed to meet a court-mandated deadline to do so. Trump's approval ratings have also taken a precipitous plunge over the course of this scandal, although we do not know whether that has been attributed to the treatment of children and asylum-seekers. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Without a doubt. This is one of the most significant policies of this presidency as evidenced by the extensive, sustained, international coverage in reliable sources. WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT apply. - MrX 🖋 11:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - no specific text offered, and no basis appropriate for WP:LEAD given. Seems WP:OFFTOPIC and misfit anyway, as the arguments here are showing too much POV and too much OR and too much detail to suit the LEAD. LEAD summaries are about 5 words for neutrally mentioning each of the major executive actions and events, not external opinions and actions of others. An insert into LEADs is generally always going to be a dubious step, but this one would at least need to show a proposal and give justification for any real consideration. Even then -- lead seems UNDUE at this time, it's just not as long and big an item to be in the category of Comey dismissal or Russian election interference. Maybe come back when more time has passed and it's shown any greater WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there is only one objection. To answer Mark's issues, I have made a suggested edit for the lead, including it with the sentence re DACA. As for being off-topic, etc, I'm not in agreement with Mark on those points. My suggestion:

Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and initiated an immigration family separation policy that resulted in the separation of hundreds of children from their parents. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Try starting with just follow the cites, which will likely phrase it more correctly “Trump administration”, not him personallly, and then a date and then phrase “zero tolerance” mention. There is no literal family separation policy, other than the EO saying to *not* separate families, you see. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How about "...and in May 2018, the Trump administration initiated an immigration "zero tolerance" family separation policy that resulted in the separation of hundreds of children from their parents." Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and add it to the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well how does this place work anyway? I posted my suggestion and amended the entry per an objection and after more than a week added it to the article. It was instantly deleted by JFG, an editor that had not bothered to enter into the discussion. I am a trained consensus facilitator and in my years of experience this is not how consensus is supposed to work. What gives? Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Please refer to the extensive discussion above, #Should we mention migrant family separations in the lede?, which shows no consensus. That was the basis for my revert. Of course, consensus can change and you can start a new discussion if you feel that the outcome may be different now. — JFG ^talk 07:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Well it is nice that someone finally pointed that out to me. I wondered why almost nobody would talk to me and now I know. :=) I was starting to get paranoid... Gandydancer (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Something about this needs to be in the lede, and editors who are not even participating in the discussion shouldn't be reverting while claiming "no consensus!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I added my support above and the count is now 7 support and 6 oppose. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to group the immigration section a little better. The zero tolerance section needs to be redone - but not tonight... Gandydancer (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Russia in foreign policy section

I moved Russia out of the Europe in foreign policy sub section into its own sub sub section because it's big enough of an entity, is not just in Europe, and is completely different thematically than "Europe". This was undone by @Starship.paint: without an explanation. I'd like to have one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: - well it was previously under Europe and the other subsections are regions, not countries. Other countries are at the same sub-level. I don't feel that strongly about this issue, let's hear from other editors. starship.paint ~ KO 04:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Russia is fine under Europe, just as China is fine under Asia. If we're going to sort the foreign policy section by "big enough" countries, then we should drop the regional classification altogether. — JFG ^talk 06:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, we actually should drop the regional classification altogether. It should be by significance rather than region. Foreign policy vis a vis Russia or China is much more significant than foreign policy vis a vis some entire regions. (Also Russia is in both Europe and Asia, China is only in Asia, but nm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that a classification by importance would be more relevant than a somewhat arbitrary division by geography. Accordingly I would suggest to list NATO, China, Russia, North Korea, Middle East, and Others. We can have subsections for Israel, Iran and Syria for example in the Middle East section. Would you agree? — JFG ^talk 07:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I support overhauling the categories in the foreign policy section. If anything, just because it's confusing for me to navigate quickly when I want to add new content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and overhaul starship.paint ~ KO 12:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 13:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to this change, which was done after only a few hours' discussion between a few editors, and reverses the longstanding, logical organization by continent. Now we don't know where to find anything except for a few countries that were arbitrarily decided to be big enough, with everything else apparently lumped under "other". I think the original arrangement should be restored until there has been a significant enough discussion here to decide otherwise. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No grouping is perfect. Geographical continents were suboptimal; it makes much more sense to group countries according to the preponderance of foreign policy issues addressed by the Trump administration. Feel free to suggest tweaks to the new structure. A section called "Latin America" may make sense, given we have some material on Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela. — JFG ^talk 18:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding some material about South Korea, because discussions with President Moon have been instrumental in easing tensions with North Korea. They could be grouped under a "Korean Peninsula" header. — JFG ^talk 18:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Or they could be part of an "Asia" section as they were before. Easily understood by everyone. Who decides on the "preponderance of foreign policy issues" - which countries get a subsection of their own and which get relegated to "Other"? --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We also need to filter out less-important coverage. For example, the leaked phone call with Turnbull gets a lot of real estate for something that did not have any significant foreign policy impact, so that the whole "Australia" section could be removed. Then we can group Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela in a "Latin America" section as suggested, and all that remains in "Others" is Afghanistan. If "Others" sounds bad, Afghanistan could be placed in a "Central Asia" section, or added to a renamed "Middle East and central Asia" section. Geopolitically, it makes more sense there than grouped with China and Korea in an "Asia" section. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"...did not have any significant foreign policy impact, so that the whole "Australia" section could be removed". I've been telling people for years that ANZUS means nothing. Conservative Australians disagree with me, and might disagree here too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any recent policy move by the U.S. or Australia that would affect ANZUS. Am I missing something? Of course, Australia–United States relations are significant on their own. I was just noting that nothing new happened during the Trump presidency so far. The leaked phone call had no impact. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's become the norm these days for Trump, but the Australian leader was one of the first he abused and insulted. It stood out at the time because no other President had behaved like that. Look, Trump is so unorthodox and does so many things other Presidents haven't done, Wikipedia is never going to be allowed to write a decent article about it all until he's long gone. I've given up worrying about his articles. It's just that Australian comment I picked up on. Carry on. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing unusual comes to mind. The phone call coverage seems like legacy of in the early days with little to say, tiny items were of great percentage WEIGHT. Today though.... general background is Australia has a more Labour-style politics closer to typical Democratic Party, though the PM Turnbull and Liberal Party of Australia have points in common and Turnbull has praised Trump as an American patriot and delivering on economic matters. The dismissal of TPP and the North Korea / nuclear seem of more weight to Australia but I think the section in this article can be removed. The relations article section on Trump is too much, too American POV, and trivial gossipy from anti-Trump POV, but that is a discussion for that article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Thanks to MelanieN for ‘go slower’ on major edits like restructuring, and also thanks to VM for the great idea and JFG for doing it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump's scripted vs. unscripted remarks

I think this edit should be restored

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=850804982

because Trump says one thing when he's handed a script to read by his aides, and another thing entirely when he ad libs, and the latter is typically what he really means. He has consistently stated that others could've have been the hackers, like some 400-pound guy on his bed, and his allies ran with the whole Seth Rich thing, and once again, despite his major blunder in Helsinki, he still reverts to that unfounded hypothesis. This should pointed out.

See: How Trump retreats: Grudging apologies, plus a wink and a nod to the original insult

soibangla (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Then let's the facts straight, he's actually said several times that he thinks it was Russia. Here's three examples: January 11, 2017 "I think it was Russia" [4] November 12, 2017: "As to whether I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies — especially as currently constituted," [5] July 6,2017 "I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries" [6] --Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those are three examples of the "exception that proves the rule". He's said contrary things far more often. At least you did find that ref where someone actually was able to find a paltry three examples. He'll probably say something else next time as his utterances are just like his "alternative facts", totally unrelated to facts, truth, or accuracy, but are purely expedient utterances for what he thinks will work at the moment. Ever the salesman. Believe him if you want, but at your own peril. The rest of us follow RS which confirm that those three are rare exceptions, but thanks for reminding us of them and what are unlikely to be his true beliefs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer A bit ranting there with vague unsupported assertions, hyperbolic, predictions and hypotheticals... none of those are useful for this BLP. Can you provide the RS saying there are “far more” contrary things? Or explaining how statements are contrary ? Seriously, can both ‘it was Russia’ and ‘it could be others also’ not both be said ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To your last question: No. The intelligence community is completely certain that the interference in the election was solely Russian, and there is no evidence of any others being involved. We base our content on RS, not on fringe sources and Trump, although, even though he's unreliable, RS do document what he says, so we do too.

As far as the "far more" goes, if you don't know that, I can't help you. It's not my job to educate editors who don't pay attention or don't read RS. Editors who read RS know this stuff. The whole time the interference has occurred, Trump has made myriad assertions, and except for those three instances, he has dissed and denied it was the Russians.

