Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

What a day to be alive.

Off-topic commentary
I never thought we'd be here, yet here we are. Here's to a good future looking ahead! Solntsa90 (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias

Some of the edits on this article seem to be somewhat biased. For example, I just removed a passage that matter-of-factly described Donald Trump as closer to Fascist than Democrat or Republican. While some have drawn the comparison, I believe that there is not near enough consensus to describe this as objective fact. Doing so, I believe, reveals the author's personal biases and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

There was also a passage, from the same user, calling attention to the fact that white nationalist groups have reacted favorably to Trump's election. While factually true, it seems to me that the user brought attention to the fact for propaganda purposes, and the white nationalist response is given undue attention relative to their actual national influence. I have removed the passage on the grounds that it was under the "international reaction" section and covered a domestic reaction. While discussion of their reaction might be appropriate in a much more fleshed out article, in its current state, I believe that this reaction was brought up solely for political reasons, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Further edits from the same user should be scrutinized carefully, as well as any further edits to this article, given the divisive subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.79.78 (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The same user has since inserted a passage comparing anti-Trump protests to anti-Nazi protests in 1933. The article has been protected and I am unable to edit, but given the user's clear bias, I suggest that the passage be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.79.78 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is further biased because it does not address the demonstrations against Trump reject the calls of Secretary Clinton and President Obama to accept the election results. Restricting editing to prohibit publicizing the Secretary's and President's pleas only serves to perpetuate bias and division.

The protesters appeared not to accept the calls of Secretary Clinton and President Obama to accept the election results. On November 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton stated “Donald Trump is going to be our president,” and told her supporters that “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-2016-donald-trump/ She told her supporters that they must accept that Mr. Trump would be president.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/donald-trump-won-now-what.html?_r=0

On November 9, 2016, President Obama also urged citizens to accept the election results and reminded the country that we “are all on the same team” and characterized politics as an “intramural scrimmage.” President Obama called on Americans to move forward with the presumption of good faith in fellow citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/donald-trump-won-now-what.html?_r=0

Despite these calls for unity, the protests continued and some elements of the protests escalated to violence against police and vandalism against property in some cities. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/us/protests-elections-trump/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/violence-erupts-in-portland-riot-as-anti-trump-protests-continue-in-cities-across-the-nation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8300:79B6:5AB0:35FF:FE6B:EBD3 (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not quote someone who actually understands something and has accurately predicted things? 212.200.65.127 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior elected positions

Several presidents have held no prior elected offices; List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience can be linked for this, but examples include George Washington, Zachary Taylor and U.S. Grant. The lede should be copyedited to reflect this. - Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe - there seems some liberty of WP:OR WP:SYNTH things not widely noted in print for trivia points like the age, discussed at TALK : Donald Trump ... not sure there's much desire for this one though. I think it has been said he is first with no prior high office or military command, reflecting your list. Plus Dwight D. Eisenhower, (and I think Andrew Jackson is almost no time served) are other examples. So for now I think not but maybe if it becomes mentioned as part of comments (e.g. on his style being different or his expertise being new to the topics)... Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been discussed both before and after the election. Examples: The Hill [1], Macleans [2] - Brianhe (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Premature and speculative is offtopic

Folks -- this is the transitional period ... the precedent from this time with Obama is that the article should be only a redirect to Presidential transition of Donald Trump and then a minor stub like Obama circa 9 November.

With no disrespect intended, I suggest deleting everything from Policies thru the 2018 elections as too far ahead and speculative at this early date. Comments ?

Markbassett (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine. It's mostly links to other articles and some information about a few of the key policy issues he'll face. I do think that some of the things regarding the transition could be moved to the transition article. Orser67 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think there are many more important issues about this, as described here, for example. They should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I'd be against adding information from an opinion piece, but if lawsuits affect his presidency then information about them could be added. Orser67 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not suggest to use this particular ref. It provides a lot of other references that qualify as RS by any standard. But the point is clear: this is going to be a "Lawsuit Presidency". Obviously, this is only one of many sides/aspects, so one would have to describe them all per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes - That OpEd is also premature and speculation. Talking about how lawsuits might affect later his presidency you see -- so no, this OpEd is not RS on this article topic. And the two data links inside that which refer to his past lawsuit count and his current lawsuit count are factoids WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. The entire career count of lawsuits is just prior life rather than part of the presidency, and the current suits effect is a speculative as well as just generic remark. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Please change this:

¶ Federal Reserve Board

• Chair
  • Janet Yellen¹ (2014–present)
• Other appointments
  • TBD

...

¹Appointed by Barack Obama

---

To this:

¶ Federal Reserve Board

• Chair
  • Janet Yellen¹ (Feb.2014–Feb.2018)
• Vice Chair
  • Stanley Fischer³ (May.2014–Jun.2018)
• FRB and FOMC seats
  • Multiple,⁴ including a new regulatory Vice Chair role

...

¹Appointed by Barack Obama; term ends in January/February of 2018, and Trump intends to "most likely" appoint a replacement.

...

³Appointed by Barack Obama; term ends in June of 2018.

⁴There are two immediate vacancies (formerly held by Sarah Bloom Raskin and Jeremy C. Stein). Trump is expected to name one of his appointees to these vacancies as the new regulatory Vice Chair.

References

Thanks. (Side note -- rather than using sup-tags angle-brackets explicitly, might be worth using WP:EXPLNOTE curly-brace templates, since those hyperlink the reader to the footnote and support javascript popups, but in the changes requested above I was lazy and followed the existing practice currently used within the article.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(whoops... forgot to catch the refs) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I added the vice chair role and changed the "other appointments" to "FRB seats." My understanding is that the president does not choose the presidents of regional banks, so I excluded "FOMC seats" from this section. I also prefer to leave the other appointments as TBD for now (to avoid speculation on relatively minor appointments) and I didn't add in the months. I wouldn't strongly oppose changing up the section a little, but if you or someone else makes edits like the one you proposed above, please don't use bare urls for the citations. Orser67 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That improves thing, thanks Orser67. You are correct (if *I* understand things) that the potus does not directly control FOMC, but the reason I called it FRB-and-FOMC seats is because the potus appoints FRB members, and all FRB members are automatically also members of the FOMC. After your fixes, currently the following list is in the article:

• Chair Janet Yellen (2014-present), Vice Chair Stanley Fischer (2014-present), and Other-FRB-seats TBD.

That is all accurate, but there is an important omission: Fischer is the Vice Chair Overall, but there is also the officially-vacant new Dodd-Frank position call the Vice Chair Of Supervision, which Trump will be able to fill with a person of his choice (there are two open FRB seats and one of them can be named as the Vice-Chair-Of-Supervision). I would also want to note that Yellen and Fischer have terms that expire in the first half of 2018. I suggest this:

• Chair Janet Yellen (2014-present / expires 2018), Vice Chair Stanley Fischer (2014-present / expires 2018), Vice Chair of Supervision TBD (vacant), and Additional-FRB-seat TBD (vacant).

Does that make sense? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Preibus

please change Reince Preibus to Reince Priebus

 Done. Thanks for bringing this error to light. Please, in the future, be more specific when making such a request, as I had to hunt down the one instance where the name was misspelled. Also, please sign your request. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in Cabinet ordering ?

Is the order that Cabinet template is showing Education a bit too early ??? Here shows it right after HHS, but I think it should be HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, and then Education.

The Cabinet of the United States is shown in order of United States presidential line of succession. The broader United States order of precedence also matches that.

So is the template just oops or is three some other reason ?

Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue appears to stem from Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet. I'm not sure why it's ordered the way it is. Orser67 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Foreign policy: Israel

I'd like to start a section on Israel. Can we try to develop consensus here on what could be appropriate for the article at this time? We have at least the ambassador appointment of David M. Friedman to refer to already, as well as the campaign promise to move the Embassy of the United States, Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. - Brianhe (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with both of the things you wrote. Seems appropriate to me to add a couple sentences about that and stop there for now. Orser67 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources a quick search turns up:

• background Jan'09-thru-Dec'16,[3]
• as campaign issue,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
• ambassador-WP:ABOUTSELF,[11][12]
• expat voters,[13][14]
• netanyahu meeting (please verify these are truly WP:RS however),[15][16]
• post-election,[17][18][19][20]
• ambassador,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
• UN rez,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
• trump-WP:ABOUTSELF.[46][47]

There are also probably a bunch of 2015 sources which cover Trump's stances during the repub debates, but I didn't run across any in my quick look. Trump also sees Iran deal in terms of broader security in the mid-east, including impact on Israel. Recommend writing a two or three new paragraphs for the Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Israel_and_Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict subsidiary article, and then adding a summary of those new (and old) paragraphs in a couple sentences here in Presidency of Donald Trump. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Orser67 just kicked off the section [48]. - Brianhe (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

Please update Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings with the following cut-n-paste set of changes and additions:

---

See also: Public image of Donald Trump and United States presidential approval rating

At the time of the 2016 election, polls by Gallup found Trump had a favorable rating around 35% and an unfavorable rating around 60% among adults nationwide. His major-party opponent Hillary Clinton had a favorable rating of 40% and an unfavorable rating of 57%, making her (almost) the least-favorably-viewed candidate in the modern era, second only to Trump. 2016 was the first election cycle in modern presidential polling where both major-party candidates were viewed so unfavorably. Trump's favorable rating improved somewhat to 42% in the days following the election, while his unfavorable rating went to 55%.

