Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83→Archive 85

Swedish - false statement

JFG removed this with the editorial comment that it's a claim Trump's father first made and that it's undue for Trump's biography: "Until 1990, Trump claimed that his paternal grandfather had emigrated to America from Sweden while his German-born grandmother was living across the street until her death in 1966; (1) he wrote in his 1987 bestseller "The Art of the Deal" that his grandfather emigrated to America "from Sweden as a child." (1, 2, 3, 4) (my edit in the article contained the wrong url to the New Yorker article; I've corrected it here). I say it's due because DJT was using it for decades, including in his book "Art of the Deal", knowing it to be false (has it been corrected in later editions?), and we shouldn't restrict "False statements" to those made during his tenure as president. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The family lie, repeated for a couple generations. It's been a fundamental part of the family's identity. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Since Trump famously attacks Elizabeth Warren for allegedly misrepresenting her ancestry, it would seem this sort of thing is biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, RS do call out that hypocrisy: CNN, Axios, BuzzFeed, The Week, IJR, The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, Time, and of course many RS just about the claim, like Daily Beast. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey How is that attacking warren makes this other thing becomes biographically significant? Trump portrays she cheated into college and job benefits by falsely claiming American Indian heritage; that seems WP:OFFTOPIC of his bio as being insignificant to his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Because, as shown by BullRangifer, many of the reliable sources talking about the Swedish ancestry claim also mention Trump's attacks on Warren and the resulting hypocrisy. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey lying to avoid embarasment versus lying for personal gain ... not the same in Ethics of lying, and way too involved for here. Never mind it. Just take it as presumed other stuff exists. Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful to provide a link to the edit. I notice that the text quoted omits that Fred Trump claimed Swedish ancestry because of anti-German sentiment, which is mentioned in the source. By only telling half the truth, the text is misleading. That's ironic when accusing the subject of dishonesty. And Warren's article is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=841647106. JFG's removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=841763017. Does it matter that his father started the falsehood? This article is not about him. Trump kept it going, e.g., in a magazine article in 1984 and in his 1987 book. I found another RS where his cousin is quoted as saying that father and son discussed whether to continue. So Dad might not have liked it but by age 40 Trump should have grown a pair. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Not a major action or event affecting his life, so not needed in BLP. This is 30+ year old trivial bit. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not up to us to provide a value judgment on the Trump. That belongs to secondary sources. In this case it means presenting all the facts they consider relevant, not selecting facts to place the subject in the worst possible light. TFD (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude It's trivia, unencyclopedic, and is largely about his father and grandfather rather than the article subject. Lot of families have tales of relatives and ancestors who came from here and there or something else, it gets retold numerous times until it is disproven. Why wouldn't DJT believe his father's story told to him by his father? It's just not Wikipedia-worthy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits to the lede

When reverting recent additions to the last paragraph in the lede,[1] Galobtter also undid some minor edits I had performed in the policy paragraph. Can we review them together?

  1. added a helpful link on "insurance mandate"[2] – I believe this is informative and harmless; I for one had to look it up to understand what we are talking about. We can save our readers some research by just adding the direct link to the appropriate section that explains it. Agree to restore this link?
  2. replaced "eliminated" with "cancelled" when referring to the aforementioned individual mandate[3] – that sounds like a more neutral word – maybe it's just my imagination, but "eliminated" rings like a B-movie gunshot murder to my ears. Can you agree to using "cancelled", or how would that bother you?
  3. replaced Affordable Care Act with Obamacare[4] – my rationale was that the "Obamacare" nickname is more well-known than the official name of the Act, hence easier to understand for a majority of our readers, but Galobtter objects that it's a "more charged term" – can you explain how this common name is "charged" and why it should be "trumped" by the official name?
  4. removed a redundant mention of the United States[5], I think it's clear enough in context. Agree to trim?
  5. avoided stating the obvious,[6] namely that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was a "tax-cut bill". However, this edit was replaced by a version which does not name the Act, so that there is no redundancy. The question is now whether we should use the official name here, or keep the piped link on tax reform legislation. I'm neutral on this.

Comments welcome. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 21:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

These minor edits all seemed fine and I don't feel strongly about any of them. Andrevan@ 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
If Obamacare was the accepted common name, it wouldn't be a redirect to the bill's actual name, so I don't know why you'd cite that policy here. It is, like our own article says, a nickname. Parabolist (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's a nickname and described it that way; I'm not implying that the article title should be changed. I'm just saying that for most readers (especially non-US), "Obamacare" is much easier to recognize than "Affordable Care Act". WP:Readers first! — JFG talk 03:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I added the link, I replaced eliminated with "repealed" - what do you think of that (I don't particularly like cancelled), most high quality sources I see when searching the phrase "insurance mandate" use Affordable Care Act at-least when describing in the body, putting the "Obamacare" in parenthesis or something like that, I've removed the redundant United States, on the tax reform bill I basically restored the stable text, which had "tax reform bill" Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
All good, thanks, except one thing: I'm not fond of "repealed" because this verb has been used to describe the much-touted "repeal and replace" of the full Obamacare legislation that did not come to pass, whereas the tax bill only cancelled the tax to pay if you elect not to purchase "essential health benefits". If not "cancelled", could we use "removed", "revoked", "rescinded", "abrogated", "annulled"?[7] I'd pick "revoked". — JFG talk 07:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The only words that apply to this action are "repeal" or "rescind". I think "repeal" is much more commonly understood and will be clearer to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
How about "removed"? Also - I agree with Gelobtter that at first mention (or first mention in a long time) we should say "Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). " --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
"Eliminated" - if you don't mind its other connotations. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Eliminated was the original word, which JFG objected too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oop. Well we know googling a thesaurus didn't come up with anything new. Also I agree we should reference the popular name "Obamacare" especially since it was part of the opponents' slogans on this issue. Moreover "repeal" is in fact what legislatures do, and it is simply the fact that (relative to Trump's campaign slogan) he left the job half-done. Who joins JFG to object to "repeal"? Also, as a matter of procedure it really would be better to come to talk before making multiple edits that change the meaning of the article. Things get very cumbersome and the software won't let us undo edits where they're tangled up with other unrelated ones. It really is an impediment to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

My views on JFG's points:

  1. Good edit.
  2. "Eliminated" was better. It's the term lawmakers use and it is well understood. Not to be confused with EXTERMINATE!
  3. It should remain as "Affordable Care Act" as a shortened form of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". I would accept "Obamacare" only if it placed in scare quotes.
  4. Good edit.
  5. We should definitely NOT use the term "tax reform legislation", because there wasn't actually any "reform" in it whatsoever. "Tax bill" would be more neutral.