Even Fox News has reported this. Even fringe editors who only read unreliable sources have been spoon fed the myriad instances where he has denied it was the Russians. Even during the debates he denied it, even though Hillary told him and he actually did know it. His campaign knew it before anyone else because they were getting direct information from the Russians and others.

Admitting they interfered, and did it to help him win, would undermine the legitimacy of his election, and he can't allow himself or his sycophants to even entertain that fact. You should read our articles. There are plenty of RS which can help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you really need to lay off the condescending attitude. Second, how can you speak with such certainty that only Russia was involved. Have you seen the evidence yourself? Has any official government report been issued on this yet? Or even any reliable sources that say it was "only Russia"? Also, there are far more than three examples. Here's another "With that being said, I'll go along with Russia. It could have been China. It could have been a lot of different groups." [7] and there are more, but I don't have the time to dig them all up. Trump has made myriad assertions, and except for those three instances, he has dissed and denied it was the Russians. You are either being disingenuous or are confused. He never flat out said it was not the Russians who were the hackers. (and if I wrong let's see the sources) Now maybe, possibly, you confused that when he says there was no "Russian collusion" by which he means neither he or his campaign colluded with the Russians.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This raises an interesting philosophical question: how can we know the thoughts and beliefs of a man who frequently contradicts himself, frequently exaggerates, and frequently makes official statements that may not reflect his personal views? The only solution I see is to focus on what the verifiable facts of the situation are, and what Trump's actions are. His beliefs, when they are not reflected in actions, may best be considered unknowable and unencyclopedic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would second that approach. As Wikipedians, we are not in the business of mind reading or assessing somebody's "true beliefs" from their contradictory statements. Just lay out the statements, including contradictions, and watch the facts and actions more closely. — JFG ^talk 09:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to analyze whether Trump believes his own lies, or the lies about his lies. Just follow the sources. Read a few and it will be very clear what the gist is. soibangla makes a valid point, but I think that aspect is already clear in the article.- MrX 🖋 11:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not about mind-reading. It's about distinguishing what he reads from a damage-control script provided by his advisors from what he spontaneously says that contradicts that script and reverts back to what he's said previously. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't psychoanalyze Trump in Wiki voice. We should just follow reliable sources. My position has always been to report the contradictions rather than seek to find Trump's one true belief. In my experience, it's usually been pro-Trump editors who have sought to identify Trump's "one true belief", see for example JFG (a participant in this talk) seeking to remove Trump's statements on same-sex marriage here[8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You are misrepresenting the discussion that you and I had back in March 2017. Nowhere have I sought to identify Trump's "one true belief" or tried to remove Trump's statements on same-sex marriage. More exactly, I was attempting to correct text that you wrote in order to better represent sources, including Trump's contradictory answers on such questions, and how they evolved between campaign interviews and presidential actions. Conversely, you repeatedly tried to suppress or water down the fact that Trump considered gay marriage a "settled" issue with the Obergefell decision, irrespective of what his personal opinion might be. But don't take my word for it; thanks to your reminder, interested readers can check the facts for themselves. — JFG ^talk 13:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please everyone, go ahead and read it. Here is JFG removing Trump statements that he consider unreflective of Trump's "one true stance" on LGBT rights[9], and here is an extensive discussion where I explain why that specific JFG edit is wrong[10] while JFG argues that Trump's statements on the record do not describe his position. Blue is red, sky is green, and apparently I was the one trying to remove Trump's positions... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you persist in misrepresenting my statements and the sources. Fine, we'll just disagree. — JFG ^talk 13:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I am going to jump in a few days late here. The main problem with Trump is that 1)he lies like a rug, 2)he says things that are not lies but that he has no real intention of doing, 3)he says things that he intends to do, but subsequent events mean he doesnt/cannot. In the context of an election campaign, EVERY politician in the world's statements on their views, goals etc need to be treated with a pinch of salt - thats not unique to Trump. They are starting from the goal of getting elected. You need to look at significant pre-campaign and post-election statements AND actions in order to accurately reflect what a politician thinks/will do in a situation (or rather, treat material & analysis from reliable sources post-election with greater weight). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla — Starship.paint did both edits there, so what are you on about here ? Is it the “wouldn’t” part, the “straying” part, or the “exclusively” part? And why? I can imagine reasons why Starship might have made those changes, adjusting from additional sites or lack of cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Approval ratings

I don't edit this page much, but the section Approval Ratings ends with the sentence "After one week in office, RealClearPolitics gave Trump a polling average of 44 percent approval and 45 percent disapproval." Someone should update it with more recent trends. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. My feeling is that we should not even try to keep this section current, or to list any individual polls or polling dates. That kind of information fills an entire article of its own, which is linked in our section here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We should solely use aggregate polling. If there are any RS that run through polling over the course of Trump's 18 months, then we could use thse RS to emphasize important shifts in polling over the course of his presidency (i.e. 538 saying there was a decline over period X, rise over period Y and stagnation over period Z, and these shifts are related to events ABC). I'm pretty sure reliable sources that deal a lot with polling, such as 538 or the NY Times' Upshot blog, might have such articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that something like that - a long-term summary of trends - could be used here in moderation. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a long-term summary of trends is best, but I have no issue with including approval rating at the start of term as part of that summary, since it is sort of a baseline. Neutrality^talk 17:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We should stick to minor mention with the long standing usage of Gallup poll. The topic of ‘approval rating’ is a minor WEIGHT in the area of Presidency and predominately meaning refers to Gallup. Functionally that is the one which can be compared with prior presidents, and a single poll is usable for table or graph display. Aggregate sites seem more about the differences the polls show — that one shows 70% at the same time another shows 20%, or differing methods they use. Such info is WP:OFFTOPIC for here as it is not focused to Presidential actions and events, but speaks more to the topic of polling methods and the polling article this section links to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand at all what you're trying to say about aggregate polling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Aggregations, or sites like the [538] are more about comparisons among polls, or which the aggregation method does/does not include and how. Different aggregations differ. Talking about aggregation or the main points of 538 being a cloud display of points at a given moment .... are just not functionally usable and are topics for a polling article and not this article. A simple Gallup is both useful here, and is the longstanding convention in articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I get it and agree, Markbassett. How do you suggest we include the content, prose-wise? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If you "get it", can you explain for the rest of us, because I don't have a foggiest of what Markbassett is talking about either?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi - I think MelanieN removal of "first week" item was enough, and accept her mention of any longterm trends (that have yet to show up). The current content about pre-election and inauguration approval rating seems enough for now since there just has not been a significant shift in approval ratings from the low-40s, and not much mention about how its not moving. The separate articles might talk about how steady it is, or that reasons the folks happy with him have ... but for this article 'on inauguration day, approval rating was 42%' and the graph alongside it looks like all there is to say. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Two years is a "long term trend". And as mentioned above, there is one fact that has been consistently true throughout the presidency and that his approval rating has been below of any other modern president, except possibly Gerald Ford.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter. Nixon at the end of his presidency. GW Bush before 9/11. Lyndon Johnson pretty much always. Hoover because of the Depression. Polls, media, etc. have shown that many presidents have been "non-approved" in large numbers at varying times throughout their presidencies since the beginning of the United States. And polls can be quite misleading as well as bias-represented. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hoover was before modern polling. Can anyone find an example of a "long term trend" summary type article, and link to it here, so we can tell what we are talking about? --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

[11]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But it doesn't give us much to say. For the first year and a half, approval ratings steady in a range from 36% to 44%. I'd say let's just leave it as it is for now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George HW Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, ... the variation in approval was usually a lot wider than President Trump has had so far, and most them seem to have United States presidential approval rating that dipped into or below the very-steady Trump low 40s. But this is not relevant for edits to the article, and unless some dramatic rating shift happens that is noted by RS, I think the MelanieN last edit is enough as there is just no RS and nothing much for them to talk about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

McCain quote

The quote from Sen. McCain has been removed [12] with a self-contradictory edit summary that says: "trimming unsourced McCain quote – we should not cite a self-published source anyway". It's can be either unsourced, or self-published, or neither, but not both. The nature of the edit summary suggests this was just a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal.