---

References

Bare fave-and-unfave-numbers are not illuminative (especially when sourced only to one pollster), so I've tried to give the historical context. Thanks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that this is considered 'potentially controversial' and therefore the person who responded to the edit-request, would like to hear some other people chime in, either for or against. Does anybody have any objections to adding in this material, in this form? Does anybody have any additional changes or improvements to suggest, prior to mainspacing? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your proposals seem pretty irrelevant to me, especially the part about Clinton. I also think that the section should focus on approval ratings and, like much of the rest of the article, I view information currently contained within the section as largely a placeholder until Trump takes office. Also, please stop proposing changes that use bare urls. Orser67 (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I use bare URLs partly due to laziness, but mostly because of WP:ReFill, a tool which can populate the Template:cite_web or whatever is needed -- but I think it only works in mainspace, not in talkpages? As for the substance, I would say that approval-ratings are always relative (to the competition), and invariably low at the time of entry into the presidency followed by a spike upon winning. Just giving the bare numbers is informative in a basic sense, e.g. "Trump was at 35/60 in early Nov.2016 and at 42/55 slightly later in Nov.2016" but hardly useful to the readership. Contrast with the nice graph we use for Bill_Clinton#Public_opinion, which covers many years of data, and makes it clear when he was viewed favorably and when he was not. Still, that article is also skimpy on the pre-presidency background, which means the readership knows that Bill Clinton *became* president, but not that his approval-rating was correlated with the event. (GHWB was at 89% during the first Gulf War, but "continued to slide" downhill later. To get the comparative numbers, the reader must visit Presidency_of_George_H._W._Bush#Economy... odd choice rather than the #Public_Image subsection... to see that GHWB was only in the red during the 1992 campaign season.) We don't cover Bill Clinton's approval numbers for the 1992, just saying that GHWB's were too low. But in addition to comparison to the candidates that the potus-elect was competing against, I would like to compare against past presidencies, adjusted for their starting-points if possible. See these comparative-oriented refs.[49][50][51][52] Does that make sense, where I am trying to eventually go? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Orser67, have you had time to look at the comparative-refs yet? I would like to start expanding the subsection, with data about the historical and comparative backdrop to the raw numbers, but I don't know what exact direction you are thinking such expansion ought to proceed towards, or if you are still against covering anything except post-2016 datapoints. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the refill tool, thank you for letting me know about that. I added in a little historical context, though I shortened it. I also took out a few refs since I think more than three for any one claim is usually overkill. Orser67 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Mike Pompeo vote numbers

The source cited shows the vote to proceed the nomination on January 20. Here is the tally for the actual confirmation vote yesterday: [53]. I don't have time to update this myself, so you someone please fix this? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmations of appointments

This is a cool idea, and very well done, but I'd recommend moving it to the Cabinet of Donald Trump page. Assuming Trump serves out at least one term, his presidency is likely to be an incredibly broad and complicated subject (as are all recent presidencies), and imo the "confirmation of appointments" section makes more sense in an article focusing on Trump's Cabinet rather than in an article covering Trump's whole presidency. Ping to User:MB298 Orser67 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: @Orser67: I've removed the table. I'll fix the Pompeo data and add it to the Cabinet article. MB298 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. MB298 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sections beyond Personnel are broken in mobile view

If you look at this article in mobile view, you'll see that all of the top-level sections beyond Personnel lack chevrons to collapse them, and when you collapse Personnel, they all disappear. This would seem to indicate that they're being treated as subsections of Personnel, but I can't figure out why. Can somebody figure out what's going on here? – PointyOintment (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This might be better addressed at WP:VPT. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonpartisan Editing

If you feel it is necessary to exclusively "fact-check" claims of the Trump administration yet you refuse to include the Dow passing 20,000 into the economy section, that is partisan. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dow Jones at 20,000 for first time ever

Add that to the economy section. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that it was at 19.8k just before he took office, I don't think it's all that relevant. Orser67 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Orser67 - the 'Donald Trump stock market rally' is generally referring to the rally since his election, so considered as starting from 8 November when the Dow was 18,259.60. It is being remarked upon as currently about 10% bump, and currently the second largest in US history, and not yet over. It's credited for the DOW going over 20,000 for the first time. Since the mention is common (google hits the phrase 3.66 million ...) the [[WP:WEIGHT] seems significant, and the use of term and points about it being larger than almost any seem broadly covered in pro- and anti- Trump locations.

• Marketwatch How Trump’s postelection stock market rally stacks up against other presidents
• CBS How much credit does Donald Trump deserve for Dow rally?
• Salon Trumps market rally could continue through 2017
• CNN Trump market rally on hold, but it may not be over

(The stock market staged an epic rally after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. It was one of the best post-election performances in history.)]

• CNBC Here's how the Trump rally stacks up against other presidents
• Guardian Dow hits 20,000 on Trump rally
• Fox Economist: Stock Market Gained $2T in Wealth Since Trump Elected

I'll suggest a line in the economy section to cover this that reads " The post-election Donald Trump stock market rally was noted at over 10% as being the second-largest in US history and credited for bringing the DOW above 20,000 for the first time. " and cite the Marketwatch and CNBC. Any alternative wording ? Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the notability of this topic. Suggesting a simpler wording: "Following Trump's election, a 10% stock market rally over two months took the Dow Jones index over 20,000 points for the first time on January 25, 2017." — JFG ^talk 16:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose if there is all that news coverage it deserves a mention in the article. I just added where the DJIA was on election day and where it was when Trump took office, because, again, the rally took place before he took office. Presidential transition of Donald Trump covers events that happened during his transition. Orser67 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic, great to hear. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Claims made without evidence section

Claims made by his administration that are false or without evidence are being reported by reliable sources on a daily basis. Should we have a section to catalog these claims? That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article should, when referring to a claim by the Trump administration, if others say the claim is false or has not been proven. The article should not say which claims are false. SMP0328. (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If we include this we should also include how the Dow is at 20,000 for the first time ever. I know nobody wants to include this cause it's something good and how biased Wikipedia always is concerning Republicans. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree we all false and unverified claims should be sourced. Politifact has already started a list.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Where the article says "Trump claimed that massive amounts of voter fraud occurred during the election" it should be noted that his claim is unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.245.2 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

but not verifiably false. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

NSC appointment/s: Legitimacy

Breaking: obscure law requires Sen confirmation for WH aide like Bannon to serve on NSC. See: 50 U.S. Code § 3021 - National Security Council Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bannon May Need Senate Confirmation for NSC Role Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding a timeline of presidents to external links

Hi all, I've created a timeline of all past presidents that's colour coded and filterable by political party (at the time they were in office), and I thought would be a very useful addition to the external links section in articles about presidencies. By adding the presidents number to the end of the url it will start with that president highlighted. It's made with data from Wikidata, and links to the Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items for each president.

e.g. Here's the link with Donald Trump in focus http://histropedia.com/showcase/us-presidents.html#45. Any votes for or against putting this in? Cheers! NavinoEvans (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI we already have Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States. — JFG ^talk 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that, very handy indeed! I still think my one would be a nice external link to include. Lots of teachers use the external links for finding resources, and having interactivity, filters and images makes it a lot more engaging for educational use. Linking to the Wikipedia one from presidency articles would be great as well though :) I'll leave it up to the regular editors here to decide.