I like to see explanatory sections like this for clusters of minor edits. Good idea, JFG! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This all looks settled. Current text keeps "Affordable Care Act" and uses the verb "rescinded" instead of "repealed" or "cancelled". Regarding "tax reform", many sources have used this term, I don't see an issue there (apart from personal opinion about the scope and effectiveness of such reform). — JFG talk 17:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any such consensus. I see Scjessey saying this talk page thread was a good idea. I see everyone rejecting rescinded in favor of better words, e.g. "eliminated. I see other disagreements with your view. Please don't edit these bits until your "settled" assertion is confirmed. Let someone else reinsert your preferred wording if indeed it's consensus here. @MelanieN: SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI I have not edited this part after Galobtter's partial revert; I started the discussion, others gave their input, and Galobtter made further changes. — JFG talk 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I prefer not calling it "tax reform legislation," because it's a bit wordy. It was mostly called "tax reform" before the bill was written and voted and signed, after which it was usually called the "tax cut." It was a "tax cut bill," it didn't really change the existing tax system (despite intention of doing so), it just adjusted rates and deductions. We could also use its proper name. I think most of the source material calling it "tax reform" is from before it was signed. Andrevan@ 18:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The North Korea talks are WP:UNDUE for the lead.

The above discussion seems to have gotten derailed into the exact wording for them, so I think we need to tackle this aspect more directly, especially given this news story. A summit that has not yet occurred and which, in fact, may now not occur at all is definitely undue for the lead. (If it is left in the lead, we would need to make it clear that North Korea has threatened to pull out - but the uncertainty is probably part of the reason why a speculative meeting doesn't belong in the lead in the first place, since at the moment it isn't particularly significant relative to the rest of the article.) We can always restore it to the lead if / when it occurs, assuming the results are significant enough to go in the lead of a president (not at all a given.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

North Korea has been mentioned in the lead since December 2017, and the "pressured" wording has been stable since 14 January 2018 until deleted on April 14. You'd need a pretty strong editor consensus to remove it now. The back-and-forth posturing about which side gave up leverage or stood firm, and whether the summit will indeed take place, are too much detail for the lead. — JFG talk 09:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Kim shocks world with bomb and missile tests. Hawaiians panic! Ivavka chases biz deals in China. Rockets threaten Japan. NY Post says Trump is pressing NK. That mule has left the "stable". SPECIFICO talk 09:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, then perhaps it belongs in the lead of Kim Jong-un or Mule Train. In related observations, has anyone noticed that the lead photo on Kim Jong-un shows dear leader in front of what appears to be a nuclear explosion?- MrX 🖋 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Kim has Trump scared silly. Pressuring him into erratic tweeting and grasping at "overtures" that US intelligence learned years ago are empty snares. If anything, RS tell us that Trump pressured himself into taking the bait. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a pretty strong consensus to remove it right now. I think it's notable that only a single person in this discussion has unequivocally and directly argued that it's WP:DUE (notably, you yourself are not yet making that argument, merely saying that it's been there for a while - which I take to be an implicit concession that the argument that it is WP:DUE for the lead is otherwise weak.) If you think it's WP:DUE for the lead, go ahead and present your reasons, but I'm noticeably not seeing them now. It's not an iconic achievement or policy position, merely one of the administration's innumerable stances coupled with some speculative discussion of a potential upcoming meeting. It's worth mentioning on the administration article, or perhaps with a sentence or two in the body here, but it obviously falls far short of the standard needed for inclusion in the lead of Trump's personal article, and the fact that it was left there seems to me to be an accident that we are now (fortunately) in a position to correct. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have been thinking the same thing as Aquillion. Until there is some tangible outcome from this meeting (if it even happens), I don't think it belongs in the lead. The amount of time it has been in the lead, or the "stability" of the wording, are not really valid considerations. I'm not aware that we have ever put WP:CRYSTAL meeting plans in other president articles.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Well yes, aside from mocking the absurd claim that Trump "pressured" his puppeteer Kim, it should be stated plainly that this bit is false, ill-sourced, and undue for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 11:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree. This isn’t even the presidential article. One of the things Trump the person is most known for can’t be a meeting that may or may not happen, and if it happens, may or may not result in significance. O3000 (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Article talk pages are not the place to express your opinion that mainstream sources are wrong. Even your own user talk isn't a good place for it. Facebook is a better bet. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Being new to this page, I had to do some digging into the archives. Going to take up some space on this Talk page, with my apologies to the editors who are familiar with this:

  • On Dec 11, 2017, Galobtter added "pressured North Korea to reverse the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program" per talk page proposal by Anythingyouwant (814842058)
  • A few hours later, JFG changed the text to "pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program" (814861774)

I'm wondering why the addition to the lead wasn't objected to at the time because IMO the body of the article at the time didn't support either version; the contents were about NK actions and Trump's hopes and rhetoric.

North Korea became a major issue in mid-2017. During the campaign and the early months of his presidency, Trump had hoped that China would help to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions and missile tests.[584] However, North Korea accelerated its missile testing, leading to an increase in tensions in April 2017.[584] In July, the country tested two long-range missiles identified by Western observers as intercontinental ballistic missiles, potentially capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland.[585][586] In August, Trump dramatically escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, warning that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen."[587] North Korean leader Kim Jong-un then threatened to direct the country's next missile test toward Guam. Trump responded that if North Korea took steps to attack Guam, "[t]hings [would] happen to them like they never thought possible."[588]

And the body of the article still doesn't support either version. The last sentence was replaced by the two sentences I bolded below, i.e., Trump warning of "strong retaliation" and the SK president doing some pandering:

North Korea became a major issue in mid-2017. During the campaign and the early months of his presidency, Trump had hoped that China would help to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions and missile tests.[611] However, North Korea accelerated their missile and nuclear tests, leading to increased tension.[611] In July, the country tested two long-range missiles identified by Western observers as intercontinental ballistic missiles, potentially capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland.[612][613] In August, Trump dramatically escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, warning that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen."[614] North Korean leader Kim Jong-un then threatened to direct the country's next missile test toward Guam. Trump responded that if North Korea took steps to attack Guam, "[t]hings [would] happen to them like they never thought possible."[588] Trump warned Kim of strong retaliation if North Korea attacked Guam or U.S. allies.[615] In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea. [616] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the last paragraph which IMO needs to be deleted: In March 2018, the White House confirmed that President Trump would accept a meeting invitation from Kim Jong-un. The two will meet by May. Press secretary Sarah Sanders said that "in the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain." He has accepted, they won't be meeting in May, and why is Sanders being quoted here? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Not undue at all. NK has been a prime focus of Trumps foreign affairs and mentioning that his administration has applied pressure is not UNDUE. per the references provided by JFG in above threads, this matter should be mentioned in brief and written in summary style in the article itself.--MONGO 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Those references are over whether sources have used the word "pressure". Whether it's due to mention NK in the lead at all is a totally different question - putting it there is putting a tentative future meeting, or some discussion of the Trump administration's vague "stance" on NK, on par with major policy changes such as withdrawing from the Paris agreement. I don't feel that we have the sources to support the idea that it's a signature accomplishment or action by the Trump administration on that level, at least not so far. This is Trump's personal article, not the one on his administration, so the standard for inclusion in the lead here is extremely high - speculative discussion about future meetings or vague talk about his "stance" towards North Korea obviously doesn't meet the required standard. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That is absolutely right. Mentioning the NK talks in the lead is a classic example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SPECULATION. It does not belong. Yet. If the talks ever happen, and something great comes from them, or something terrible, THEN they would belong in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48, the North Korea situation should not be in the lead. Emass100 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to calling the North Korea situation "undue for the lead". We are not only talking about the upcoming summit, but about a very significant and widely-covered situation of international tension that has been unfolding over almost a year now. Extensive sourcing has documented the acceleration of the North Korean nuclear and missile tests, the war of words between Trump and Kim, the focused pressure being applied to North Korea by US and China, the resumption of dialogue with South Korea, and the preparations of a peace summit. Other foreign policy issues currently regarded lead-worthy are arguably less important (Cuba tightening, Syria missile strikes). — JFG talk 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably, so remove them too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to remove those if there is consensus to do so. Wouldn't act unilaterally. Regardless of what happens to these other stories, the lead should still mention North Korea as a top foreign policy story, unless we decide to totally remove foreign policy from the lead (and that wouldn't make much sense at all). — JFG talk 03:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Mention what? Maybe we can add a "breaking news" ticker at the bottom of the lead, NK talks are on/off/remain tentative, hint of flexibility (US-want my Nobel)/keeping our nukes (NK). Joking aside (or not), whether the talks take place (or not), whatever the results (Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un has already won), but right now they're WP:CRYSTAL. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Increasing international tension is not exactly a noteworthy achievement. [8] With the passage of time it will be easy to reach consensus as to what's significant. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that RS have published the info makes it DUE, but above all - consensus supported "B" as the choice for inclusion. Why are we debating this issue all over again? #1 - close the above survey first - include what was agreed upon per consensus - and if things change, we modify it. Isn't that how everything else is done with Trump articles? Publish now - correct it later? Atsme📞📧 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not aware of any "consensus" for "B". When did that get decided? That discussion isn't closed. Is the new tactic to simply declare a consensus and hope nobody notices? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Scjessey is correct, we need to wait for an uninvolved closer to assess consensus. — JFG talk 06:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion was #1- close the above survey first. Of course it would require an uninvolved closer which I see as a given. Perhaps I should have qualified my statement that consensus supported B by preceding it with IMO, and not take the obvious for granted - anything can happen - but I simply thought it would be understood when I followed it with #1 - close the above survey first - include what was agreed upon per consensus. I didn’t think anyone would take it any other way if they’re AGF but I’ll try to be more explanatory in the future as long as I’m not chastised for verbosity. Atsme📞📧 14:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: If anybody increased international tensions, it was Kim Jong-un firing missiles above Japan, claiming he had developed an H-bomb, and directly threatening Guam, a U.S. dependency. Trump addressed the issue with a combative tone (which you are entitled to dislike) and more effective sanctions thanks to joint diplomacy with China and South Korea. There is no disputing that these developments have been among the most important foreign policy actions since Trump took office, hence worthy of the lead. — JFG talk 06:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion about US policy wrt North Korea. I agree with you Kim increased tensions on (AKA "pressured") other nations with his displays of weapons technology. I don't recall stating I disliked the tone of Trump's responses, (a personal opinion that would be irrelevant here) but RS accounts have not suggested that Trump's rhetoric is "pressure" commensurate to Kim's pressure having launched surprisingly advanced missiles recently. And various media instances of the word "pressure" that have been cited in these discussions do not make any such equivalence. Moreover, we really do not know what the posture of China and Russia has been or what arrangements they may have made with Kim on this and other issues, so WP can't state anything about the Trump Administration's joint diplomacy in this regard. At any rate, I think there's a range of views on the table here and a closer will sort them out for us. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump canceled the meeting. Don't see it on the 'Net yet. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

...and so it turns out that the "let's wait and see what happens" approach here was the correct approach. An actual meeting with North Korea (I refuse to use the word "summit" which should mean talks between the leaders of the most powerful nations - nations at the "summit" of world power - not talks between the president of the United States and the leader of a small country) might have belonged in the lede, depending on the outcome of said talks. A proposal to hold a meeting, not so much, and this is why. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct. Andrevan@ 20:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not include in the lead at this time. Per my comment in the previous section, we shouldn't be re-writing the lead based on the latest news of the day. Especially not when the story is an ongoing muddled mess of uncertainty. Alsee (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

North Korea in lead

Yesterday I updated the information about the North Korea situation in the lead section,[9] and Signedzzz reverted, saying "restore neutral, verifiable version". I submit that my version is just as neutral and verifiable, and is more accurate given the current state of the negotiating process. Calling our fellow editors to pick a version. — JFG talk 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Version A

He accepted an invitation from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un for direct talks regarding the latter's nuclear weapons program.

Version B

He pressured North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and scheduled a summit with Kim Jong-un towards denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Survey on North Korea status