The quote itself is highly significant and has been commented upon in multiple sources. This should go back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"The quote itself is highly significant" How so? Has it been identified by a reliable source as highly significant? If so, significant in what manner and to whom? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] for starters... Come on, let's not play the game of "deny the obvious" again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper articles and YouTube videos don't answer the question of how his statement is significant. It only shows how media thinks it's significant. What is the significance you referred to and to whom is it significant (please don't say the press, because their bias is obvious). Here's a hint: can you indicate if it matters significantly in the way of something Congress is going to proceed with, or to foreign heads of state, or that it's going to be meaningful in a lasting way beyond a newscycle... that would be great. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's one youtube video and it's of a news report from a reliable source, so please don't try to discount it. And why is the "how" important? Where do you get that and what policy are you basing it on? It's enough that it IS significant, asking "how" is just original research. And guess what? If reliable sources (i.e. "the media") thinks it's significant, so do we. The fact that you think the press "is biased" is just a reflection of the fact that you do not intend to follow or respect Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. And that's in addition to not following WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked two random you provided. They do not, I repeat: they do not, include the removed quote. If you want to be taken seriously, please stop making stuff up. Politrukki (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wellll, since there's no way I can know which two sources you checked "randomly", I can't really address your statement or respond to your personal attack. I'm pretty sure all these sources have either the full quote or parts of it. Now, I guess it's possible, in a probabilistic sense that you just "randomly" happened to check two which had only a portion of the quote so that you could come here and proclaim that you weren't going to take me seriously. But like I said, can't really address that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that I missed something. If the quote was not in article text but in embedded videos, you should mention it (I avoided picking sources that were obviously mainly audiovisual). You could prove your claim by explaining how the sources have treated McCain's statement. There's no question whether the sources have cited McCain, but you are focusing on proving that a quote some Wikipedia editor picked must be included. I've seen McCain paraphrased in different ways, partly because McCain has given several statements. Check your sources if you don't believe me. Politrukki (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek -- it would be better to show that McCain quote with a secondary source, one of the RS that repeats and comments on it. Actually, my feeling is that the whole section could really use a pruning though to just say widely criticized and dump all the quotes or to have only quotes a secondary source comments on -- not just direct cites where some writer is saying X. Such a chosen collection of first-party WP:QUOTEFARM items seems just a form of WP:OR 'here are the criticisms I like' and way too much detail of a gossipy they-say- nature. For NPOV are we to also put in supportive comments such as the noted remark of Rand Paul about Trump Derangement Syndrome (FoxNews, The Guardian, NY Post)? Or mention that about 70% of Republicans approve of the summit ([USAToday, Slate, The Hill)? Too much transient detail here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

These ARE secondary sources so, yet again, don't know what you're talking about. These RS "repeat and comment on it". Since these sources do EXACTLY what you're asking for, is it ok if we put it back in? And please, quit it with this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" nonsense. Somebody came up with a cute little insult to attack others with, it's not exactly a good idea to keep repeating it everywhere you comment because at some point it becomes a BLP vio and/or a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek No, it is not OK to put back with the cite issue unfixed -- though I suppose given the larger issue one could just have that cite flagged as being not good enough, while discussing the bigger issue of the whole quotefarm paragraph is an OR/Synth and maybe gets all deleted. That deserves an outdent for better attention, if not its own thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

p.s. The "Trump Derangement Syndome" is a Rand Paul quote -- now also a Trump tweet. But I think only the Trump usage would be applicable here, as it is a Presidential tweet. While the Rand Paul remarks of support for the President suit, his comments on critics is a bit OFFTOPIC of the theme presidential actions and events as it is not a Presidential action or comment on one -- it is two steps removed and speaking to others. Doesn't mean it isn't about Helsinki, but its abot the reactions and so seems a bit too far removed. Markbassett (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"becomes a BLP vio and/or a personal attack" – What on earth are you talking about? Politrukki (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The facts are (a) the removed quote is not in the source (hence "unsourced" or "failed verification", if you like that better) and (b) the source is self-published source, so technically it should not be in the article (unless accompanied with reliable sources). What do you think reliable sources say about McCain? I've seen a whole bunch of different things. Politrukki (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• The McCain quote is highly-noteworthy given that it has been cited by many excellent sources throughout the world.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] McCain is a senior statesman who has dedicated his life to the United States and its founding principles through personal sacrifice and service. Let's put the quote back, in accordance with WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 11:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:109PAPERS. There is plenty enough criticism of Trump's Helsinki presser in the article as it stands, including by McCain. Piling on extra tweets adds no value. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Off target. Those do not WP:V The text in question, nor address the deletion reason. (And citefarm is a poor approach anyway. One can google up a dozen hits for almost anything, this does not mean it is WP:DUE, and has not given WP guides or discussion.). Suggest be happy McCain existing content is there, or if you want the whole tweets then present reasons for the whole tweet — not partial quotes or sites that just have McCain. (Though I think the whole para is OR anyway, if you want expandedquotes you should say why.)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Helsinki quotes para concerns -- OR/Synth, and first person

Concerns on the third paragraph about Helsinki widespread criticisms seems to need discussion for fix or deletion.

It is a lead sentence (no citation), followed by several lines of Baltz, Cavuto/Cooper, McCain, Gingrich criticism snippets and then a final line of a Trump snippet "Following the meeting, however, Trump said the two hour meeting was a "good start". cite. Concerns with this seem to be

• OR - Starting with the core principle, the starting premise seems just an editor or two made a theme statement, it's not cited to a RS and the phrase "Trump was strongly criticized by individuals from across the political spectrum" is not coming up in Google from anywhere other than here. Crafting an original theme that the rest of the para is built upon seems to violate the core principle WP:OR. I think one can find sources that speak about overall response, just not these uncited words.
• Synth - the OR lead specifically states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." These quotes do not appear together in any of the cites shown -- it seems to have been gathered only here, and not necessarily WP:DUE notice.
• OR selections - the issue here is at least partly one of selection by whim -- who to quote and what snippet was chosen is by their choice -- they chose *that* snippet of Cavuto and not "maybe jet lag and time differences... but Holy Moly". It did not include others such as Schwartzenegger "Little Wet Noodle, Little Fan Boy" or Bette Midler "HE'S A TRAITOR!", or R-PA Lou Berlette "it's important to continue the dialogue." So the choosing of quotes has the appearance of simply stitching together words to form the OR theme.
• POV - and partly that they are limited to criticisms. There are no neutral or positive comments being shown here, and WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This lacks for example any mention that most Republican Senators made no comment and that voicing support are the vast majority of Republicans, current Senate hopefuls, and a voiced support from a few congress people such as Rand Paul or Thomas Massie.
• Primary Source Content - These are personal emotional reactions lacking the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources which are the nature of secondary RS.
• Primary Source or BAD Cites - The Gingrich and McCain inputs are WP:SELFPUB WP:TWITTER, the Balz remark is cited to an article by Balz. It would be better to show any quotes with a secondary source, one of the RS that repeats and comments on it. There is also the mentions of Cavuto and Cooper cite to CBS and NY Times articles that do not mention Cavuto or Cooper so do not WP:V it. Again, I think a secondary source can be found -- the bigger question is why is Cooper even mentioned ?

I'd suggest just trim it back to an overall summary and dump all the quotes -- a simple paraphrase of situation with supporting cites is at least a need to have, anything more than that seems to need further discussion. To me a loose bunch of quotes seems mostly trivia better kept in the separate detailed article. Any other concerns about the section as currently edited ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You make good points. I think the paragraph should be rewritten more in line with the "reactions" section at 2018 Russia-United States summit - which also points out that the reaction was overwhelmingly negative but primarily mentions reactions from the press and from Republican politicians, while mentioning that Paul and a few other congresspeople were supportive. Also the quotes are from widely reported sources rather than individual blogs or tweets. I will work on coming up with a better paragraph based on the summit article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have substituted it with an entirely new paragraph, based on the Summit article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Environmental section