P.s. apologies but the link I first posted was slightly wrong, I don't think it focused on Trump at startup. Fixed now. NavinoEvans (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@NavinoEvans: Have you read the Wikipedia policy on external links? In particular, it says One should generally avoid providing external links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Wikipedia has several lists of US Presidents already, where they are sliced by age, by wealth, by time in office, etc. This subject matter has been so thoroughly explored that we even have a list of presidential lists at {{Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents}}… The basic List of Presidents of the United States already gives a good overview including official portraits and political parties. Your site provides some interactivity but no extra information that is not already dissected at length in various Wikipedia articles. Interactivity alone has its own issues, notably accessibility, and it is not a goal of Wikipedia. For all those reasons, I do not believe we should link to your site. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation, sorry I hadn't read that policy but all makes perfect sense. I do think that a link to the Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States should go in the 'see also' section in general for all presidency pages then, as it helps to put the presidency into context (e.g. when was the last Republican president, etc), but I'll leave that to the experienced editors - I'm much more of a Wikidata guy! Cheers again NavinoEvans (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Criminal Justice

There is an edit today about Trump threatening to destroy a senator's career. This seems to be made in jest as indicated by reliable sources. So, I doubt its relevance, notability in this article keeping in mind WP:NOTDIARY --- CatapultTalks (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• AGREE-but why were my edits reverted? Despite the edit summary, I only see a single website (but two pages from it) cited, and I was trying to avoid weasel words. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• DISAGREE- Trump's interactions here are revealing in terms of Trump's position on asset forfeiture; his full-hearted support for police in every instance; and for threatening to go after a state senator. Again, you do not get to decide when Trump is being serious and when he is not. There are plenty of reliable sources that find this episode notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor who added the material in this part of the article insists that the material say that President Trump's assertions are false, rather than saying that multiple sources say that they are false. Wikipedia does not determine what is true or false. I have twice changed the material in this way, but each time I have been reverted by this editor. SMP0328. (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a disputed fact. Per WP: Truth matters[54]: "Our articles would look ridiculous if, for example, the article Sun opened with "According to NASA scientists, the Sun is the star at the center of the solar system." At some point someone made an evaluation of the truth of that claim, and decided that it was factual enough to say it Wikipedia's voice." If greater context needs to be provided, it can read something like "President Trump reiterated his claims from the campaign that crime is rising by claiming in February 2017 that the murder rate was at a 47-year high: this claim is wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with all available data; the available data show that the murder rate is close to the 57-year low it hit in 2014." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's disputed. President Trump believes what he says is true. Why do you insist that Wikipedia one side correct and the other wrong, instead of simply providing what each has said? SMP0328. (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

When one side makes unsubstantiated claims that contradict all available data and the other side reports what the available data shows, we shouldn't turn things into 'he said, she said'. One side makes blatantly false statements, and Wiki voice should reflect that. Truth matters. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Add Yakla raid and death of William Owens (Navy SEAL)

I have not watched this article, so I don't know if this has been challenged, but it seems to me that we should add President Trump's approval of the Yakla raid and the death of William Owens (Navy SEAL), the first American combatant to die during his presidency. I think it could be added to the "First 100 days" subsection. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably too much detail for this article (see above discussion #Scope of this article?). This information is already in First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. — JFG ^talk 22:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with JFG Orser67 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article?

There is a lot of redundancy between this article, Donald Trump#Presidency, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Political positions of Donald Trump, etc. What do editors think should be the scope of this particular article? In my opinion it should stay at overview level and allow easy navigation to the specialist articles. It should not list daily events or news coverage. — JFG ^talk 08:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's within category US Presidential administrations, so I believe the scope is simply the presidential activity of this president. These are NOT indexing articles to lower pieces, they are presenting the presidential activity. The series is fairly structured and scope seems the formal actions starting from the day of inauguration to last day of office and possibly some retrospective about the period later on. I think the other articles are slightly different in scope or formatting. The timeline is in chronological order. The positions could include things that are not actual actions or events and periods before and after the presidency and may refer to things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it should mix being an overview with having more specific information on the key issues of his presidency, with "key" issues determined based on media coverage and Trump/Congress's attention to the issues. However, in the short term, I think we should add anything that generates media coverage, and then delete the less relevant information as his presidency progresses. Orser67 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As JFG is aware, I nominated First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency as an article for deletion, as its content is a redundant content fork of at least two other articles. Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump cover the same content. The article for deletion discussion can be found here. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gfcvoice: First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency looks like a snow keep; editors seem to agree that Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump should keep brief daily reports and First 100 days would elaborate on policies that Trump vowed to enact + more detail on significant events. Now what shall we do with Presidency of Donald Trump and Donald Trump#Presidency to avoid mindless repetition and sync issues? And what happens from day 101 onwards? — JFG ^talk 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Although the deletion discussion for First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency resulted in a 'snow keep', I note that most of the people in favor of keeping the article failed to address the issue of repetition and the fact that the article is a redundant content fork of the timeline and Presidency of Donald Trump article. It therefore seems that the community is content with the repetition. I thought the best way to resolve the repetition was to delete the redundant "100 days" article but obviously most other editors disagree. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:I'll assume that there will be no "second set of 100 days of Trump's presidency" article, and that from information about Trump's presidency from April 30, 2017 onwards will be discussed in detail in the Presidency of Donald Trump article only, in addition to a shorter mention in Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and an even shorter mention in Donald Trump#Presidency. Gfcvoice Gfcvoice (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gfcvoice: Right, the community as of today seems happy with repetition in the timeline and in the "first 100 days" article, which is fine, however we must surely avoid repetition in four places, with the presidency page and Trump bio getting bloated. As observed in the first couple weeks of this presidency, many editors react to the news and insert information in whichever article they have in their personal watchlist. I think we should provide some guidance as edit notices or inline comments, so that people can self-select where each level of information should go. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: That might be worth a try. I think it should be fairly easy to keep the Donald Trump presidency section to a minimum, because the article is about the person and not his presidency. The timeline article will also likely be kept to a minimum, because people generally understand that it's just a summary of what has happened. However I see it as almost inevitable that by the end of April, the Presidency of Donald Trump article and the First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency articles will be almost identical. I even see that Presidency of Donald Trump has a section called "First 100 days", which is bizarre because a lot of the content in that section is repeated elsewhere within the same article. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but to be clear, I'm fully aware that there is some redundancy between the various Trump articles. I view this redundancy as natural. The "presidency of Donald Trump" article is a spin-off of the Trump article, and the timeline, first 100 days, Cabinet of Donald Trump, political appointments of Donald Trump, inauguration of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump supreme court candidates articles are all essentially spinoffs of the presidency article. The various policy articles are also either subsections of the presidency article or the Donald Trump article. So I view some redundancy as natural, with some pages containing summaries of other pages. I think that this structure makes sense given the huge amount of coverage that the modern US presidency receives, and I believe that WP:SUMMARY supports this structure. Orser67 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope - think it would be useful if it could help better define what this article is and limits are, to pre-guide and help keep things here from going WP:OFFTOPIC. My 2 cents - define the timeframe boundaries as starting from the time of swearing up to the time the next president is sworn in, then make the coverage boundaries as should be focused to actions and policies done during that period. Whether it's actually by him directly or anywhere in the executive branch will do. Any material outside that can only be mentioned as background for such actual presidency items. That would mean an actual step can be compared to a campaign pledge, but a campaign pledge is not mentioned on its own such as if the actual administration has not yet done that item since nor is a concern about a hypotheticals on its own an item.

I think it would be even more desirable to craft it as a norm for the category "Presidency of", but am not sure where such would be best placed -- lacking anything else, I suggest putting it in the header of the TALK or in article header comments. Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan, which began in 2001 and is the longest war in American history

The American Congress has not formally declared war on Afghanistan. American forces have only been engaged by the executive branch, When Franklin D. Roosevelt declared war on Japan after the 1941 Pearl Harbor attacks, it signified the last time the U.S. officially declared war. Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq: technically, those were not wars. Those conflicts, and other in between, are considered “Extended Military Engagements" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.85 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that a "war" is necessarily defined by whether or not Congress declared war. Orser67 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Economy Addition

Considering other markets have reached economic highs other than the Dow, do you agree with replacing it with this.

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500 Index, and NASDAQ have reached record highs since Trump was sworn in, the first time all three major market averages have achieved that feat since January 1992."

It includes the Dow while also including the S&P 500 Index and NASDAQ. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversies?

No controversies section (and the controversies about various aspects of his cabinet, his executive orders, his tweets etc all but washed out)? You must be kidding us all. ;) 46.195.128.22 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Such a section is greatly discouraged. Any controversies in the Trump administration can be covered in whatever part of the article deals with the subject matter of the controversy. SMP0328. (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If something comes up that is sustained, significant, and has WP:COMMONNAME of controversy, I think it might go. But so far, nothing has had time to be shown 'sustained'. And I don't see any of the areas mentioned as having any candidate for sustained or substantial issues at this time. Just fairly routine for the new president to be doing appointments and EOs at January and to have objectors I think. Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pulled education section

TWIMC - I pulled the Education section ... the website move to idea.ed.gov/explore/home is not an actual elimination so there seems no story. (And don't know why it was couched as 'before she arrived', that would overlap into Obama administration?) Lacking news in hand about executive order for education or her having done anything notable as yet, and lacking any separate article like the other sections have, I just didn't have anything to go in here. A quick Bing turned up a Washington Post retracting an oops, a lot of November speculations re campaign stuff, DeVos nomination, and nothing prominent in results so ... pulled it as no content yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, provide sources for the claims made above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not much of a tale to tell -- site moved, has server issues, and couple of Democrats pinging DeVos -- no real news here, and no significant press on it.