  • Version B – More informative and up to date. Per my original edit summary, Kim-Jong-un didn't wake up one morning and say "gee, I guess I should invite my old chap The Dotard to a treat of noodles." The reality is that US and China applied exceptional pressure on the North Korean economy, so that Kim was forced to come to the negotiating table. In turn, he played the high-ground maneuver by making big friendly gestures to South Korea, and Moon played good cop to Kim by agreeing to take de-escalating steps, and restore sensible relations between the two Koreas. All considered, Trump's bio should mention Trump's role in this process, and not be reduced to the fantasy that NoKo and SoKo did their thing spontaneously, and only then invited US to the ceremony. — JFG talk 08:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A is more neutral and accurate, however it should be reworded to avoid the construct "regarding the latter's nuclear weapons program". Also, we should not rely on Fox News as the only source for this content.- MrX 🖋 12:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Prefer that we omit this from the lead until there is some tangible accomplishment. I'm not aware that we have ever put WP:CRYSTAL meeting plans in other presidents articles. - MrX 🖋 11:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • B. It's accurate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B: um, it's what every single news agency is reporting. Do we have to have an RFC to determine if the sky is blue? – Lionel(talk) 13:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A The sky isn’t always blue. I don’t see how anyone can argue with A. I can see neutrality arguments over B. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B is the most up to date and accurate. The wording is improved. Easy choice. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B Considerably more accurate, neutral, and per sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B Much more accurate and up to date. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A Besides name-calling, Trump did absolutely nothing to put additional pressure on North Korea that wasn't already being done by previous administrations. It's not at all clear why North Korea suddenly and unexpectedly offered talks with the US. The mainstream media has speculated it may be for many reasons, including (but not limited to) the success of the Winter Olympics collaboration with South Korea and the apparent disaster at the primary North Korean nuclear testing facility. Apart from in fringe right-wing sources, there's very little support for the revisionist nonsense espoused in version B. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Revisionist? It's well known that Trump made many comments pressuring NK to denuclearize. Don't you remember that "my button is bigger" tweet? Per the civility restriction, please strike your "revisionist nonsense" comment, as it assumes bad faith of the editor who proposed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a source that Kim Jong-un read tweets like "My button is bigger" and thought: I better denuke? O3000 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. The comment doesn't say whether the pressure was effective or not. Trump was quite public with his comments about NK denuclearization. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: It is revisionist nonsense, and it's an assumption of ignorance of the facts, not an assumption of bad faith. And Objective3000 is making a solid point in that there is ZERO evidence that any of Trump's silly tweets were a factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: your comment is ignorant and insulting. Please strike it and apologize for your offensive wrongness. It is very well established that Trump has been pressuring NK, [10][11][12], and The New York Times even refers to "levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table."
The commentary generally says his pressure may have paid off, e.g. the top foreign policy analyst at Brookings Institute clearly suggests Trump's military threats may have influenced Kim's decision.
Sources abound, here are a few:
Factchecker_atyourservice 15:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that[‘s hilarious. The Vox article gave two discussions one claiming Trump’s efforts are successful and the other claiming they are failures. You quoted from one and ignored the other, falsely implying that the article called it a Trump success. And you want an apology? O3000 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
What a ridiculous response. I didn't remotely say that. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Forget about the tweets for a moment, they are not relevant since we are specifically mentioning them in the purprosed text. But you would be hard pressed to deny that the pressure on China, Japan, Russia, and economic factors were not a major part of Kim coming to the table. That is the point most RS are making on this. Revisionist would be trying to deny Trump played a big roll in the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. RS clearly support B - NYTimes "President Trump and South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, say their policy of “maximum pressure” on the government of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has helped bring him to the bargaining table.", and The Guardian published the announcement by Chung Eui-yong, Seoul’s national security office chief: "I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture."
  2. Washington Post: "Trump has told aides to schedule his summit with Kim in late May or early June, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo made a secret trip about two weeks ago to meet Kim in Pyongyang." Option A is dubious, and fails to mention the basic premise that sanctions/economic pressures are why Kim Jong Un agreed to meet with Trump and would consider dismantling his nuke program. Atsme📞📧 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pompeo is a Trump lackey. Hardly a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If you cannot maintain a rational and objective frame of mind, perhaps you should take a break from editing this article. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears Scjessey has come to a fork in the road and decided to take it. When that happens, it's always best to just step back, find a comfortable seat, and use one's moral compass to find the way back. Atsme📞📧 15:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have notified this editor that his or her attack on the Secretary is a BLP violation and have requested its removal. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B seems to be the clear choice. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B is far more accurate, with a possible addition re: the widespread rumblings of the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump, even from news orgs that serve as the DNC's de facto communications team. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version B--MONGO 17:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Something else Version B probably gives Trump too much credit by suggesting a causality between the pressure and the summit when there were probably other factors involved (Olympics for example). Version A doesn't give Trump enough credit, suggesting that it was Kim who set things up. I could live with something like having just the second half of B, saying that he set up a summit with Kim, and that drops the vague "applied pressure". ~Awilley (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The sources clearly say Trump applied pressure and many suggest his efforts were successful, so if we're following RS's option B does a better job of reflecting them. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose any of these. I'm not sure it's worth including this in the lead until after the summit actually happens. Both proposals seem acceptable in the meantime, though "pressured" isn't a great choice of word IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A - B is original research, misappropriating passing mentions of the word "pressure" to spin a narrative no RS has presented, that Trump's clown tactics could influence the NK's to surrender their nukes. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Baloney! Mainstream RS have consistently reported for several months that the Trump administration initiated renewed pressure on the North Korean regime, in reaction to the intensification of their nuclear and missile tests in 2017. This coordinated effort with China is unprecedented compared with prior administrations (Clinton, Bush, Obama). What you call "clown tactics" refers I suppose to the name-calling and threats exchanged by the two leaders over Twitter and the NoKo press agency, which are not what is being discussed. Rather, the "pressured" wording refers to the well-documented tightening of economic sanctions, military drills / show of force by US and aliies, and an effective maritime blockade, including the targeting of foreign companies trying to circumvent sanctions. — JFG talk 08:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A. There are only two sentences in the article about the meeting (which may or may not take place, according to developing news), so the current brief mention in the lead is more than sufficient. Also, a A couple of semantic points about objections to your proposed wording:
  1. JFG: If you have any RS to support saying that Trump pressured Kim into anything, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. The word pressure was used by Trump, Pompeo, and Sanders, and they were quoted verbatim by, for example, Fox News, which is the only source for the two sentences in the article and says that "Trump unexpectedly accepted an offer of talks."
  2. If you have any RS to support saying that Trump scheduled the meeting, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. When two countries agree on a date and place for a meeting between their heads of state, they scheduled it. Saying that one of the parties scheduled it makes it sound like "be there or else." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. We need not search very far to find dozens of mainstream sources mentioning extra pressure initiated by the Trump administration, with help from China. Other editors have already exhibited some recent sources, and here's a sample of older ones (cited in a December 2017 discussion), clearly showing that this "maximum pressure" policy has been ongoing for several months.
  2. I have no objection rephrasing the second part to avoid hinting that the US alone did the scheduling. For example, say a summit was scheduled instead of [he] scheduled a summit. Naturally, this part will be updated if/when the summit takes place in a few weeks. — JFG talk 08:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Sources already mentioning "pressure" from May to December 2017
  • Version A, since it's much more concise; but as I mentioned below, this is entirely undue to for the lead in the first place. At least currently, the sources don't support the idea that this is a defining achievement of his administration. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Close requested.[13] — JFG talk 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A. Version B, in addition to being wordy and ungrammatical ("their" should be "its") has several insurmountable problems:
  • "towards denuclearization" is vague at best, misleading/inaccurate at worse. Literally today, it appears that the administration might accept allowing Kim to retain nuclear arms.
  • "Pressured" is not only vague, but also not defining or distinguishing; U.S. presidents have pressured North Korea, to greater or lesser degrees, for years and years.
  • The truly defining thing is accepting an invitation from a North Korean leader - that's never been done before
--Neutralitytalk 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Version A is more neutral and accurate IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • NEITHER. I came here to potentially handle the AN/Requests_for_closure, but replied instead. See the probable consensus in the section below: Talk:Donald_Trump#The_North_Korea_talks_are_WP:UNDUE_for_the_lead. We shouldn't to be re-writing the lead based on the latest news-of-the-day. Especially not when those events are an ongoing muddled mess of uncertainty. We all know either text will be rapidly tossed in the trash when the US-NKorea meeting does or doesn't happen. If/when anyone closes this, I strongly suggest closing both sections as a single unit. The two sections are different aspects of the same question: What, if anything, should the lead say on this subject. Trying to close this first would be a disaster. Whichever way it goes, it invites people to support their preferred version and then argue the topic is undue for the other version. Alsee (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with neither. This is early enough to include in the lead if and when any US-North Korean talks have led to some sort of agreement. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on North Korea status