I had hoped to redo the environmental section which one would think I know something about since I am the leading editor of the Trump environmental sister article. However it appears that another editor knows more than I do and has objected saying it's going to be impossible to re-write this section more concisely later on if random bits of highly notable info is being removed willy-nilly. This is not the first time that this editor has acted in a less than pleasant manner with me and I don't like it. Hopefully he will improve the section since it should be obvious to anyone that it needs some work. Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The trimming seemed fine to me. If we were the re-write the section sometime in the future, the place to get the info from would be Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. That is where the info should be first and this article should summarise that. It is not a dumping ground. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a strange comment, given both that the content itself is WP:DUE and that you yourself fought tooth and nail to prevent the most comprehensive trimming of content earlier this year, even though nearly all of the trimming was completely uncontroversial[42]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Close but no, I fought injecting a bunch of undue POV by removing anything remotely positive. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Vastly more negative info was removed on net. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Not going to derail the conversation here with past discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to re-write the text more concisely, go ahead. Don't just remove highly notable actions such as the Stream Protection Rule repeal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure it's important. Every lie he has told is important as well. But when the numbers become so overwhelming one must pick and choose and in this case I planned to cut back on some issues and add other issues that I felt important - knowing full well that anything I do is still not enough to fully address his attack on our environment. At any rate, it really pissed me off that only minutes after I began to work on this section, not as a new editor to the issues but as one well-experienced in the issues related to our environment, you would call my edit willy-nilly. On the other hand, if you had reverted saying you thought that issue too important to delete, I would have been glad to hear it. IMO we're supposed to try to maintain a working relationship with other editors and calling their edits "willy-nilly" does nothing but create discord, ill will, and pissedoffedness - though a lot worse words than that come to mind. Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Removal of needless bloat to this article and moving it to the proper one. PackMecEng (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Any experienced editor knows that the very best way to hide information that documents well-researched opinion and documentation of facts is to suggest to split it off (to an article that no one reads - check the stats for that). Never the less, it is something that must happen again and again, much to the distress of many editors, including me in some instances. But the fact that the splits are less read is no excuse for putting every new fact into the main article and doing nothing what-so-ever to improve the split - as is happening here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Question re "Social issues"

This has been bothering me for quite awhile. Why does the info box state "Social issues (canniabis)"? That is one issue but one of many and certainly not the most important issue, IMO. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer - that is in the general template of many Trump articles, so it would be better to ask at the project page or at the page Template talk :Donald Trump series. Does look odd. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be discussed at Template talk:Donald Trump series. I for one would support removal, because we can't list all 900+ articles about Trump in the sidebar, and the cannabis article is a niche subject. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC from last month got archived

But no admin closed it?[43] Is that a problem? I'm just letting you know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You can list it at WP:ANRFC if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - it looks like a dead heat to me ... editors were at 20 for and 13 against but opposition had a bit meatier arguments; and the reviews at noticeboards RSN and MEDRS (other than people from here) was mixed and unenthusiastic. I'll suggest the notion to address the concerns -- the RSN mention of RSOPINION suggested attribution and wording shifts "wrote" and "estimated", something like "Cutter and Dominici have estimated that Trump administrations proposed changes to environmental rule may lead to 80,000 deaths per decade." (I still think it is UNDUE but an alternate wording would seem to address the concerns of some more and might be worth asking about.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the lede mention that Trump called for the Mueller investigation to be terminated?

The lede currently mentions that Trump has repeatedly criticized the special counsel investigation. However, that is not reflective of the hostility Trump has displayed towards the investigation. You can criticize an investigation without asking for it to be terminated. However, Trump did that in August 2018: Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now starship.paint ~ KO 13:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:Recentism. Maybe we should have a quote of the day in the lead?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In a word, no. This is about his presidency. It's not about every tweet he makes - or even the outrageous ones. But thanks for asking. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a more significant statement than previous ones. Level of hostility in morning tweets depends on Trump's mood I suppose. — JFG ^talk 05:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Food Stamps

Regarding this reversion:

I'm happy to replace the WH transcript with this secondary source with the same quote: “More than 10 million additional Americans had been added to food stamps, past years. But we’ve turned it all around.”

The NYT source says SNAP participation "declined every year" since fiscal 2013, while the source I provided is more accurate at December 2012, which is in fiscal 2013. Fair enough? soibangla (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I would be good with using that source to make those statements. Talks about his quote and references the data. PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is additional objection, I will amend the edit as discussed. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:Soibangla I will object as WP:UNDUE and a bit WP:OFFTOPIC. Look, this section is supposed to be on the Economy within the Presidency article ... the major actions by the administration and the major events during that time. Instead this is down in synthesized nit checking casual verbal cheerleading ? Other than filling in for a slow news day at NYT, this is just trivial and focused to speech checking rather than actual economy news or presidential actions. Show limits to something of more WP:WEIGHT please. How about a limit of major things actually done, that get front-page coverage or at least business section coverage in multiple papers on multiple days like tariffs ? The section should be showing objective facts like a table showing federal finance, GDP and Unemployment as Presidency of Obama does and Clinton and Reagan also provide. Or some similar coverage focused on economy facts rather than economy speech, like an Economy section is supposed to ? How about to things that actually affect the economy like a tax or labor change? Suggest delete this item. It was apparently from tainted SYNTH rather than from prominence in coverage, and whether one can google to find somewhere someone else also did such still sniffs badly ... and in the end it simply remains not worthy of including. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You wrote: "major actions by the administration and the major events during that time." SNAP participation has been a major economic topic for several years, as a key indicator of the economic recovery. "But we’ve turned it all around" is an assertion of successful Trump economic policy. The data refutes that. It is worthy of inclusion. soibangla (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla WP:ONUS is on the proposal to show WP:WEIGHT, so... show it or give it up. Proof by assertion will not do. This seems not a major or even minor mention in Presidency of Barrack Obama; not big speeches or executive orders here; not a headline or major stories in BBC or FoxNews or even MSNBC; and the Google count for this is vastly below anything of Mueller or Stormy Daniels. “Can find 4 if I Google” will not do compared when Mueller might show 4 million. Show cause if any exists, or give this up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

President Trump and storms

According to the washington post, he is complicit. Fox News also reported on it. --2001:8003:4023:D900:4801:5794:29C0:20F1 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No edit was proposed and looks to me that none for this article can come from this. The Washington Post is an opinion piece so is not usable. The Fox piece is a media coverage ridiculing the Post over blaming Trump for Florence, so is not about the Presidency. Their “The media won’t give Trump credit for the economy but they will blame him for a hurricane. You can’t make this stuff up”, and quotes from Barron are about the Post, so do not fit this article’s topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

New page

• Donald Trump’s speech in Warsaw, Poland

Created by someone who is apparently a student in a class that is not working with the education foundation people. Not sure what the norms are for individual speeches, so posting here for folks to review. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Section for treaties

Material about treaty and bill work during this administration seems to need a new section ? Calling for comments from others on adding a section or what section such things go.

I was looking at the updates/modernization of the Outer Space Treaty e.g. here, and of the Music Modernization Act, e.g. here. Think the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 doesn't need a mention (unless others say otherwise), and the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement revisions from NAFTA could go within the NAFTA section I suppose, but otherwise I'm thinking no current section seems appropriate.

Ideas for such ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Too long" tag

There is currently a "too long" tag on this article. In order to shorten it and make it easier to navigate, I propose the following:

1. Domestic policy - this section should be spun off into its own article as it currently stands, and should be replaced by a brief summary of his general views (not a case-by-case examination of different policies).

   • Environment and Energy - if the above is not adopted, this section should be spun off by itself (currently the hatnote is for "further information", not the "main article") and replaced with a summary.
   • Immigration - if the above is not adopted, or in addition to the above, this section should get its own page.

2. First year - this section be replaced with a summary and linked to the main page(s). It should not include a month-by-month breakdown.
3. Notable departures - this section be removed entirely, and the "see also" hatnote at the start of it be moved elsewhere (but kept).

   • Firing of Michael Flynn, Firing of James Comey - if the above is not adopted, these sections should be removed.

Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(A) I think the content in the 'First year' section should be merged with relevant sections (if the content if not covered) or removed (if it's already covered). (B) The Flynn and Comey firings should be kept, as they are highly notable and of long-term encyclopedic value. (C) The easy cuts are in the form of removing redundant sources. For example, references 43-81 can probably be changed to a few references (there are individual RS that cover most, if not all, of these firings). (D) I can take a stab at trimming paragraphs and sentences in the 'domestic policy' section. I wrote most of the text, so I have some familiarity with the sources and the content that already exists in the Wikipedia article, and can probably trim it in a way that somewhat retains all the substance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the first year section (without replacing it with anything), removing the notable departures subsection (Flynn and Comey should still get about a paragraph each somewhere in the article), and substantially trimming the domestic policy section. From the foreign policy section, I favor cutting subsections on UK and Germany (cover them under NATO) and Australia, and merging a few countries into a Latin America subsection. Relationship with the media should also be trimmed (and possibly split off into its own article). Orser67 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Supportive - 1 - domestic, prefer snipping the lowest weight ones after TALK discussion; 2 - first year, yes summary and chop as it’s in another article and can just point to it; 3 - departures, OK to just chop but prefer just summarize and point to the other article like firstyear. Suggest do 1 section at a time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 trim

I trimmed approximately 5% of the article's size (measured in bytes) in a series of edits today. My edits focused mostly on the content under 'Domestic policy', as that's the section that I've contributed most content to.[44] Looking at the rest of the article, I see potential for more trimming in the following sections:

• Notable Departures section: many of those sources can be removed and replaced with sources that specifically cover Trump admin departures
• First Year section: I think this section should just be removed. Relevant content should be added to existing sections if the content is not already covered.
• I'd like to remove the 'refugee programmes' figure. It's sourced to Al Jazeera and it's unclear what the figure is saying.
• Foreign Policy section: lots of redundant sourcing. The trade section should perhaps be merged with the 'Economy' sub-section (the sub-section may already duplicate some trade content).
• Ethics section: lots of redundant sourcing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Trump's calls monitored by foreign intelligence

I think this is a significant development that warrants inclusion. Should it, and where?