The site http://idea.ed.gov/home was only moved to http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home and at the moment that site is redirecting to https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/osep-idea.html, and has a footnote "The servers hosting our idea.ed.gov website are experiencing technical issues. As we work to resolve this issue, information regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act can be found below. "

Story should have it's a Senate press release that made it visible 10 Feb,

• The seattle pi that's in WP basically retweets it as website disappeared (10 Feb)

Coverage is pretty thin, but there are a couple major papers and some decent sites:

• NY Daily News removed website, and that it is routine for websites to change or disappear when a new administration comes in (12 Feb)
• Disabilityscoop that site crashed and has been having issues for a while before that (12 Feb)
• Detroit News the dept tweeted 8 Feb that it was not taken down and working issues (13 Feb)
• Silive concern that it was modified without explanation (14 Feb),
• Themighty that site was back up already and SpEd teachers had sent out emails plus the old site if you want to see is in archives.(15 Feb)

While I could have edited to better reflect the cites 'DeVos had a rocky start being asked questions in a PR over the downtime the IDEA website was having.' that just seems trying to make a mountain out of a 'web site moved/funky' molehill that just got minor coverage. And like I said, I did a brief google to see if thre was any other news items about Education to fit in here instead, but there's just no news. (It is only a few weeks in after all.) Let me know what you think, I'm inclined to pull it unless something more significant happens about that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans -- adding ping 2/17; So I'm still inclined to pull it as a nothing there upon closer look. Would you prefer something that wraps up with today's posts of 'back online' so say it the long way of 'server dissues, later fixed' ?

• Disabilityscoop IDEA Website Back Online Following Outage
• Whichita Eagle U.S. Department of Education page on IDEA back online
• East Bay Times Betsy DeVos: U.S. government special ed website is back up, after public outcry 'was neglected for four years...'

RSVP, cheers, Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed again - No reply and think the above suited any concern that it WP:V is a nothing story of server funky a bit and now back. That seems not anything for a 'Policy' section as if it were a Presidential policy or having much significance. If folks are really interested they can discuss here something including the part about it being back, but I think it unsuitable for the article. Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration

Any interested parties who want to help with this article, be my guest. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Congressional Review Act

I disagree with SMP0328's reversion of my edit. While it is true that the Congressional Review Act is used by Congress, only one regulation was successfully overturned by the act prior to Trump taking office. So far, three regulations have been repealed during Trump's presidency and numerous more will likely follow. Additionally, while Congress uses this act, the president has to sign the disapproval act for it to become law. This edit does not take up many bytes, but I still think it should be re-added. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Congress is reversing regulations, because it knows President Trump will sign them into law. Your edit gave Trump credit for Congress's use of the CRA. You provided no sourcing for this claim. Perhaps Trump simply signed those bills into law, but deserves no more credit. The extent to which he is responsible for these CRA bills must be made clear and must be sourced. SMP0328. (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a source and context to show why this is appropriate to include here. Hopefully, this works. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Much better. I slightly changed that sentence's wording, but even before that the new sentence put President Trump's role in context. SMP0328. (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Several of Trump's nominees...

Is it still accurate to say in the lead that "several of Trump's nominees" remain before the US Senate? I mean, the only members of the Cabinet who have not yet been confirmed are Acosta for Labor and Perdue for Agriculture. For Cabinet level, only Dan Coats and Lighthizer. Besides that, only major appointments would be Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS and maybe Rod Rosenstein for Deputy AG because of Russia investigations. Would it not be more accurate to say that "some" of Trump's nominees remain before the US, while still mentioning that his appointments took unusually long to be confirmed? Thanks. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

How about something like "Most of Trump's cabinet nominees have been confirmed by the Senate, but several other nominees, including Gorsuch, have yet to be confirmed by the Senate." Orser67 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge from 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

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.

---

• Merge 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy into this article Presidency of Donald Trump or United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration after a few days of article development as a standalone article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• Strong Oppose: I'm not sure the article needs an AfD banner + 2 merge banners, especially when the AfD discussion appears to be leaning 'keep'. The dismissals article seems appropriate on its own. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I voted keep for the article, but Neutrality and another user suggest a merge after the article is more developed. At any point if you think there is no consensus for a merge please feel free to remove the tags. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to keep all merger discussion at the AFD entry? Orser67 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the tags and we can keep the discussion on the Afd page. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Like Thanks for removing the banners. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome my friend. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Please comment on RfC on Donald Trump regarding specific language in lede sentence

Please comment on this RfC which is asking for input on specific language to describe Donald Trump as the president. here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on RfC on Donald Trump regarding LGBT rights

Please comment here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

During the campaign, Trump stated his support for British voters voting to leave the European Union[107] In an interview with Piers Morgan in May 2016, Trump said that UK withdrawal would make no difference to a potential bilateral trade deal between the United Kingdom and the United States if he became president.[108]

On January 27, 2017 Trump met with British Prime Minister Theresa May, the first foreign leader to visit him at the White House. In the meeting Trump reiterated his support for both countries' involvement in NATO.[23] 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)OhDear (talk)

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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Approval ratings

A section of the article is about President Trump's various approval ratings through his presidency. How long should this section become? The section could become a massive list of polling of over year. I believe this would not be beneficial to the article. There should guidelines as to how much polling should be referenced. Otherwise, this section could become trivial. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We should probably keep it to between one and three paragraphs (anything more would be undue). So us editors will probably have to delete or summarize more concisely some of the information currently on the page as his presidency continues. Orser67 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree - keep to around no more than three paragraphs. As time goes on, the section would naturally become more general.Mozzie (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian connections

I recently posted a statement that said the intelligence community had no proof that Russia intervened in the U.S. Election yet it was removed. I'd like a discussion and reach a compromise that could retain at least part of the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The criticism of your edit is that it does not include a reliable source. Why do you think the source you included with your edit is reliable? SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you google search "CommonDreams.Org" it says it is a progressive website. This isn't from a right-wing source like Fox or left-wing like CNN. I believe this is a fair source, as the CIA hasn't brought forth any actual evidence. There's no grounds that anything mentioned was incorrect, and it is not in good faith to revert the ideas of an editor when it is not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:200:8E1:4D4A:FDBE:FE14:6523 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a reliable source though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This source is reliable, as it is not specifically pro or anti Trump. Additionally, how is CommonDreams not reliable yet CNN can be used for Anti-Trump facts?2601:483:200:8E1:ACDD:BFCF:D383:A5DA (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)RDF

The appropriate venue to discuss sources is WP:RS/N; I would recommend opening a discussion there. — JFG ^talk 09:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ryanfoster99: For the avoidance of doubt, you should not take this to RS/N due to your topic ban.[55] Your ongoing involvement in this issue should be strictly limited to appealing the ban either through the appeals process or directly with the administrator who imposed the ban. JFG's advice is good and well within policies and guidelines, but it does not negate or override the topic ban. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russians

The Washington Post is reporting that "President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."[56] This seems to be worthy of inclusion in this article. Other sources as well: [57][58][59][60]-

An editor added this information to the article and was promptly reverted. Let's discuss whether we should add this information to the body of the article, and whether it should be summarized in the lead.- MrX 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Should be added and summarized in the lead. I reverted but I will place what is now in the led in the body.Casprings (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

See this policy. An article's Introduction is for summarizing the article, not for providing material not in the body of the article. This story belongs not in the Introduction, but in the body of the article. Also, that material must be provided in a balanced fashion. This means that it must be clear that this is an allegation against the Trump administration, not a proven fact. It also means that such material must include that the Trump administration has denied the allegation.[61] SMP0328. (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The manual of style is not a policy, but otherwise I agree with your comment.- MrX 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I’d wait a day or so. Coverage is heavy at the moment and we need more official responses, which have thus far been weak. WP:NOTNEWS Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I wish we could show such restraint, but I doubt we will in this case. In before Donald Trump revelation of highly classified information to Russians is created. - MrX 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Too slow.- MrX 00:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

An article was already created on this subject alone Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia? Dang that was fast. So first off, if the president says information, it is not a leak, it is him sharing information. The part about the american press being denied entry vs russian press being allowed is not relevant to this incident since it was not discussed in front of the press. Which for some reason is implied by "Donald Trump revealed to them highly classified information regarding ISIS" in our section, but is not mentioned in the Washington Post. Where we says if anyone else had done it, it would be illegal some mention of the post saying "As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law." which is what i mentioned in my first point. Where it says "The story was confirmed by two additional sources to Buzzfeed" it makes it sound like Buzzfeed and another source confirmed it. Not that another two random anonymous sources told just Buzzfeed, that should be written more clearly. Lastly balance should be added in that the national security adviser, who was in the meeting, said it was just reviewing common threats from ISIS and that the Washington Post article was false. Nothing about intelligence sources, methods, or military operations were discussed according to him. Seem about right? PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, VM's addition was challenged [62] by revision from SMP0328 and under WP:ARBAPDS must be left out until concensus is reached on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