The last thing we, as an encyclopedia, should do is claim to know the inner workings of Kim Jong-un's mind. We must stay neutral. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Please point out wherever this occurs so we can deal with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I did. Version B suggests we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"pressured North Korea" does not suggest we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision.
In any event, it is pretty ubiquitously stated in the RS's that Trump "pressured" North Korea. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Putting both some increase in pressure and the summit in the same sentence suggests a connection which is not known. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Per the sources, which you apparently disagree with? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I looked at one of your sources, and you misrepresented it. The source stated in great detail that there exist opposing views on any connection, or if this is a success or failure. We must stay neutral. O3000 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't "misrepresent" any source. That's a dumb accusation and I request you strike it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Vox gave two arguments: one that Trump succeeded and the other that he failed. You quoted from one argument and ignored the other suggesting that Vox favored your position. That was a misrepresentation, and I suggest you stop telling other editors to strike their comments. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In what fantasy make-believe world is that a "misrepresentation"? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In the world of Neutrality. O3000 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You have no reading comprehension. I didn't say Vox supported Trump, I said they published a POV suggesting Trump's pressure may have worked, and that is a fact.
Moreover you're ignoring all the other sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You have no reading comprehension. I do not respond to churlish insults. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Well I had already said I didn't say what you said I said, but you continued insisting I said things I never said. "No reading comprehension" is just a way of summarizing that.
Again, the sources state ubiquitously that Trump pressured North Korea, and many sources credit Trump's pressure for producing a breakthrough. That's objective reality for ya. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And you again misrepresent one of your own cites. You cherry-picked a sentence when the article also provides an opposing argument. The article as a whole does not support your position. But, what do I know? I have no reading comprehension. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Objective3000: If you cannot understand what you are reading, there are only so many ways to say it, and none of them is going to sound like a compliment.
User:Scjessey said a bunch of patent nonsense utterly misrepresenting RS's, falsely claiming that RS's have not speculated that Trump's "pressure" may have contributed to a diplomatic breakthrough, and falsely claiming that that POV comes from "fringe right-wing sources" .
It is quite easy to see that this is not remotely true, and so I posted a bunch of fact RS coverage referring to Trump's diplomatic pressure campaign and various POVs arguing it was a success or may turn out to be a success.
The RS commentary generally discusses Trump's pressure as a contributing factor, which is what I said, and this was not a misrepresentation in any way. And again: your obsessive fixation on this one non-issue regarding one source completely ignores all the other sourcing. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: your comment is ignorant and insulting. Please strike it and apologize for your offensive wrongness. It is very well established that Trump has been pressuring NK, [14][15][16], and The New York Times even refers to "levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table."

The commentary generally says his pressure may have paid off, e.g. the top foreign policy analyst at Brookings Institute clearly suggests Trump's military threats may have influenced Kim's decision. Sources abound, here are a few:

I disagree with your conclusion, O3000. The event as reported by NBC indicates the opposite is true, regardless of your opinion about Pompeo or anyone else, which is actually what impedes NPOV, not what JFG has proposed to add per "B". In fact, The Guardian stated: "Administration officials portrayed the invitation as a victory for Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” and stressed that the US would not relax its stringent sanctions regime before North Korea began disarming." Atsme📞📧 17:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about and haven’t said a word about Pompeo or NBC. And of course the White House said the White House was victorious. I’m sure Kim’s administration said Kim was victorious. How is that meaningful? My “conclusion” is that I have no idea what’s going on and we should remain neutral. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, O3000 - I struck that part of my comment, and will further acknowledge that your responses have actually been collegial, even though I disagree with your position. Atsme📞📧 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 please point out how version B suggests we know why Kim made a decision. I can't see it. Also please point out in the sentence what decision Kim made that you are referring to. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Including both the fact that there was pressure and that Kim was willing to talk in the same sentence suggests a connection. After all, the two events are connected by a conjunction. Of course it's not that simple. Pressure has been severe and increasing for a long time. Kim appears to have completed his testing, and his test site is collapsing, and his reactor is on its last legs, and there is a newish SK President who ran on reconciliation with NK, and there was the recent SK Olympics with close NK/SK participance. Besides, Lucy (Kim) has pulled the football several times in the past. What I am saying is I have no idea what goes through the mind of Kim (and not sure I want to see into his mind), and think we should remain neutral -- not suggesting a connection that may or may not be valid and even if valid is but one of many factors. O3000 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
But, as previously mentioned, isn't this connection made by RS's? E.g. the New York Times piece that refers to "the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table." That's pretty explicit in saying that Trump pressured Kim to talk. The same article also cites "senior officials and analysts" in saying that Trump's military threats contributed to Kim's decision to talk. I'm sure other sources say similar things. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, news just coming out is that NK cancelled a meeting with SK scheduled for today and just threatened to scrap the summit with Trump. RECENTISM raises its head again. We must be careful and avoid overly optimist wording. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been off Wikipedia for a few hours and just come back to a shit storm on my talk page about Mike Pompeo. I stand by every comment I have made and make no apology. This article specifically uses the same "Trump's lackey" terminology. In a Google search of news sources, "Trump lackey" gets 1,700 hits, so it is a legitimate description. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Psssst...Scjessey, the Washington Press is less than unreliable...there is no evidence of fact-checking, who funds the sight, who the editor-in-chief is, and it comes across as pure propaganda (not unlike the WND site). It's not getting good reviews at RS/N, either. You might want to reconsider your position, and stand down considering BLP requires: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Atsme📞📧 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: I would argue The Washington Press is more reliable than an obsequious Trump official. As I've said before, I will not be changing or striking any of my comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey, considering the following discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Washington_Press, your argument is absurd. NeilN, as it pertains to discussions about BLP vios and RS, we should probably all take note that The Washington Press is unreliable, and as one admin said in the RS/N discussion, Fake news site is not an unreasonable description. Atsme📞📧 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: I'm not saying The Washington Press is reliable. I'm saying it is more reliable than one of Trump's sycophants. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok but your other comments about "revisionist nonsense" and "fringe right-wing sources" were just ignorant and insulting and I still request you strike them. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinion. I think the notion that North Korea's actions are based on Trump's actions is absurd. I will not be changing anything, and you are simply wasting everyone's time by perpetuating the mock outrage, which is what this really is, isn't it? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Respectfully, what really sounds "absurd" is your opinion that Kim's recent moves were independent from Trump's approach to the issue. South Korean officials up to President Moon have repeatedly credited the Trump administration, and Trump personally, for forcing Kim to pivot towards friendly gestures and détente with SoKo. Don't tell me that was just more flattery. And yes, calling my edit "revisionist nonsense" is borderline PA; given our usual good-spirited relations, I would appreciate either a strike or an apology. — JFG talk 09:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: It's blindingly obvious SK officials are stroking Trump's ego, because everyone on this planet knows that Trump will always respond positively to an ego massage. I will not be changing or striking any of my comments, and this is my last comment on the matter. We'll just have to agree to disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We have two leaders that are known for making ultimata and switching back and forth on various issues. Today, NK has threatened to withdraw from the summit. I imagine this will switch back and forth. I don’t see why we should include anything at all about this in the lede for the DJT article, at least until the summit occurs. It certainly belongs in an article about N. Korea. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Tangential discussion about hatting in the Survey section ~Awilley (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Space4Time3Continuum2x, this is the section for discussion, so please move your discussion out of the iVote section to this section - thought maybe editors would be reminded after seeing the other hatted discussions. Thanks in advance....Atsme📞📧 12:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I voted, and explained why I voted against JFG's proposed edit, points 1 & 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Awilley, I hatted an extended discussion by S4T3C2x that was reverted by SPECIFICO. I’m not going to edit war over it, but if other extended discussions are hatted, and editors have been asked repeatedly to not distract from the iVote section, I have to ask if some editors are granted special favors over the rest of us that allows what just happened to happen? I’m sure we can fill this page with explanations for why we voted the way we did and JFG and create distractions to push a POV but I don’t think it’s appropriate when editors have been asked specifically to discuss in this section. Atsme📞📧 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion? I voted, you claimed my vote was a discussion, I responded with "say what" and clarified the wording of my vote. Four edits, the end. Hadn't even noticed that in between you had hatted part of my vote and Specifico unhatted it (thanks, Specifico). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That is not what you did - you created a list apparently as "back door" support of your own POV beginning with: JFG: If you have any RS to support saying that Trump pressured Kim into anything, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. I also presented sources above, so if you had come here to discuss, you would have seen them. Atsme📞📧 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, that is not what I did. I reverted your edit, (that would be you as in Atsme) in which you hatted part of a content discussion for no good reason. That other stuff, I have no idea what you're talking about. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO - huh? My comments were directed to Space4Time3Continuum2x, not you. I presented your action accurately; i.e., "...that was reverted by SPECIFICO" period the end. I hatted the extraneous 2 point list by S4T3C2x that challenged JFG - and it should have stayed hatted or moved to this section. You should self-revert or redo the hat. Atsme📞📧 19:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This is completely incomprehensible. Are you stating that because you misrepresented my action but did not address that statement to me, I should not correct you? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Enough badgering already. I've got better things to do with my time. Atsme📞📧 21:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well then. Count me among the dozens of weary editors whose fervent wish it is that you will do them all. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I see a single longish vote that is split up into a list. ~Awilley (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing-up that little misunderstanding on my part, Awilley. Shouldn't the other "longish votes" be unhatted, too? Atsme📞📧 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any hatted votes in that section. I can't tell if you're trying to be difficult, trying to make a joke, or if you legitimately can't tell the difference between a top level vote and threaded replies to other people's votes. Or are you hung up on the fact that the user addressed JFG in their vote? If that's the case, recall that JFG is the OP so all the votes are in a way responding to them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Gee, nice trio of questions there, Awilley...what happened to AGF? It appears our interpretations of what constitutes a top level iVote differs just a tiny bit. The only thing I hatted was the #1 & #2 comments that followed Space's iVote in a numbered list: #1 was a source challenge that required discussion and so was #2. Keep in mind, I initially hatted a source discussion (one of the 2 hats you modified and signed) wherein multiple sources were provided that would have addressed Space's concern. With the latter in mind, I figured that since prior source discussions were hatted, then future source discussions should be hatted to preserve the iVote flow (and the peace). I took your word at face value; i.e., that it was a "single longish vote" so I contiguously added sources to my own iVote because the source challenge has been a recurring issue...and that is the reason I asked you if we should unhat the others. Atsme📞📧 01:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is hilarious. This "pressuring" is really in the lead of his biography? And what's so cute is that we're talking about the person who called Kim Jong Un "honorable" and "nice" and "excellent", in the most sycophantic manner you can imagine--are we making up for that in our encyclopedia by saying "oh yeah Donald pressured them"? I came up with a fun Google search, "kim jong un plays Trump", and the Irish Times, Bloomberg, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, and CNBC are feeling me. In other words: if y'all want to stay so close on the news, and inject the POV terminology you see in the headlines, you should be prepared for other headlines too. I propose "in April and May 2018, Trump's vanity was stroked to such an extent that he allowed himself to be played like Nero's fiddle and agreed to a meeting with a dictator whom Trump had thanked after said dictator graciously didn't execute American citizens captured for the purpose"--but I'm open to discussion. Or you just play it straight and keep it factual. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Drmies, all that could be true and Kim has played this game before, as have his predecessors. Nevertheless, there is significantly more forward progress going on now in the quest to get NK to abandon their missle and nuclear weapon development than I ever saw when Obama was President. Could be pressure was applied at the most opportune time (nuclear test mishap, heavy sanctions taking a big toll, etc.) But correct that we should likely wait and see how this ends before we jump to any conclusions about what happened and who can be blamed or thanked.--MONGO 01:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't object to not adding another thing to anything Trump until his term is over. Editors who want to be journalists can knock themselves out over at WikiTribune.x_x Atsme📞📧 01:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of process RE: informal polls after routine reverts