"When Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese and the Russians Listen and Learn"

Proposed edit:

The New York Times reported on October 24, 2018 that Trump has continued using his unsecure iPhones to speak with associates, despite being repeatedly warned by aides that American intelligence has determined his calls are being monitored by Chinese and Russian intelligence. China, in particular, was reportedly attempting to use information gleaned from the calls to influence Trump's trade policies through his associates. Concerns of administration officials that Trump might disclose classified information during the calls were reportedly lessened by their awareness of his longtime paranoia about being surveilled, as well as the fact that he does not typically dig into the details of intelligence and military operations.

What say you? soibangla (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The last sentence should be removed, but otherwise this should be included. It also needs to be noted in the text that Trump dedicated much of his campaign to attacking Clinton over her communications security in what appears to have been bad faith rather than a genuine concern. Can someone add a ping for the user 'Neutrality' (I have vague memories that he/she tried to create a section/article/something at some point on the communications security of the Trump administration)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Omit Momentary Trivia per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - at the moment this just lacks WEIGHT or value, looks like just a day's flash in the pan criticism over trivia blown up as if it was an issue.

• First, NOTNEWS please just don't chase uptothesecond put whatever this mornings feed was into here, wait a bit to see if it has any depth or durability or further details revealed. A one-off NYT article saying unnamed sources say other unnamed aides are concerned ? Meh, seems like I've heard this general plotline before. I see Rachel Maddow made a similar complaint in January 2017 and it didn't go anywhere. Hypotheticals about what he MIGHT say simply lose out to what he DOES say.
• Second, an open phone simply isn't unusual. Obama got to keep his Blackberry, and later got a limited secure one while wife and kids had open ones, and Obama unclassified email was said hacked. Making golf dates on an unsecure phone really is not an issue, so long as they do the secure business on the other phone/email. After all, if the guy on the other end is unsecure then the call is going to be an open one anyway. And the Chinese have been hacking just about everything for decades now, no surprise if they've listened in to both Obama and Trump. (And Clinton and ...)
• Third, this really isn't comparable to the scope of Hillary. Right now this is not a front page story or gone viral so lacks WP:WEIGHT. Making ALL State department business including classified material go via your own email server and then it being scrubbed before Congress gets to look ... is a fishier item. Having it come out in a succession of reveals, figure largely in an election, perhaps determine who wound up President, be criticized by an FBI director ... got a lot more coverage WEIGHT that endured for months. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Table of judgeship appointments ?

An informational table would seem useful at Judicial Nominees. I noticed that there is one at Presidency of Barak Obama - Other courts listing the appointments to United States federal judge.

Are others feeling such a table would be good ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the idea for now just because I think there's a strong chance it would not be updated often enough Orser67 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A table would be overkill for this article. Just keep count of how many positions were filled on each type of court. You can safely use List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, which is well maintained and has everyone. — JFG ^talk 04:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Mass-Violence article?

Every day the list grows and grows. Two within the last week! We now have the Letter Bombs, the Pittsburgh Synagogue, the Las Vegas massacre, Stoneman Douglas High, the Unite the Right Rally, and so on, ad infinitum. Surely these topics are notable enough to warrant a standalone article on the astonishing amount of violence Trump has inspired in such a short amount of time? This is a topic with legs and room to grow. Please leave your vote below.

Note: Here is VP Pence denying this all-too-obvious connection, with little plausibility, and even less conviction: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/28/pittsburgh-shooting-political-reaction/1798466002/.

More references: We, too, need an article on this important topic.

Support, per OP. 98.113.64.235 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This has a great potential for POV problems. Any such addition to the article should refer to who is alleging such a connection and any denials of such a connection. Also, any header for such material should be neutral. Wikipedia should not decide whether the above referenced violence was "inspired" by President Donald Trump. SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, no, and no. This is both WP:OR and WP:POV-pushing to accuse Trump of being responsible for everything post-2015. The Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter appears to have felt Trump was too "pro-Jew" or something. I will immediately AfD this article if it's created as an inherent NPOV violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• • thank you both for contributing to the discussion. In deference to your views, I now suggest the article be titled Donald trump and Mass Violence, which, I believe, satisfies the NPOV concerns. As for the OR claim, there is a veritable goldmine of significant articles on this topic and it is not plausibly described as Original research. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you simply proposing creating a new article or are you also proposing any changes to this article? SMP0328. (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The OP had been blocked as a sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Table of Economic indicators and federal finances

I'm looking to begin an informatinal table, a version of the economic table Economic indicators and federal finances that was done at Presidency of Barack Obama - Economy. That added unemployment to the table of Federal finances and GDP at Presidency of George W Bush - Bush Tax Cuts.

Does the kinds of data in the Obama economy table need anything additions or reformat ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I suggest showing the real GDP growth rate rather than the dollar amount, and showing receipts/outlays/deficits in calendar years rather than fiscal years, as calendar more closely aligns with presidencies. The Obama table is part fiscal year and part calendar year. soibangla (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla - The deficit is run and reported by fiscal years - not much I can do about that table. The real GDP I will have to look at and maybe hunt. For now, since there are no objections in the last week, I'll post what I got from about the same sources as the Obama table, and edits can go from that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The real GDP numbers should be in the same table you're using. And it's particularly relevant for 2017/18 because inflation is up in those years, so nominal GDP is misleading. Volunteer Marek 07:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not in the same table but after scanning thru the file I found some of it, at least to 2015, so I'll put that in. GDP seems used more than RGDP or change of, but both can fit. After another year or so maybe cut out showing the rows for years 2013 and 2014 to save space, but for now I think I'm done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Please don't put 2018 estimates in your table. Actuals only, please. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla I think that labelled estimates are OK and kind of unavoidable. The government issues them and even after the year closes make later revisions so we're kind of always dealing with the latest government estimate. Anyway, the RS put in estimates, so doing 'just follow the cites' I put it in with the same note. There is some WEIGHT oddity to this, because WEIGHT seems to be mostly on the first report or most sensational one -- for example 2018 seems mostly seen as 4.2% (2nd quarter report, made the news and was hyped), or 3.5% (most recent quarter value in report). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump's lies while in office

Why is there no list of Trump's lies that have been documented by the Washington Post and other news media? Brendonmla (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Head to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and knock yourself out. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, (a) the norm is to call things 'false' not 'lie'; (b) there isn't such a list as far as I've seen -- I've seen informal declarations, and individual cases discussed and differing counts; and (c) Sort of not inline with WP guidelines. The WP:SAL does not indicate that as typical type for a list, there just are not such things as articles to list, and WP:LISTCRITERIA talks about subjective criteria or where inclusion is likely to be disputed. Seems better a matter for prose approach. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Brendonmla - I semi-retract #b -- I just did run across such a list or at least a database at the Washington Post, the Fact Checker opinion pieces have been keeping an ongoing database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump since assuming office. Their chart is up to 6,418 as of 29 October 2018. (In their opinion anyway -- other judgements and counts are about, and personally some of their opinions back seem to be trying to find a way to some fault rather than any fixed approach of evaluating. I consider that just doing what sells in their market. Anyway, that gives a prominent and reputable left-leaning list with rationale on each evaluation and overall stats.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship

I added a line with the background of of birthright citizenship to the section recently added by Snooganssnoogans here to given context to the "Trump falsely claimed that the U.S. was the only country to grant birthright citizenship" part. Which was quickly reverted by Snoogans here citing "trivial. it's a western hemisphere phenomenon, and it's not one we should be delving into in this article". If we are not going to give context for calling it false I think the falsely claimed should be removed as well. What does everyone think? PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There are several problems: (1) The added sentence adds little of value. (2) It even misleads readers as it omits that dozens of countries have birthright citizenship, and may give readers the impression that only Canada has it. (3) The focus on "only one other high-income state" is bizarre and it's unclear what sort of context this is intended to give (as opposed to saying dozens of states have unrestricted birthright citizenship). (4) The article is already way too long and there's little additional value in adding this sentence (note that I did not add that dozens of states have BC initially, because it would have added too much text). On this episode, we only need to note that Trump called for ending BC and that he brazenly lied in his argument for ending BC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