They got rid of that requirement because it was too confusing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No: the restriction was only lifted on the Russian interference article, it's still active here. Whoever reinstated a challenged edit should self-revert. (I'm not touching it.) — JFG ^talk 03:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's right at the top of this talk page. Still in place on this article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Too late to self-revert, and I believe there is consensus to include. I just warned Casprings to edit more carefully, though. — JFG ^talk 03:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think this a highly notable new development, and it should be prominently included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, deserves inclusion, with the usual attributions and denial. Funny that no article names the "Middle-Eastern ally" whose "sources and methods" were allegedly jeopardized. I'm sure we'll learn more over the next few days, especially as Trump visits several allies in the region… — JFG ^talk 03:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Most stories state that the White House asked for certain details not to be reported.Casprings (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is an extremely notable event that needs to be included and summarized in the lead in this article, and also at the very least mentioned in the main biography (Donald Trump). --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not lead-worthy unless it becomes a full-blown diplomatic incident or leads to serious consequences. So far, the only impact is on pro-Trump / anti-Trump political chatter. To your other point, the incident is already mentioned at length in Donald Trump#Revelation of classified information to Russia. — JFG ^talk 19:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, of course it's lede worthy - hell it would've been the biggest thing in his presidency so far... except, you know, Comey memos. Now it's gonna be a toss up between those two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Section title

[63]. The sources don't say "alleged". So neither do we. See also WP:ALLEGED.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously User:SMP0328. stop it with the WP:POV WP:WEASELing of the article [64]. The sources. Don't. Say. "Alleged". Neither do we. Also, you already broke 1RR on this article once today, you might consider stepping back for awhile.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So if a reliable source reports on Person-A accusing Person-B of murder, we should treat Person-B as being a murderer? Of course not. Person-A has made an allegation, not stated a fact. The same is true here. The Washington Post has reported on an allegation made against President Trump. The Post does not know what Trump really did and neither do we. This is breaking news. As the days go by, this story will continue to unfold. If it is proven that Trump revealed classified data to the Russians, we should put that in this article. For now, let's not get ahead of the story. SMP0328. (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If the source does not say "Person A alleged Person B murdered someone" but rather says "according to Person A Person B murdered someone" then yeah, we would not use "alleged". One more time - and please pay attention - see WP:ALLEGED. We base our articles on SECONDARY SOURCES. We do NOT interpret these sources or evaluate the "truth" of what they write. That's WP:OR. So if the sources don't say "alleged" we don't either. We only need to attribute it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If we write it as fact, we are committing synthesis. If you don't like the word "allegation", then provide another word that makes it clear that someone is claiming something to be true, but that it has not been confirmed to be true. SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No we are not committing synthesis (that's a new one - you're about to run out of random Wikipedia policies to claim support you, as each one is shown to be irrelevant). What is suppose to be "confirmed to be true"? That certain scholars believe Trump has "authoritarian tendencies"? That has been confirmed and verified, per WP:V.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump admits to it contradicting his own spokespeople

Re [65] - that's not a mischaracterization of the source, although this source says the same thing more explicitly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

He said about the meeting that he had every right to share "facts" about terrorism with Russia. He did not tell that the "facts" were something secret. Was it actually a confirmation? I do not know, but these sources interpret his words as a confirmation. Maybe that's because he could tell them only something they did not know (secret information). My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times appears to contradict the perceived contradiction: "But he did not precisely address reports from multiple news outlets that he had disclosed highly classified information to the Russian officials, possibly jeopardizing a relationship with an intelligence-sharing ally."[66] Politrukki (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes it was. The cited source has significantly changed, so it would safe to guess that we didn't read the same version of the source. Just one more reason why we shouldn't use breaking news sources.

When the content was added (or at least when I first read the source), The Hill piece, written by Rebecca Savransky, consisted of just seven paragraphs and two Trump tweets. The original version did not provide analysis of the tweets and it absolutely did not say in the The Hill's editorial voice that Trump confirmed the reporting. This piece has since been updated – and is credited to different author – and yes, it is true that "Trump appeared to confirm the Washington Post report" is supported by the new version. Politrukki (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Specifics

There is now some specific information about the leak. According to NYT, that was top secret intelligence from Israel [67], and according to Israeli sources, such as Debkafile, this is the existence of a signal intelligence technology, "one of Israel’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets" [68]. This should probably be included on this page, Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia and even on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. So, according to D. Trump and McMaster, it was OK to disclose this secret information [69]. This is hard to believe. I am not sure if there are any other historical analogies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How ironic that the massive press coverage of this incident is leading to worldwide public disclosure of what was actually meant to remain confidential between governments, intel agencies and aviation security circles… People who leaked this are shooting themselves in the foot. Will Israel now condemn the US press? <popcorn> — JFG ^talk 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. Apparently, people in US government who initially leaked it to the press knew that Russian government collaborates closely with ISIL (some ISIL commanders are former Baathists), and therefore the disclosure had already happen at the moment of the meeting. Whatever happened later did not matter. And just to explain it, remember The Imitation Game? The first thing after deciphering the code was to hide from the Germans that the code was broken. Otherwise it would be useless. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia collaborates with ISIL?? (Sorry not forum but this sounds weird.) — JFG ^talk 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

McCarthy: I think Putin pays Trump

Popcorn aside, I am reading this article. It tells:

“There’s . . . there’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy said, drawing some laughter. “Swear to God,” McCarthy added. “This is an off the record,” Ryan said. ...

“No leaks, all right?,” Ryan said, adding: “This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

“That’s how you know that we’re tight,” Scalise said.

“What’s said in the family stays in the family,” Ryan added.

Should that be included on the page? Note that the article is a secondary RS. This is not picking up quotations from primary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

They also say it was a joke. Come on, did Trump need money? From the Kremlin?? Did Putin even think Trump had a chance? GOP people certainly didn't think so, and did all they could to stop him… But I suppose we'll have a new article tomorrow: Donald Trump campaign support from Vladimir Putin. Well, down goes Wikipedia… — JFG ^talk 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Seriously, where did you read that Russia collaborates with ISIS/ISIL/whatever it's called? I'm genuinely curious. — JFG ^talk 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I saw you replied on my talk page, thanks. — JFG ^talk 04:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And here we go…[70] Thankfully, someone reverted. — JFG ^talk 04:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Good content, but wrong article. It's covered elsewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As about the "joke", does it really seem to be a joke to anyone right now, when we know everything we know? Obviously, the RS considers this discussion as something important to be quoted. And even if it was a joke, that was a joke showing that the conflict of interest was well known among top Republicans for a long time. Hence the significance of the "joke". My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New section on controversies

I am writing to seek ideas and consensus on a section on controversies. there is scope for subsections on ethical issues, his potential and unknown Russia links, and his authoritarianism. Each of these topics has sufficient reliable sources to support it. I think it is common sense to group these topics together. However, WP:CRIT states that controversies sections should be avoided. Is there an alternative name? Is this an exception where controversies should be used? Should each topic have its own level 2 heading to avoid a controversies section? Mozzie (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mozzie: With all due respect to your efforts, I would advise you to read WP:TEND and WP:BALASP before embarking on such a mission. Editing purely to highlight the negative aspects of a subject is not the goal of the encyclopedia. For that matter, neither would be editing to highlight only positive aspects. The subject here being Trump's presidency, we must collectively strive to present both positive and negative aspects, in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Thank you for your considered reply. I very much appreciate it. WP:TEND says Editors who engage [tendentious] behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia I am seeking to work productively with you and other editors to include this information. At present there is nothing on this page about several controversies that are affecting the White House. They seem far more notable than past presidencies. Can we compare and contrast? What I want to see is simply encyclopedic, factual, notable, balanced and NPOV coverage of this issue. Given the reactions to other sections, I thought I would seek advice and consensus here first. Although this behavior violates WP:BOLD Mozzie (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should just keep them, regardless of what the MOS says. They're a major part of his presidency and they belong on the page. We just have to try extra hard to handle them in a balanced way. Orser67 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