I am copying several posts that Mandruss hatted. Arguably they didn't belong in their former location, thank you Mandrus! But they are relevant to how we do business on this talk page, so I have unhatted and presented them below
SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This was reverted because it is no good. It's flippant, unsupported original research, it promotes a narrative that's already been rejected after a lot of wasted discussion over the past year or so, and it is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of RS accounts of these developments. Cloaking a bad edit in a welter of trite cliche and racial slurring about "noodles" does not help talk page discussion. It's not necessary to fight tooth-and-nail with these "informal polls" on every bad edit that gets reverted. I suggest OP withdraw this section and move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This wasn't a fight until you tried to make it one. That's the pattern, I've noticed. Any editor may dispute any edit they wish and start any discussion they wish. That's what this page is for. If you wish to file some kind of disruption or POV-pushing complaint, AE is that way (as I believe I've told you before); otherwise I would appreciate you altering your approach to opposing editors and JFG in particular. Your persistent sniping is unhelpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Mandruss, you know very well that these "informal polls" serve no purpose in our WP process. They are not dispositive, as an RfC would be, and they promote endless tail-chasing. And what comes of it? Half the time there's then dispute over what the poll decided. Then what? If that's resolved it goes on the meaningless "consensus list" atop the article, another stupid idea. When an edit is reverted, it's often a good idea simply to move on to other matters. If there were overwhelming support for the Korea version B, it would have emerged without the pouty-faced cute racist slur about noodles and the next 2 weeks of POV A-B that is now set in motion. So I hope you'll reconsider your pattern recognition proclivities and expertise. Cheerio what au revoir. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Many durable consensuses have been established by these surveys which you say serve no purpose. And there is fairly wide agreement that the consensus list has been a benefit to this article, saving us from rehashing the same issues over and over again because it's too much trouble to hunt down the supporting discussions and argue about whether they show an actual consensus. I'm not aware of a single regular editor here who shares your view on that. So please, take note of the fact that you have little or no support for your views, and don't present them as fact. I'm collapsing this as off topic and unconstructive. Feel free to post a !vote below and/or continue this discussion on my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say it differently. Agreement has sometimes been reached despite the polls. The polls limit and confuse discussion and make it hard to integrate broader views that emerge in the course of discussion. The polls thus serve, (unintentionally I'm sure) to give a first-mover advantage to the OP in such threads. We sometimes need formal polls, but these informal polls do not have clearly defined process and are never the best way to structure a discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"citing security concerns" on Muslim ban

This formulation appears to me to validate the idea that these security concerns are valid and it seems clear to me that they are not. I would like to edit this but am a newcomer to the page and any prior discussion of this point. Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This sentence has been discussed at length and has stable consensus. Please read the archived threads linked from Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus, item 23. Note that the current text does not voice an opinion whether the "security concerns" are valid. This may change after the Supreme Court publishes its ruling, expected in June or July. — JFG talk 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we hat all the N Korea discussions and limit what's added?

Ahhh...one of the issues with RECENTISM. How about hatting (or archiving) the above N. Korea discussions to make scrolling easier for cell phone and iPad users? I suggest that we add a sentence or two saying there was cautious optimism about the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un in May but events leading it up to it caused Trump to cancel. The York Times reported: "President Trump, citing a flurry of hostile statements from North Korea, pulled out of a highly anticipated summit meeting with Kim Jong-un on Thursday, telling the North Korean leader “this missed opportunity is a truly sad moment in history.” Atsme📞📧 21:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have problems with "events leading it up to it caused Trump to cancel". We don't know what caused Trump to cancel. We can write what he says, making sure make it's clear it is what HE said, but he's not known for always being totally truthful. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should so quickly hat or archive the discussion. I would like to see the impartial admins hold folks accountable for their arguments on that topic now that we have seen the outcome shift. I also think the text you've written here is bordering on a Trump-spin press release. Andrevan@ 21:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm...when did in-text attribution to the New York Times become a Trump press release? - now that's a pretty hefty accusation, there for sure. You have twice made accusations of pro-Trump partisanship when addressing my questions, so perhaps you're correct in that we shouldn't hat anything. Atsme📞📧 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Discuss content not contributors PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Indeed, your editing seems to follow a pattern of defending Trump's positions. Andrevan@ 22:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have also supported your suggestions so does that mean you have a pattern of defending Trump's positions? Atsme📞📧 22:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think your proposed text for North Korea seems to "save face" for Trump. This is a foreign policy disaster for him and it spins it like he did this on purpose. Reviewing your contribution history, nonwithstanding your support of my changes above, you must not push for a pro-Trump spin on this article. Andrevan@ 23:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Per discussion hatted above, I have filed a note at WP:AN for some broader feedback. If I am off my rocker right now, I will be soundly taken to task there. If I have a point that Russian/GOP agents are hijacking this article, hopefully that will be discovered there. Andrevan@ 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
So after being soundly taken to task, please redact your aspersions. Спасибо — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:f99e:293d:e019:1350 (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Russian/GOP agents are hijacking this article Huh? And did you really say at AN  I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. ? Incredible. You were lucky they closed the AN discussion quickly, and with only a warning. If you weren’t an admin you would probably have been topic banned - and that could still happen if you keep up this kind of wild accusation. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
On the advice of many users, I won't be discussing my allegations further at this time. I'm sure you agree that's for the best. Andrevan@ 21:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing we can depend on regarding the news...it changes. See the CBS update...may still happen...and as Bill Maher said, “"This could be the one thing that Trump, honestly, is uniquely qualified to pull off," ....who knows....? We wait and see what comes of it, and include what RS say. Atsme📞📧 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the lede