1-It clarifies the previous sentence and gives some context. 2-We could add from that source, I think it is 33 total? But I did not want to be overly long. The main two that do it are the USA and Canada. 3-The focus on it was from the source, they made the distinction.[45] "The United States and Canada are the only two “developed” countries, as defined by the International Monetary Fund, that have unrestricted birthright citizenship laws". I could get others that support it as well if you like. 4-If we want to trim it why not remove the sentence all together that gives no context on why it is false? PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I reached "main two". I'm trying to work out what sort of centrism that is? English speaking North American? Your source might say something like that, but they AND you need to read more widely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry most important two? Most influential two? Two biggest economies? What do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The world is bigger than English speaking North America. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone that did grow up in North America or speaking English I know that. What does that have to do with this? PackMecEng (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• The second sentence is not needed, as too "inside baseball". I would even say that it's too soon to include the first one; Trump says many things, not all of them warrant inclusion. When he signs such an executive order (never?) or when it's drafted (also never?), then we could include this. In any case, the 2nd sentence should be excluded for sure. It's basically a stunt.--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• There really needs to be a 48-hour waiting period. Yet another flap du jour going in without waiting for any significant WEIGHT to appear, or to see if there is any actual result. While I find it a bit interesting, and yes Canada is some context as is legal evaluations on topic that Trump might be correct ... but may I suggest just holding off for a day ? This is running off just hot air and speculation at this point, it's not a presidential action or event. -- Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, this one is now a few days on (instead of the morning of) and ... it's looking like more WEIGHT has showed. I no longer have objections of WP:TOOSOON or lack of WP:WEIGHT. Though I've no idea what coverage would suit ... no real action has happened nor seems possible. I halfway think he's just trolling the opposition, and halfway think just stirring up the base, or maybe both at once. Anyway, seems it's just a rhetoric ploy for the election. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng, User:HiLo48 — I suggest simply removing mention of ‘birthright’ from here. For the moment, it seems nothing more is happening, so it’s just another flap du jour of the type ‘folks saying Trump was wrong’ sort. Not giving the context or actual statement (too casual and odd but it does seem literal truth) and just mentioning the critics had a brief flap seems skippable, including it to me would seem necessary to observe NPOV and go into some more. Perhaps like Yes only two main countries and controversial at both, perhaps something else... but putting in just “falsely claimed” and nothing more looks incorrect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree, ended up being a flash in the pan at this point with no action or legs yet. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Falsehoods

I continue to strongly believe that Trump's persistent and increasing propensity to state falsehoods is perhaps the primary distinguishing characteristic of his presidency and deserves a prominent paragraph in the lede. soibangla (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think saying he is lying would highly likely run into POV problems. SMP0328. (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not think that statement is correct, but ... Is there a specific edit proposed based on policy and cites, or is this just a remark on where their thinking is? This topic and placement has been discussed a lot before now. Most such seems to be at his BLP article, perhaps meaning it is him personally, and much less is at his Presidency / administration atthis article.

(As to why I think it problematic -- well, it just is not a big part of his official Presidency actions (e.g. Executive Order) or major events, so does not have coverage or form much of the article body so winds up to not suit WP:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreign direct investment

The following sentence from this edit...

However, aggregate statistical data showed that foreign direct investment—the total flow of investment capital into the United States from the rest of the world—declined sharply during Trump's first seven quarters in office, down 46% compared to the seven quarters immediately preceding his presidency.

was removed on the basis of primary source and original research, but...

"Primary" does not mean "bad"...they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher...and they can be used, and in this particular case it's official data from the Federal Reserve: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ROWFDIQ027S

and, Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations, and I contend that percent change (the 46% figure, = V2/V1-1*100) is a routine calculation and is thus permissible. If others disagree, I can instead express the data as raw dollars and readers can calculate percent change themselves (although percent change is more useful and requiring readers to calculate it is annoying IMO).

So unless someone still has objections, I would like to restore the edit in its entirety. soibangla (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this. I think the entire paragraph (both sentences) should be left out. The first sentence is Trump making up numbers. The second is a Wikipedia editor interpreting primary data, doing a calculation, and reaching a conclusion that apparently no secondary source has bothered to do. Come back with this when Reliable Sources start reporting it. We are an encyclopedia; we collect and report what has been published elsewhere, preferably by multiple sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I’m not sure your response adequately addresses my explanation, but would you consider this acceptable in lieu of more recent data? Foreign investment in the United States plunged 32% in 2017 soibangla (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I will note that as OR, it obviously lacks WEIGHT of press coverage to be due a mention. It is problematic anyway, mashing in a Dec 2016 Trump quote of what he did in 2016 and then statements about situation over longer term ... but he didn’t say something about 18 months later so the quote does not belong with some 18 month study. I think the whole para including the remaining line about a study happened could be dropped, as it’s just not a prominent study or affecting the Presidency. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

He asserted his election would result in a flood of foreign investment. So far, it has declined sharply. It is meritorious of inclusion IMO. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That's closer. That's a Reliable secondary source, and it's talking about 2017 which is when Trump made his claim. I still think it doesn't rise to the level of inclusion, particularly because secondary sources haven't said much about it, but let's see what others think. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a good number of RSs have noted it, its just that FDI isn’t a “headline” statistic, so many don’t notice it soibangla (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, well, let's see some of those sources. You've already provided one good one. Sources are what is going to decide this issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreign investment in U.S. dropping dramatically under Trump, The Cost of Trump’s Economic Nationalism: A Loss of Foreign Investment in the United States, US foreign investment a casualty of Donald Trump's trade war, Foreign investment diverts from US as Trump hardens trade stance, "Basically, net FDI has been falling off a cliff" soibangla (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The first is moneywatch reporting Dr. Posen blaming Trump (the second is Dr. Posen), which would not support the removed edit or claims that Trump promised something, but is good for a line re foreign investment decline was attributed by Posen to Trump. Third cite is behind paywall but seem to be about mid 2018 as result of Trade war with China. Fourth cite to “Strait Times” seems similar, but mentions that “part of the decline can be attributed to the fall in global FDI, shrinking 23 per cent worldwide” so does not portray it as all Trump. The fifth is Axios reporting on Posen again. So these cites support a different thread that there was a global FDI decline and that Posen blames Trump, not seeing much WEIGHT though. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:soibangla ??? The removed was not supported by the cites. They had no Trump promise of future foreign investment in the cites, just noted the post-election actual dealing. The cites AFP and LA Times/AP 6 Dec 2016 was re the announcing the SoftBank / Foxconn $50 Billion gave credit to Trump being elected. Nothing saying Trump “asserted his election would result in a flood of foreign investment”, or “anecdotes to assert that foreign investment had begun”, just the fact of Trump was credited by Mr. Son for one event. There is side mention in AP article about Carrier and Ford to not exit the US, which is not Foreign investment. There is side mention in AFP article about Trump pressuring Apple to return to U.S., which is not foreign investment. All of these were just reporting about events of the day fact, not a Trump promise re the future or exactly 18 months later. Think this having to dig for it is kind of showing it is not prominent thus not DUE, but the OR combining of unrelated bits also just doesn’t make sense ... It starts with a low WEIGHT study saying he made no difference, followed by a line saying he made a vague aspiration (failing V because cites are to actual past dealing), followed by an OR analysis from FRED data that he made a negative difference. These just don’t go with each other, it’s 3 different realities there and none seem to be WEIGHT in common view. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Another, related suggestion

(I'm giving this a separate subhead to avoid mingling two discussions.) For that matter, I am dubious about the sentence before the above mentioned paragraph. It cites a single study by a single method to say that Trump's presidency has not affected the economy. The cited source is written by the authors of the study. Have any secondary sources reported on it? Anyhow I bet we could find other studies that would show he has significantly impacted it in a positive direction, and still others showing he has significantly impacted it in a negative direction. Single studies are rarely worth much by themselves, although we do sometimes cite them if they attract a lot of secondary attention - which this didn't. I suggest this sentence be deleted; however, that will require consensus since it is established content. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I support your view soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the sentence for low WEIGHT. It is a scholarly work, just not very noted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker

You are invited to participate in Talk:Matthew Whitaker (attorney)#RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker. R2 (bleep) 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Update lead re polling

The lead currently has a year-old item (a bit confusedly phrased)

"As of the end of his first year in office, opinion polls have shown Trump to be the least popular president in the history of modern American presidential opinion polling."