New section on authoritarian tendencies

I have started a new section on Trump's authoritarian tendencies. It is hard to write such a section and make it neutral, but I trust that other editors will be able to improve the section in this respect. I feel a section like this is necessary as this is a distinguishing and notable part of Trump's presidency. Any comments on making this section work are most welcomed Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not only it is questionable to add such a statement in this manner and this stage into the article; and "authoritarian tendencies" obviously is already some kind of statement. It also appears to have weak and incoherent reasonings. It is one fact that critics of his persona or administration view certain actions negatively, however it is another thing what it actually has to stand for. Meeting with or inviting world leaders who previously were critizised by human rights groups is nothing new, neither to previous US presidents nor to other western leaders. Also "not shaking someone's hand" is no actual point to underline such a claim as given in the section. --Joobo (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the section and sources, this section should not exist as far as I can tell. For example the constitution part, that was about the rules of congress not the constitution. The first sources for that even says as much in the headline. For the 9th circuit part the source listed makes no mention of wanting to break up the court. As stated above, world leaders meeting with each other is not support for that leader. I am also completely lost as to what shaking Merkel's hand has to do with anything at all. So basically its WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, and maybe even a WP:BLP violation, not sure on that one though. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV can be addressed by balancing the content using reliable sources and is not grounds for immediate removal as per WP:WORKINPROGRESS. WP:SYNTH is adding extra meaning beyond sources and can be avoided with careful editing. WP:COATRACK is explicitly an article that is used as a vehicle for discussing content on another topic. Since this section discusses what it says it discusses, this is not relevant in this situation. WP:BLP refers to the immediate removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Since this article has reliable sources (Volunteer Marek has added more) it is outside the scope of this policy.Mozzie (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed this section. It clearly violates NPOV. The section title (authoritarian tendencies) shows that the section was meant to express the opinion of the editor who added it. BLP articles have to be closely watched to avoid painting the person in an overly positive or negative light. The section at issue failed all of the standards mentioned in the my comment, along with those of Joobo and PackMecEng. SMP0328. (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What matters is whether this is discussed in reliable sources. And it is. Indeed, a lot more could be added. The section was perfectly fine, and you just violated 1RR on this article. The section DID NOT "express the opinion of the author who posted it" but rather reflected information as found in reliable sources. "I don't like what reliable sources say" doesn't count as an argument on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In response to this edit summary - if the text accurately reflects sources, and these are reliable sources, then "sources" and "NPOV" are the same exact issue. Because that's how we determine what is NPOV or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(the not shaking Merkel thing though probably should be dropped though).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The material at issue violates multiple policies, regardless of sourcing. Just because material is sourced does not mean that material can be put into an article. If this material is restored to the article, other editors should remove it; I can't, because I would be accused of edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How? An assertion is not an argument. You can't just same "it violates policies!" without actually explaining how and why it violates policies especially if it's very well sourced, and it is. Also, you've already violated 1RR so you're already edit warring - and you really need to self revert. Additionally calling on other editors to revert on your behalf can be seen as a form of disruptive WP:GAMEing and is also sanctionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Here is a ton of other reliable sources on the subject [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] and on and on and on and on... Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

See the comments of Joobo and PackMecEng, together with mine, for a full explanation of why this material does not belong in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah those comments don't really address the issue. Joobo's comment is basically a criticism of sources. But that's not our job. We don't analyze and interpret what reliable sources say. That's WP:OR and it basically amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. PackMecEng's comment address a couple particulars in terms of how sources and text connect but these are actually minor points and not a reason to remove the section. Tweak the wording? Yes. But not remove this wholesale. And like I said, your comment makes a claim but completely fails to back it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I critizise two points. One is the way this content is included here. It is portrayed, without prior evaluation, as it would be a clear fact even needing immediately its own section. The other point is about the sources. One simply cannot take plenty of incoherent sources of vague critic regarding the way a president acts and include it as a form of reality here. Important point to mention, in many if not most sources there is merely a "what could this all lead to" frame. Such personal outlooks are definitely no ground for creating such a section just like that. The bottom line is, critic or concern on actions by an acting president is one thing. It is also nothing new or extraordinary. However, portraying this as some form of reality something else and would be NPOV.--Joobo (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"It is portrayed,without prior evaluation, as it would be a clear fact even needing immediately its own section" <- I have no idea what this means. Specifically what do you mean by "evaluation"? We do not evaluate what reliable sources state.

"incoherent sources of vague critic" <-- No, there's nothing "incoherent" about what these sources state. And these are not "vague critic" but reliable sources.

Look. At the end of the day, this is something that's widely discussed in reliable sources. The original text had four or five. I provided another half a dozen. It's notable. It's reliable. You might quibble with some of the wording but such a section should definitely be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the other grounds already given, the material at issue would constitute a criticism section. Such a section is greatly discouraged, especially in a BLP. SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That means it would be undue in the main Donald Trump article. But this is obviously very relevant to the assessment of his presidency so it fits in perfectly here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A criticism section is greatly discouraged in any article, not just in BLPs. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To quote the relevant policies directly: Wikipedia:Criticism states that most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. In regards to criticism sections it states that best practice [to avoid criticism sections] is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. In this case the solution is to incorporate positive material into the section, not to remove the section. WP:BLP is summarized in WP:BLPZEAL as meaning Contentious material about living persons 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. In other words, BLP is about the immediate removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Since this section had reliable sources from reliable, non tabloid news organisations, it clearly does not violate this policy. WP:BLP goes on to state that In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This is very clear - negative information belongs in the article, even if it is unfavorable.Mozzie (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, we have at least a dozen reliable sources on the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There are policies other than IRS, any one which can prevent material from being in an article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, such as? Seriously, can you please stop making these vague assertions and start backing up what you actually claim. It's hard to respond to things like "there are policies".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A section on authoritarian tendencies is absolutely valid. If you give the go-ahead, I have a billion RS to add in addition to the sources cited above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is neither valid nor do "a billion RS" of such kind make it valid. Obvious reasons given above. --Joobo (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The reasons are not so obvious. The reasons have to address two aspects - reliability and notability. Is it covered in reliable sources? Yes. Is it covered in multiple reliable sources to establish notability? Yes. That's really all there is to this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that sources calling Trump authoritarian are just opinions, and a lot of them are speculative to boot ("what might go wrong if he turns authoritarian"). Not much to justify encyclopedic inclusion. — JFG ^talk 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If these are notable opinions discussed in many sources, we still include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This material is very extensively and very seriously covered in reliable sources, and therefore clearly a discussion of this topic should be included in the article. The proposed section looks fine to me. For example, the article on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (who is way less extreme than Trump) includes extensive discussion of authoritarian policies, with several sections on topics such as "Intimidation of the Constitutional Court", "Silencing the press" and more. --Tataral (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Erdogan "way less extreme" than Trump??? In which alternate reality do you live? Has Trump purged 160,000 people from the armed forces, the judiciary and the administration? Has he thrown any journalists or political opponents in jail? Is he waging a war against a significant part of his own country's population? Is he cracking down on universities? Is he changing the constitution to wield full power? These are all exploits of Mr. Erdogan; in comparison the worst that Trump has done is trash talk on Twitter… — JFG ^talk 20:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The US has a more robust democracy than Turkey, so Trump hasn't been able to do anything like that. But his beliefs, based on what he himself has said, are quite extreme, and certainly more extreme than anything Erdoğan has said. Anyway, this isn't really the point. The point is that articles on other controversial leaders with authoritarian tendencies include discussion of those tendencies. And Trump has been very explicit about his contempt for the press, for example, or his fondness for other authoritarian views, policies and people. --Tataral (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That is nothing but pure POV. And this is not going to happen. If you start by that you could include hundreds of similar sections in this article. Not only in this one but basically in all articles of presidencies. Just look for couple of "reliable sources" and you will surely find to every single US President similar "relieble sources " aka opinions and/or subjective outlooks. Already the word "tendecies" is nothing but pure indeterminableness.--Joobo (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a red herring. Who cares about Erdogan? (As far as this article is concerned) And yeah, I looked for other presidents and sources for their "authoritarian tendencies" - guess what? Reliable sources of that nature do not exists. But they do for this one. So so much for your attempts at deflection and whatbaoutism. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly there need to be reliable sources. But there simply are none, that is the point. Again, and now everyone should be able to understand this, none is arguing about the reliability of the sources if it comes to the question wether the content in the sources is accurate regarding details given and if it was meant that way it was writte. To that question the sources of course are reliable. Yet no such source can give evidence supporting the claim of "authoritarian tendencies". There simply is nothing authoritarian as for example (already taken here) in Turkey's politics and regarding its leader. That is also why fairly incoherent examples were used and had to be taken like the "not shaking so. hand" one. So even finding "a billion RS" will not do anything, as they are all of such sort. --Joobo (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Exactly there need to be reliable sources. But there simply are none, that is the point." <--- Uh, wha the fuj? Dude, people have given you a dozen reliable sources already. Stop trying to gaslight people. I'm sure we can find a couple dozen by end of tonight too. And you need to STOP EVALUATING sources according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Not your job. Pretty much the definition of POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states that News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. that is established outlets are considered to be reliable for statements of fact. This content was based on sources that are established news organisations with high journalistic standards. Once again, reliable further sources can be obtained.Mozzie (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who originally created this section, I would like to focus your attention on Volunteer Marek's comments. This information is based on reliable sources that would not be questioned in other articles. It is also notable being covered in detail in many sources. Moreover, the significance of authoritarian tendencies in a US presidents, who are conventionally non-authoritarian makes this issue notable. Should this information be on Wikipedia? Absolutely! Is this section perfect? Absolutely not! The solution is not to remove the content, but to edit and improve it. I tried to make this clear in my original post above. If the title Authoritarian tendencies is inappropriate, change it to something more appropriate. It the section is non WP:NPOV, make it NPOV. (Note NPOV means representing fairly, etc... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.) It there is a major misinterpretation of an issue fix it. If there is some minor, subtle error, fix it. It was not my duty as an editor to create perfect content because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Rather it is our duty to collectively improve Wikipedia over time. Mozzie (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added that section as being disputed as to whether it violates NPOV. The tag should not be removed, until there is a consensus that there is no such violation or the section is removed. SMP0328. (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There are no RS that supply evidence for that claim which is created already by the headline. Period. You can reiterate that over and over again and get the "billion reliable sources" but there are none. You still do not seem to understand the meaning of "reliable source". One just cannot take a couple of newspaper articles of opinions or outlooks and portray this as a "fact". Well, that is what is done here. Moreover the word "tendency" is absolute vague which makes it purely unsuitable for usage. It merely, if used in combination with a word of negative connotation, creates an unclear and general negative frame without any factual foundation. Tendency can mean anything. It merely helps to find equally incoherent and vague "sources". Otherwise one just needs to look for some "RS" aka a dozen of articles of personal outlook or subjective comprehension and voilà "XY tendencies" is born. That would go for any WP article of this kind. It is no problem at all to find dozens of sources which then support the claim of "socialist tendencies" for Obama's presidency. That is a "evaluation" itself putting these articles in a certain frame of opinion when there is no ground for that. --Joobo (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Joobo, yes, there freakin' are. Half a dozen have been provided. YOU don't understand the meaning of "reliable source". Yes, newspaper articles are reliable sources, provided these are respectable newspapers. Yes, opinion pieces ARE reliable sources for the opinion of the author - the only question is whether this opinion is notable. Which since, you know, there's a dozen sources there, and these are law profs and the like, they freakin' are. Stop making up lame excuses. In some of these instances, the text should be attributed, but yes, these are "facts". Hell, they're facts without the quotation marks too. Please re-read: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Several editors here have tried to explain this to you.