Case closed. — JFG talk 21:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would think this edit by Rreagan007 (talk · contribs) is in violation of the active Arbcom remedies concerning post-1932 US politics in that it substantively restores a challenged edit, particularly as no effort to discuss the matter on this talk page was even attempted. My view is that the Deputy Attorney General was acting on behalf of the Justice Department, and so it should've been left alone. Moreover, the full details of the appointment (including that the Deputy Attorney General was responsible for the appointment itself) are already in the body of the article. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I read the edit note reverting my first edit that my edit was accurate but too much detail for the lead, so I reduced the amount of detail. It was a good faith edit and I think an improvement, as it is more accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I get that, and I am sure it was in good faith; nevertheless, you restored challenged material - a violation. Also, I think it is redundant, and not an improvement at all. Remember we are trying to keep the lede as concise as possible. I suggest you self-revert to avoid sanction, then let this discussion play out. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Saying "the Justice Department" really isn't any more concise than saying "the deputy attorney general", and the latter is more precise than the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Scjessey. Rreagan007, you should self-revert and the material should not be restored unless there is consensus to do so.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe I am in violation here, as I did not restore the same challenged edit. I took the constructive criticism of my edit in the edit summary and incorporated that constructive criticism into a new edit. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Rreagan007: It's not quite a simple as that. Rosenstein was acting in his capacity as "Acting Attorney General" on behalf of the Department of Justice. While it is true the deputy was the individual responsible for making the appointment, it was with the full backing of the entire DoJ. Furthermore, Rosentein has been personally attacked by a subject of the investigation (an individual who shall remain nameless), and by extension, that individual has attacked the entire Justice Department. But with all that aside, your edit is still a violation, so self-revert and let the discussion play out, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: I can see from multiple entries on your talk page that you have been fully informed of the active Arbcom remedies, so I suggest you follow them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Arbcom states that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I did not reinstate an edit that had been challenged, it was a different edit that was adjusted based on the stated reason it had been challenged. That's not a violation. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't say I didn't sufficiently warn you. By all means use that defense if you think it'll help. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You added Rod Rosenstein deputy attorney general twice. Minorly rearranging the words is unlikely to exonerate you from the consequences of violating the editing restriction.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It was a substantively different edit in a way that incorporated the criticism of the first edit. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If your edit is challenged, work out wording on the talk page before reinstating similar content. @Rreagan007: Arbcom did not set these restrictions. Admins, including myself, did. --NeilN talk to me 18:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly is that language from? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Read the very first bullet point at the top of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing "before reinstating similar content" there. Am I missing something? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Note I will be making a change to the wording of the template to cut off this recent spate of wikilaywering (twice this week). Most editors realize that changing a couple words in a challenged addition isn't going to hold up if they get dragged to AE. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine going forward, but applying this new standard to me ex post facto would be a gross injustice. In fact, you admitting that the language needs to be changed is an admission that I did not violate the current standard as written. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a new standard. Do you really think editors could get around this restriction by changing one word in a paragraph, for example? --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
But that is not what I did. My change was not a trivial change like one word in an entire paragraph, it was substantively different in a way that took into account the very reason it had been challenged in the first place. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A sentence is going to be added after the first consensus required sentence: "This includes making similar edits to the ones that have been challenged." I hope this will be enough to make editors realize and observe the purpose of the restriction. --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the change, and let's please cut Rreagan007 some slack; I'm sure s/he was acting in good faith. I saw their change after my revert and refrained from commenting. Now things have been explained, and the positive outcome is more clarity in the "consensus required" wording. Nice. Let's all move on. — JFG talk 19:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Grammar Nazism dictates: "This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged."
Of course editors will argue endlessly about the precise definition of "similar", so I would like to know whether Rreagan007's actions would have been different with that exact sentence present. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Thank you. I will use that. Further wording tweaks can be suggested at Template talk:American politics AE. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I fully admit that my edit was similar to the one that was challenged. If that had been the wording, I would have reverted the edit myself when confronted with that wording as being the standard. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Then the change should do at least some good, to whatever extent other editors are like you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Listen, folks, you have got to take the Discretionary Sanctions SERIOUSLY. They are intended to prevent edit warring - exactly the type of edit warring that we saw over the Wharton claims and the quote in Racial Views. An administrator has had to intervene twice in the past two days to stop people from reverting each other. Consider yourselves lucky that this particular administrator has preferred to deal with this kind of problem by telling people to cut it out; many admins would simply wade in and hand out sanctions. Don’t expect this leniency to last. And don’t justify yourselves by saying “yes, but my revert was correct.” If an issue is being disputed, don’t try to count reverts and challenges to figure out if you can get away with another revert. Don’t WikiLawyer your way into a topic ban. Leave the “wrong” version in place while you take the question to the talk page and work out consensus - as was done in the section above this one. (In the Wharton discussion, when my insertion of what I interpreted as consensus got reverted, I immediately said to “let things lie for the moment” - which didn’t happen; people got into a revert war.) That kind of back-and-forth is FORBIDDEN by the DS and you all know better. Don’t do it again. If somebody else does it, don’t revert them; take it to the talk page, or take a complaint about them to an admin. But if it is disputed, don’t take it upon yourself to put it back the way you think it should be. Everybody got this? (Sorry for belated comment, I’ve been AFC (away from computer) all day.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm feeling like this is from another parallel universe. If Admins were jumping in to enforce DS the problems -- many many problems -- would come to a quick end. The "leniency" will only end when the burden is not on the shoulders of a single volunteer Admin and when a larger group of Admins gets to know the article and the editors as well as the ones who particate here. That text in the DS is clearly intended to say don't restore any content rather than any edit, but I think we all knew that. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not know that. I read the words as they were written. If you're going to be imposing sanctions for some type of behavior you are trying to discourage, you must clearly state what the standard is. For there to be justice, any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the accused according to the rule of lenity. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: No, it doesn't mean that, and thankfully we don't all "know" that. It means exactly what it says. If a removal is disputed, consensus is required to remove. Consensus is not required to enforce that rule. This has been affirmed again and again by admins. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss, I don't understand what you are saying. The point is it doesn't mean literally the same edit, i.e. a revert, it means the same content, i.e. substantially the same meaning. Could you rephrase your objection to what I am saying? thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
But what I did wasn't the same content or even substantially the same content. It was similar, but substantively different, and different in a way that was appropriate given what the original stated objection to it was. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: You think it was appropriate. You may be right. But you may also be wrong or be introducing other issues with your changes. That's why you are required to get explicit agreement for the proposed change. --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it was appropriate given the rules at the time and the facts and circumstances surrounding the edit. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I may have mistaken your statement as the common misconception (there is a distinct similarity). If you don't disagree with my previous comment, I withdraw it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Case closed. I do object, and I'm sure others noticed, your instant arousal to an indignant and insistent tone that is very much the opposite of what we need around here. I don't expect to see that from you again in the future. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me try this again. It’s really very simple. If there is dispute what to say about a given subject or point, it DOESN’T MATTER whether you are reverting or restoring the exact same wording or making a a modification to the wording or whatever. If a passage has been disputed, if there is a discussion going on, then DON’T MAKE CHANGES about that subject or point until consensus is reached. The goal of the DS is stability of the article. Back-and-forth changes violate that goal.
This is not hard, folks. Quit quibbling; recognize that the purpose of the DS is to try to impose some order at subjects that are highly edited and controversial; honor the spirit of that goal as well as the letter. Rreagan, quit being so defensive. Nobody is threatening you for past behavior. Just accept the clarification and move on. SPECIFICO, I’m not sure who your haughty scolding is directed toward - Rreagan, NeilN, or me - but it is uncalled for in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I honestly did not think there was a dispute as I thought I had resolved the dispute with my second edit given how I read the edit summary. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Syria two occasions -> two strikes

@JFG: pinging due to refactoring into separate section. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • related problem - recent "copy edit": JFG, you made what you marked as a "copy edit" that changed the meaning of the article text. You removed the reference to "two occasions" and replaced it with "two strikes". Two strikes could easily be (mis)interpreted as referring to two salvos on a single occasion. Please restore the "two occasions" text you removed. We may decided to strike this from the lede, but meanwhile the meaning should not have been changed under edit summary of "copy edit." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not remove "two occasions". Prior text said "twice".[17] New text is equivalent. — JFG talk 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It's now ambiguous as to whether it was one order for two strikes or two orders for one strike each. The question is whether that's important. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
JFG, you're simply denying my complaint based on what? That I paraphrased? Once again, this feels like deflection on a straightforward matter. As Mandruss I believe has confirmed, the explicit clear meaning is now ambiguous and unclear to at least some of our readers. That was my initial point and so I once again ask you to restore the clear version you "copy-edited". SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll restore "twice". I'll keep the "in retaliation" part because it's more precise than "after". Hope you agree. — JFG talk 19:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_81&oldid=1227719546"