That was a factoid of day 365, now a bit dated. Shall we update it to something more current of "Trump’s approval rating during his first term has been “incredibly stable” within a band from about 36% to 43%." per e.g. the Guardian ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you can add that his low approval ratings have been stable ranging from 36 to 43 percent, but the current text is still relevant.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that we should insert markers like "low" or "high". Markers like "the lowers" and "the highest" are ok to put in provided the sources back it up, but the 1st group of markers are opinionated. Those aren't needed. Only the number can be shown and everyone for themselves can evaluate if that is high. Bilseric (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote: Pending some consensus on new lead words, I will add the line above into the section "Evaluations and approval ratings" as that was fairly short and not updated since Jan 2017. That should be done first anyway, before any editing the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Immigration tidbit

Posted per BRD... I noticed a tidbit in Immigration over Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying a number from 2017 as being 2018 and at first thought it overstated the cites and missed the point of the challenger so needing some rewording. But on second thought every single remark from Sarah that is or portrayed as wrong just does not deserve a mention, and this seems one of the tinier ones so I just deleted it and post TALK here per BRD. If it persists as a story into next week, that would be more WEIGHT. Meanwhile, I’m at there really should be a 48 hour waiting period and Please do not post the mornings feed into WP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump and his allies have repeatedly misrepresented (some might say lied about) the threat of terrorists crossing the southern border, and this was yet another example of two senior Trump officials doing so during a shutdown fight. It is significant that the administration persists with these falsehoods, and the edit contains no original research. It should be restored. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit trivial to cover as a single incident (because this article has size constraints). However, I think it would be smart to create a paragraph, noting that the Trump administration has repeatedly lied or grossly exaggerated the threat posed by immigrants when they try to justify stricter immigration policy. The Wikipedia article on DACA and the one on MS-13 summarizes some of this deceptive rhetoric. See also reports put out by the administration, which intentionally mislead the public as to the dangers of immigration.[46][47] The '2018 election' article also covers how the administration chose to fear-monger on the topic of immigration as its closing message in the campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The material that was removed stands out in isolation. Some of the explanatory detail should be trimmed, and then it should be summarized in a more general paragraph or two about how the Trump administration has repeatedly lied and propagandized[48][49][50][51] about activities on the U.S.-Mexico border.- MrX 🖋 11:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems rather minor and not very important. Leave it out unless it actually becomes something worth while. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On the eve of Trump's national address, this just in:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants on the U.S-Mexico border in the first half of fiscal year 2018 whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists, according to CBP data obtained by NBC News. The low number contradicts statements by Trump administration officials, including White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, who said Friday that CBP stopped nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists from crossing the southern border in fiscal year 2018.

soibangla (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla ... or Pelosi and her allies have repeatedly misrepresented (some might say lied about) ... neither way is relevant, what made it OR was you entered 3 lines cited to NBC that DID NOT COME FROM THE CITE. I could have patched it closer to the ‘wrong year data’ story, but that guess of theirs missed the challenger in other cite was dinging the ~4000 as mostly via air in a Sarah wording that did not say 4000 in the Southern border...it said 4000 to US, and that the southern border was the weakest point. Just not worth the effort to include, a squabble in press briefings is just very common and this one had too insignificant a noise to put into article. This one just doesn’t have WEIGHT enough to include. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Pelosi and her allies have repeatedly misrepresented (some might say lied about)" Show us where, and if you can, feel free to add that to their articles. soibangla (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

THE EDITS DID NOT COME FROM THE CITE. So OR deleted. As to the rationalising posture soapbox sideremark vs Trump, admit that cuts both ways or lose 100 credibility points. (They’re called politicians, and their mouths are moving... or more generously politicians posture and sales pitch rhetoric is presenting the bits they want in the light that favours the outcome wanted.) As to “show me”, well you said first so you show yours first. Or you know, you can probably just google foxnews and Sean Hannity etcetera sites for as much Pelosi criticism you want. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you deny that Trump is in a class of lying all his own that is absolutely unprecedented in public life for as long as any of us have been alive? soibangla (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict). THE EDITS DID NOT COME FROM THE CITE. And you lost 100 credibility points. Now, you can drop the red herring, accept the revert of Sanders edits that were not supported and move on. (Recommended) Or go back and write something that matches the RS. Or ask me to show some of the bigger whoppers from other politicians in my talk page. Up to you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Trimming

I'm trimming excessive detail from the article to bring more in line with those of past US presidents as well as Wikipedia WP:LENGTH guidelines. Substantially most of the information that I'm trimming is already covered in WP:SPINOFF articles.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This article started to be fat and repetitive. — JFG ^talk 18:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a summary table of "First year" and "Second year"?

Currently, there is a table summarizing what the administration did in its first year. There is no such table for the second year. What I'm wondering is: should such tables be in this article? The 'first year' table summarizes items which are already covered in the sections on 'domestic policy' and so on, and items which are chosen seem to have been chosen rather randomly. Given the size constraints of this article, I think these tables are counterproductive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the table. The norm for these types of article is not really to highlight years. The Obama article does discuss the first 100 days, but that doesn't mean we have to follow that tradition.

At a high level, the typical structure for the past few presidents is a follows:

1. Election
2. Administration
3. Judicial appointments
4. Domestic affairs
5. Foreign affairs
6. Controversies (or Ethics, or Impeachment)
7. Approval Ratings
8. Elections during the presidency
9. Evaluation and legacy

I would like it if we could adopt a similar structure for this article and be vigilant about not delving into a lot of detail.- MrX 🖋 16:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I will address the reference errors in due course, unless the bot is able to fix them first.- MrX 🖋 17:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. — JFG ^talk 18:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say after a quick look at all the trimming it looks pretty good. Nicely done. PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!- MrX 🖋 18:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX - Yes, no need for “second year”, and can reduce or cut “first year”. The ‘first 100 days’ of a Presidency seems more typical of WP and has more RS coverage WEIGHT, and relates better to the historical timing of the federal cycle. Having any timeframe exam seems unusual and expendable, but if there is one then a 100 day section seems a better timeframe. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Lead

User:MrX Posting here per BRD. Again, reverted per failed WP:LEAD and edits to lede need prior TALK consensus on the wording before edits. I believe you know the topic is in talk above, please join that conversation and meanwhile I suggest just hold on.

There really has not been any major content change (or external change), and there is no crushing urgency here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede is hopelessly out of date. There have been many significant developments in regard to the investigation and what is now known about the extent of Russian involvement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Then obviously it could wait long enough to open a TALK thread instead of unilateral action. And remember, this article’s topic and focus is supposed to be on what happens in the White House starting 20 January 2017. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: My reading of the discussion above shows consensus for including coverage of the significant point that Trump and his administration extensively make false statements and misleading claims. This fact has been widely-reported for the past two years, since Spicer walked up to his first press briefing and lied. Trump has made more than 7600 false and misleading statements. This is possibly the most important item to cover in the lead per WP:WEIGHT.

The wording has also been thoroughly discussed, as you know, because you were involved in the discussion at talk:Donald Trump. It has rough consensus at this point. Your arguments for omitting this material have been very weak, and not based in policy. Your opinion stated above that "There really has not been any major content change (or external change), and there is no crushing urgency here." is not reflective of widespread practice on Wikipedia. We don't require major external changes before updating an article. We don't throttle contributions because an editor thinks the is no urgency. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX So propose language in the thread above, with reasons it applies to this article, and get actual feedback from others on it. Yes, there has been no significant matching change to body or external world this is based on, glad you acknowledge there was not a content reason for change. But that you misbelieve ‘we do not require any thing big’ for LEAD changes seems just saying you misbelieve trivial matters are suitable for LEAD or that instability in LEAD for whimsical fluctuations are always accepted. Obviously we did require more ... what WP guide or discussion led you to this belief ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, the wording I propose (and I think most of the other commenters agree with) is the wording that has rough consensus on Donald Trump. By the way, material does not need to be in the article before it can be summarized in the lead, but if you're suggesting that we should expand the section False and misleading statements, I would very much enjoy seeing your efforts in that regard. - MrX 🖋 13:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX I am saying that a lead change for this article needs to be explicitly discussed in this TALK, per TALK - talk here for edits here. I am also saying that the guideline WP:LEAD says the lede for this article is to be about this article. No, material DOES have to be in the article before a summary can be inserted or else it is failing LEAD. Simply pasting from another article lead or having a discussion there is just not to be expected as applicable here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett I think we are discussing it. For the avoidance of doubt, here is the text in question:

During his campaign and presidency, he has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.