And you're also trying the "whataboutism" with this "socialist tendencies" nonsense, just like you tried the "authoritarian tendencies for other presidents" right above. There are no reliable sources for "socialist tendencies" for Obama AFAIK, just like there's no sources for "authoritarian tendencies" for Bill Clinton or George Bush or Gerald Ford etc. If I'm wrong go ahead and present them at the Obama article or other relevant articles. Otherwise, quit making random and irrelevant shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not even going into detail again, since there still seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what reliability of sources means if it comes to usage of such in the context of creating sections as this. There are no reliable sources for a "socialist tendencies" section on Obama's article? According to my understanding no, according to your understanding yes, there are "reliable sources" for an inclusion of such section. --Joobo (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, you NEED to go into detail, especially since you haven't so far. So far you just asserted that "there are no reliable sources" despite the fact that a dozen or so have been provided for you.

What is this misunderstanding you're talking about? Are the sources being cited reliable or not? It's not a hard question and I have no idea what you're going on about "comes to usage of such in the context of creating sections as this". What the hey does that even mean? You are simply evading the straight forward issue that there are indeed reliable sources here by writing some confusing and obtuse sentences.

Likewise, I still have no idea of what you are going on about with Obama and these "socialist tendencies". You claimed there were reliable sources for THAT. There ain't. So stop making crap up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? I clearly explain why these sources simply cannot be labeled as "reliable" and automatically be used as a free ticket to include sections of such kind in this article. Please try to read my comments carefully and agf. Also try to understand the aspects regarding the headline using "tendecies". I am quite amazed that you are so confident that there were no RS for a section in the article of Obama. In fact there are plenty of, using the same standards and criterias as applied here by you. --Joobo (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No you do not. Explain why The Atlantic is an unreliable source. Explain why Los Angeles Times is an unreliable source. Explain why CNN is an unreliable source. Explain why The Guardian is an unreliable source. Explain why Washington Post is an unreliable source. Explain why New York Times is an unreliable source. You only asserted these were unreliable (which is BS, frankly). Just like you are only asserting, also falsely, that there are "reliable sources about Obama's authoritarian tendencies" - still waiting on you to provide these reliable sources which you claim exist, never mind that that's a complete red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Joobo - re this - there's nothing "OR" about this text. It's based on reliable sources. You are just quoting random Wikipedia policies to justify your edit warring according to your own personal WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. THAT is POV.

SMP0328 - as stated repeatedly, it is not enough to *claim* that something is POV. You have to justify and explain exactly how it is "POV". An assertion is not an argument. It's meaningless. Such a tag does not belong in the section unless you can provide a non-spurious rationale for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The disputed section has been restored, so I have added tags for it being POV and a criticism section. The section is clearly biased, as it contains only negative material. Not one positive thing is said about Trump. This section is clearly a criticism section, as is indicated by its title (Authoritarian tendencies). Criticism sections are greatly discouraged as they can cause an article to be POV. Both of these issues are despite the material being fully sourced. The tags I have added should not be removed, until the section is removed or there is a consensus that these tags no longer apply to this section. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

To add tags you have to justify them. You cannot just "tag shame" a section because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You haven't done that. Criticism sections are NOT automatically NPOV and this isn't even a "criticism section" it's more like an "analysis" section. So until you actually make an attempt at justifying these tags, they go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To add my two cents, I think that what's currently on the page is a bit thin to justify a section such as "authoritarian tendencies." When you label a section with a title like "authoritarian tendencies," you're making a pretty strong statement, and all I see to support the section title are a bunch of statements and opinions rather than actions. Many of the articles being cited also don't themselves make a point about authoritarian tendencies, which raises a wp:synthesis issue. The lack of opinions/statements arguing against his supposed authoritarian tendencies is also a problem. Orser67 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added two references that clearly call Trump authoritarian: "Trump’s Authoritarian Vision" and "Trump is following the authoritarian playbook" I do not see a problem with the sections title.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If these are truly "reliabe sources" the same could be done for Obama's presidency article with a "socialist tendencies" subsection. Or basically for any other presidency article in the manner of " XXX tendencies". --Joobo (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 The CNN source is an opinion article and not suitable. Even stating at the top that these are the opinions solely of the author. They are not employed by CNN and have no editorial oversight. I suggest you remove it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:  Done  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Joobo: Please provide links to your sources. Because, you are wrong:

• Fox News publishes the Associated Press: Is Obama a Socialist?
• Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?
• MSNBC: If Obama’s a socialist, he’s really bad at it
• Washington Post: Five myths about Barack Obama

But you are welcome to bring the issue up at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The point seems to be missed here, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comes to mind. The comparison with Obama appears to be pointing out how silly the section is, not trying to make changed to the Obama article. Overall it is very thin in several areas. "He attacked courts which made rulings against his executive orders." is the same that every president has done when their orders have been struck down, with the source listed saying nothing about authoritarianism. The part on breaking up the 9th circuit court is not mentioned in the source anywhere so it is WP:OR. The first amendment claim is not stated by the source either, rather saying it would require a change to the constitution, not that he wants to limit the first amendment. The hand shake with Merkel is completely irrelevant to the section. So with just that first look alone half the section is worthless and just looking like a WP:COATRACK, couple that with no balance what so ever and it comes off WP:NPOV and possibly a BLP issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying. Let's take it one sentence at a time:

"attacked courts": is covered in --"Trump’s Authoritarian Vision" (which I have added.)

"breaking up the 9th circuit court": is discussed in this new reference Vanity Fair: "Trump Threatens To Smash The Ninth Circuit For Ruling Against Him: The president’s authoritarian streak is showing."

"libel laws": rewritten, please comment on new version.

"hand shake with Merkel": Deleted  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User: SMP0328., Re this revert. That's not how this works. You don't get to "tag shame" a section because you just don't like it and then demand "consensus" for removal of these spurious bullshit tags. YOU need to articulate and explain what is POV about that section. Specifically. Sentence, word, source. Not just some vague "oh it just looks POV to me" crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have explained why I added those tags to the disputed section, as have other editors. I am not trying to shame anything or anyone. The disputed section violates multiple policies, regardless of the sourcing. Regardless of the arguments many editors, including myself, have made, you continue to simply restate that the disputed section is reliably sourced and that we have not explained ourselves. We have explained ourselves and sourcing is not at issue. There are numerous policies under which Wikipedia is run; IRS is not the only Wikipedia policy. SMP0328. (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No! No no no you haven't. You've only ASSERTED. You have NOT EXPLAINED. Look, it's not that hard to understand. "To assert" and "to explain" are two different things. You did the former. You need to do the latter. What exactly is POV? Which sentence? Which wording? Which sources are unreliable? The policy requires you to be specific. And seriously, claims like "disputed section violates multiple policies, regardless of the sourcing" sort of indicate that you got nothing, which is why you keep making these vague, ethereal, substance free, empty, rhetorical, inane, objections. And yes, until you actually explain, the tags don't belong in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the previous interactions with you:

"The material at issue violates multiple policies, regardless of sourcing. Just because material is sourced does not mean that material can be put into an article. If this material is restored to the article, other editors should remove it; I can't, because I would be accused of edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) How? An assertion is not an argument. You can't just same "it violates policies!" without actually explaining how and why it violates policies especially if it's very well sourced, and it is. Also, you've already violated 1RR so you're already edit warring - and you really need to self revert. Additionally calling on other editors to revert on your behalf can be seen as a form of disruptive WP:GAMEing and is also sanctionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)" - NO FOLLOW UP ANSWER