The text is verifiable in reliable sources, extensively covered in the body of the article, extensively covered in an entire article, factual, objective, neutrally worded, and representative of substantial majority of coverage of the subject in reliable sources. What remaining issues—grounded in Wikipedia policy, citable to reliable sources, and absent original research—do have with this summary sentence?- MrX 🖋 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX I would suggest again that you put it in the thread above so there is just one unified thread. Existing consensus was/is against similar language, and again supports external to this article do not suffice for LEAD or V. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This revert should be reversed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=877356419&oldid=877237841 soibangla (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the revert was proper. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede should certainly note that brazen falsehoods are a key component of this administration's messaging, in particular the President's. I recommend that this article use the same language that the Donald Trump article uses. That seems to be the quickest and easiest way to incorporate text on this issue to the lede, without being stalled by veto players. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, want to use the current text or what is purposed in the RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with using the same lead text from Donald Trump. I think it's reasonable to use the text that is pretty close to consensus in the RfC, and tweak it later if necessary.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans no, the lede should follow guidance of WP:LEAD, rather than whim or moralising on what is desired by individuals. Dropping a random snark into the lead without prior TALK agreement or any body relationship was a clear time for a revert. I would also note that the topic here is the exercise of Presidency of the United States in the major actions and significant events during his time in office. Criticism or praise and success or failure of those are within that scope, but a stray tidbit or focus on critics personal remarks unrelated to that is a bit of OFFTOPIC inappropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. there's no "random snark", there's no "whim", there's no "moralising". This isn't a "tidbit" and it it's not about "personal remarks". Please actually address the issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The lies of this administration is covered at length in the body, see for example this section[52]. "False" also pops all over the rest of the body, because the administration brazenly lies on so many issues and actions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

NB: the revert also removed an entire paragraph, not just the lede sentence. Scroll down. soibangla (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

And it restored three other long-standing paragraphs that the reverted edits had run over. While I’m not a fan of the diary style, putting things in some reverse order and revising things with the revert-mentioned big paste duplication / overwrite seemed a bit much. Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:soibangla - are you going to discuss further, i.e. to propose language with article/cite and WP policy/guide basis? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Note - time has passed, the proposal for duped content seems not met WP:ONUS of having been proposed and discussed here. It has not shown itself appropriate for summary of this article, so it is not. Just to add more, the language there seems shifted so OBE anyway. Revert. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Lara Trump deserves a wikilink

In § Relationship with the media, the first usage of "Lara Trump" in the article should be wikilinked. (That is, replaced with the wikitext "[[Lara Trump]]".) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Done. zzz (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

The new info about how he doesnt like intelligence briefings should go in a new subsection and not under the main heading of Leadership Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.10.73 (talk)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It's information alrady on the page. I just want a subhead created.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 18:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Why would it need a new subsection? (Frankly I am thinking having a “Style” section at all is odd and gone a bit OFFTOPIC of Presidency official actions and external events.) The sentence about preferring verbal briefings or the sentence about disliking when new info conflicts with already given speeches does not seem like something that is unusual nor at the same level of prominence as the other subsections there. ( Twitter, media relationships, and they are just two sentences of commentary, so... why would it need a new subsection ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Should Mueller report summary be attributed to Barr?

Given that this administration, including former AG Jeff Sessions (I don't know enough about the current AG), frequently lies about things and distorts its own reports, it seems fair to attribute statements made by administration officials rather than state things in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but we should see how sources treat it and follow suit. I would be surprised if they don't attribute the summary of findings to Barr, with the possible exception of the quote that Barr attributed to Mueller.- MrX 🖋 22:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course it should be attributed to Barr, because he's the one who's making the statement. All relevant sources note this, although some of the headlines (rather than actual text) are a bit sensationalistic about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Parts of the report summary were Barr's judgment, but he also directly quoted Mueller's report a few times. Does anyone seriously think that Mueller would sit idly by while Barr distorts the results of his years long investigation, with key parts of the actual report surely to be released to the public? Barr isn't stupid, and there's no way he wouldn't follow this by the letter of law knowing how much interest it is going to receive. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Cohen's allegation in lead

@Volunteer Marek:, added an unproven claim by Michael Cohen that Donald Trump knew about the wikileaks email leak ahead of time. [53] I'm not sure how this got in the lead in the first place, as I do not see any previous discussion about it. Why would this one claim be so significant that it goes in the lead? It seems WP:UNDUE to me. The claim also does not seem to be supported by the Mueller Report which concluded, the Russians were responsible for the hacking the email, but there was no evidence that Donald Trump or members of his campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this was an allegation, and a rather vague one at that, and should not be in the lead, -- MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source. Not sure what's vague about it. We don't know what the Mueller Report concluded, only what Barr said it concluded, and regardless, that's actually kind of irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Cohen made the allegation, that's a strawman's argument. You have failed to explain why his allegation is so important that it belongs in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Typo

Request a typo fix: Under historical rankings at the bottom of the article, it states "Siena College Research Institute's 6th presidential expert poll, released in February 2019, placed Donald Trump 42th out of 44th — ahead of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.[687]," instead of 42nd Losingskin (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed, thank you starship.paint ~ KO 07:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Lead on polling at end of year 1

The polling remark in the lead is about polling at 1 year in, and states

"By the end of his first year in office, opinion polls showed Trump to be the least popular president in the modern history.[3]"

Obviously it is now past two years so this one seems up for an update discussion. Please indicate your preferences or concerns here - some possibilities that occur to me are

1. No change - the note about a year ago can stay, we do not need a current or to-date version
2. Tweak - keep the note about the end of year 1, but tweak the wording to make that more apparent
3. Remove - this was significant a year ago, but enough other things have happened that it is no longer significant
4. Add - add a second line about the second year
5. Replace - put in a replacement line
6. Other - something else

Discussion

• Replace - my preference is to put in summarizing something more than just day 365. I propose "Trump’s approval rating has been stable and low within a band from about 36% to 43%." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - pinging a few names to try and generate input - hello User:JFG, User:Mandruss, User:MelanieN, User:PackMecEng ... What do you think of updating the LEAD line about end of first year approval rating ? Thanks in advance for any response. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I like Markbassett's wording better than what's there, but actually I would prefer to remove the sentence about his polling. I don't think such information belongs in the first paragraph of the lead. Put it in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

For comparison: Both Obama and G.W. Bush now have information in the lead about polling and place in history, now that they are past tense. Neither article had anything about polling or popularity at the end of their second year in office. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but neither GWB nor Obama ranked the least popular president after two years, Reagan held that honor until Trump came along, so Trump is now "special." See Second-Year Job Approval Averages, Elected Presidents soibangla (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Through his second year in office, Trump was ranked the least popular president since World War II," per body. It is not enough to say it's low, it's the lowest. You know..."worse than Carter" and stuff. soibangla (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Carter wasn’t particularly low in his first two years. If you go down the approval ratings link at the start of that section, one can see that Truman, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton seem all in the vicinity and occasionally lower than Trump in their first two years, and later on we see approvals for some past presidents down in the 20s. Seems really more about recent times being more partisan than anything else, but that’s just OR. In any case, please do add input about preference for the section, with reasons. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Because polls are volatile, if there is a sufficient time interval to measure, an average over that time interval is the best way to go, and that's what Gallup did. Two years is a sufficient time interval, and Trump ranks lowest since WW2 by that measure. It is noteworthy and ledeworthy, and my position would be the same if his average was the highest. To characterize it as merely "low" is inadequate. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Ford, Reagan, and Clinton seem by eyeball to be close in the ‘two-year average’. But I don’t recall that snapshot ever being paid much attention. It’s always been the approval-of-the-day as both news and reflects political strength, and around 40 just isn’t particularly odd. The RS seem more impressed/bored that his approval really has stayed the same ... events to date did not particularly swing it up or down. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3: Remove from lead – Not worth a sentence there. (I'd say the same if Trump were the most popular president ever…) — JFG ^talk 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal is acceptable to me - There doesn’t seem much interest here and ONUS no longer satisfied. I’ve given it a full month so will consider that the answer. Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. I have removed the 2018 polling line from the lead per discussion. I was tempted to respect it by the MelanieN suggestion to paste it into the body, but have left it out ... it's in need of rewrite to make it clear it was specifically about day 365 and not the whole, and I don't feel charitable about doing that work for something that currently lacks ONUS or interest, plus I don't feel right about legitimizing a straight-to-lead edit that was not summarizing the body by backfilling the body with it. If someone else wants to clarify something about it into the body, go to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• • • What intelligence agencies "believe" is entirely irrelevant. The correct response is "alleged" and this does not belong in the first paragraph since zero evidence has still, to this day, been presented to the public to indicate any substantial impact on swing state voters. A few crude memes on Facebook just doesn't cut it. I realize the Wikipedia crowd is 95% sour grapes from 2016 not going your way, but try having some courage and objectivity. You might learn something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C401:38BF:542C:7125:323F:2A0D (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)