"There are policies other than IRS, any one which can prevent material from being in an article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Uh, such as? Seriously, can you please stop making these vague assertions and start backing up what you actually claim. It's hard to respond to things like "there are policies".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)" - NO FOLLOW UP ANSWER

"A criticism section is greatly discouraged in any article, not just in BLPs. SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) To quote the relevant policies directly: Wikipedia:Criticism states that most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way...." - NO FOLLOW UP ANSWER

The above clearly shows that you are only ASSERTING that the section violates policies, but when you are asked to actually explain how policies are violated you completely, utterly, and absolutely FAIL to respond. That is a quintessential example of spurious "tag shaming" and of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You need to do better or tags go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please stop worrying. Trust the system. Let fucking stupid tags stay for a bit while the RfC below attracts more reasonable minds. In the mean time, I have completed a good rewrite to make the section quite strong and balanced. We can take the tags down once more people express their opinions.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears more and more that there is an unbalanced approach to this matter. So "I am wrong" if i suggest one could include a similar section in the article of Obama, simply because you looked up some articles in which the authors disagree with the claim of socialist tendencies of Obama's presidency — and hence there automatically cannot be socialist tendencies? That is a genuinely interesting statement. I like to point out that there are sources as well disagreeing with the claim of an authoritarian Trump presidency. So what sources are "reliable" now and what are not; - as already pointed out here by me clearly, either one applies this "reliable source" using and creating of new "tendencies" subsection to all US presidency articles or one stays straight to the way it was. --Joobo (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Provide links and I will apply them to the article. I have renamed the section "Accusations of authoritarianism."  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Jooboo, you're wrong because you made a silly assertion, which was a red herring anyway, and then have become evasive when asked to back it up. Where are these reliable sources which state that Obama had "socialist tendencies"? Still waiting on them. But anyway, like I said, it's actually irrelevant. What is relevant is these sources - again, you claim they exist but fail to provide them - that "disagree with the claim of an authoritarian Trump presidency". So let's see'em.

Criteria for reliability can be found at WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What does "socialist tendences" mean? The way the American far right uses the term "socialist", it seems that they mean mainstream conservatives – as we understand the term conservatives in the non-Bizarro Universe. By normal standards Obama is a centre-right politician, like Merkel. There is very little if anything about him or his policies that is "socialist" as the term is used in serious contexts. In fact most European conservatives are probably more "socialist" than Obama. Clearly, the serious description of Trump's policies as authoritarian by political scientists and other serious sources cannot be compared to nutty rants from far-right non-reliable sources about Obama being a "socialist." --Tataral (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is not whether Obama is a socialist. The point is that such a section in Presidency of Barack Obama would be inappropriate, even if there were numerous reliable sources claiming that Obama is a socialist. The same is true regarding the disputed section in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@SMP0328., Tataral, Volunteer Marek, Joobo, Mozzie, JFG, Snooganssnoogans, and PackMecEng:

Please continue to discuss here but !vote below at RfC section.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, a fringe POV section like "some people with extreme views and who don't have a clue about politics and who aren't considered serious reliable sources call Obama a socialist" is not comparable to a section discussing the very serious views from very serious reliable sources about Trump's authoritarianism. The key issue here is that the latter is a serious discussion based on serious reliable sources, while the former is not. --Tataral (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of what you are saying Tataral, but please take care to be civil. It is not notable for conservatives to call a Democrat President a socialist. These are political slurs, and few serious reliable sources claim that he actually wants to follow socialist policies. However, Trump's behavior and attitudes are well documented in reliable sources to a departure from longstanding norms held by previous presidents. It is therefore notable.Mozzie (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The section has been renamed "Political ideology". Are the traits political, psychological / interpersonal, or both? Esowteric+Talk 12:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tag

I object to the "unbalanced" tag [79] added by Feelthebernofyourwallet (talk · contribs).

The article is quite meticulously referenced.

The user fails to explain any reasoning on the talk page for the "unbalanced" tag.

It should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There are parts of it that are biased though. Like the accusations of authoritarianism. There's no reason for it. He's just as authoritarian as Obama and Bush, but you don't have that in their articles. And you also included him being tied to Russia, even though there's no evidence. Clear bias! Feelthebernofyourwallet (talk) 6:27, May 19 2017 (EST)

Reliable sources disagree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether he is more authoritarian is your opinion, which should not come into this matter. We only go off reliable sources. If reliable sources discuss Russia links, then it belongs on Wikipedia, regardless of our opinions as editors. Moreover, if reliable sources discuss Bush's or Obama's authoritarianism, then that belongs on Wikipedia as well.Mozzie (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to Stinger20 for [80]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor - balance is not about whether the article has references, WP:BALANCE is "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Markbassett (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so where is this "unbalance"? Feelthebernofyourwallet references only bias, not balance, and erroneously at that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO one above has voiced any specific issues with any specific source or info. Sagecandor (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor - Feelthebernofyourwallet did name the Authoritarian section, which would seem to be his WP:BALANCE concern, or perhaps WP:BALASP "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". That section is renamed "Political Ideology" and under a RFC above, with labels put at it for WP:POV, WP:Coatrack, and WP:ESSAY, and discussion seems generally that it is POV, Criticism, and Synth. Meanwhile, the Unbalanced tag this thread is about seems to have been removed -- also without Talk -- so this thread seems fairly moot. Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

New leadership style and philosophy section

I have been bold and grouped the 'media relationship', 'use of twitter' and 'accusation of authoritarianism' sections under one level 1 heading called Leadership style and philosophy. I brain stormed lots of different possible headings. Possibly political or presidential style and philosophy, but I am stuck. There may well be a better heading. It would be great if someone could improve the article by coming up with a better one. I have also changed the heading of the accusations of authoritarianism section to political ideology. Once again, I'm sure there's a better heading. This one at least will create a much better tone for improving that section with a less critical and more analytical tone. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on that now, but I'm sure we'll get there by working together :) Mozzie (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The section on authoritarianism has been renamed "Political ideology". Just wondering if the traits are political, psychological/interpersonal, or both? Esowteric+Talk 12:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is for us to really speculate about the psychological or interpersonal nature of Trumps behavior since there aren't reliable sources for it. It is discussed in the media, but a lot of it seems like conjecture. It could be added to Wikipedia in that context.Mozzie (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems basically the same "Authoritarian" content just relabeled. Think the same concerns of POV, Coatrack, and Essay are still in active discussion at RFC, and were inappropriately removed. Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear in my original post. I haven't changed the content because I don't have time. However, I think the new title can give the section a focus on his general ideology, instead of authoritarianism. I will work on it over the next few weeks as I get time. I won't address NPOV, coatrack and essay issues again. This material relevant to the topic, and is referenced using reliable sources. It unarguably belongs on this page and Wikipedia. Can it be improved by rewriting? YES!. But arguing back and fourth over these issues won't improve the content. 203.219.159.201 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony about news article

Footnote 261 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example:

“ Easley, Jonathan. "Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was." ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I watched the Comey testimony. He admitted these things. What did he say was wrong about it? And why have I been banned when I committed no violations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey memos

Wordhewer Thank you for your revision 789225583 but I disagree that your interpretation of "one" was supported but the references.

Comey wrote multiple memos concerning his interactions with President Trump and in one Trump attempted to persuade Comey to abort the investigation into General Flynn.

I think "one" referred to "interactions" not "memos" so I agree with you that it was confusing as originally worded. In FBI jargon as used throughout this section "memo" seems to include the meaning of "formally filed contemporaneous notes" and does not necessarily mean "disseminated intraoffice communication." But I disagree that Trump made "a communication of his own" (to whom?) as documented by the multiple references on the lede sentence. Hopefully, we have made progress towards clarifying the lede sentence of this section. Dakleman (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at this paragraph I see it has problems including redundancy (we don't really need to say twice here, and a third time below, that Comey prepared memos) and a confusing compound sentence. Here's the paragraph as it stands:

Comey wrote multiple memos documenting his meetings and telephone conversations with President Trump and, in one such communication, Trump attempted to persuade Comey to abort the investigation into General Flynn.[46][47][48][49][50][51] Comey prepared a detailed memo after every meeting with President Donald Trump.[52] One memo referred to an February 14, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Comey and Trump, in which, according to the memo, the president stated "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."[48] Comey made no commitments to Trump on the subject.[48]

Here's a proposed modification:

Comey prepared detailed memos documenting most of his meetings and telephone conversations with President Trump.[52] In his memo about a February 14, 2017 Oval Office meeting between Comey and Trump, Comey says Trump attempted to persuade him to abort the investigation into General Flynn.[46][47][48][49][50][51] According to the memo, the president stated, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."[48] Comey made no commitments to Trump on the subject.[48]

I'd also suggest that you don't really need six references for that one sentence and a few could probably be dropped. Thoughts? MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, like most good edits on Wikipedia, I think that's a good start. (also I fixed your missing signature above) Dakleman (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)