Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 19 June 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First presidency of Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidents / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPUS50k

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First presidency of Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Three paragraphs to trim in the 'false and misleading statements' section

I think we should remove the 'Bella DePaulo', 'Scientific American' and Trudeau paragraphs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While we're at it, @Atsme: you removed RS about Trump lying, citing NOTNEWS. This seems rather weak. Are you claiming it's news that Trump lies a lot? It would be news if he went horseback riding or something like that. Lying is one of his main features. It's well sourced. It can go back. Anyone object? SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did and I don't think NOTNEWS policy should be construed as a "rather weak" argument. The New York Times doesn't corroborate WaPo's article but they did publish the FoxNews exchange which speaks to the issue. Speculation is just that...speculation and since it just happened the other day, it happens to be noncompliant with NOTNEWS. I also don't consider events that happened 6+ years ago part of Trump's presidency. We still don't know why Cohen was raided, or what any of it has to do with Daniels except for the fact they took those files. When there are exceptional sources that establish notability about what was said on Hannity, then we can revisit it. 21:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If NOTNEWS had the slightest relevance, it would be persuasive. NOTNEWS isn't "don't cite newspapers". It has to do with recent uncontextualized events. And this is not what's proposed here. Let's see if anyone takes up your cause. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The text you deleted has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. The WaPo quote is an assessment of patterns of behavior throughout the Trump presidency, it's not specifically tied to any one event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're linking to that NY Times article and talking about corroboration with the WaPo article. It's a transcript of the Giuliani interview... ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

About the sources, Atsme cited the NY Times article that contradicted the Washington Post article you added. The Washington Post article you cited here is about a single recent event while mentioning the past in passing. Atsme is right here with notnews. PackMecEng (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what in the NY Times "article" contradicts the WaPo article. It's a transcript of the Giuliani interview. ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The quote from the WaPo article is not about a specific recent event, but patterns over time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No contradiction. This is getting dumb. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what in the "NY Times article" contradicts the WaPo article. There are two editors here who insist that a "NY Times article" contradicts a WaPo article, and that a quote from a WaPo article about Trump's pattern of lying should be left out. These editors stopped engaging in this discussion after being asked to substantiate their claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see the NOTNEWS as reasonable, and will also point out UNDUE and at the time RECENTISM (less than half a day old?). Also, does it really fit as an item of Presidency -- the defined duties and actions of the president ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A president and his staff telling lies all the time obviously has no relevance to an article on the president and his staff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, are Atsme and PackMecEng every going to get back to me on what exactly in a "NYT article" contradicted the WaPo article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they already input here on the edits. If you want the side comment wording further explained, it might be best to try the talk page of

PacMec. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Baylor University study on "Presidential Greatness"

I was reverted here by Snooganssnoogans on the basis of a SYNTH violation, when the material was quoted directly from the Baylor study. Can we have a discussion on this? I couldn't find anything in SYNTH policy stating that copying material directly from the source is considered a violation. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH violation is to use this 2012 study to imply bias in the 2018 APSA ratings of Trump. The 2012 study has nothing to do with Trump or the 2018 APSA ratings of him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not synth if the source is making the connection. I will say I do not know if Campus Reform is a RS, I do not see them mentioned at RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to cite a poll as if it has meaning, how is research that says the polling participants "favor progressives" and describe the poll as "not very rigorous" not relevant? If an accident occurs on the London Eye that causes injuries and/or death, is a study from a few years prior that found the London Eye has safety issues not relevant? Even if an opinion article from Campus Reform isn't considered reliable for whatever reason, the connection and relevance is plain. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not appear to be an opinion article from what I can tell. But again I do not know much about Campus Reform. I actually think it is interesting content and would agree with the insertion assuming the source is found to be good. Their about page seems okay, but you will find pushback that they are a project by the Leadership Institute. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing sections

Looking at the article there are several sections that have their own articles but are still rather long here or have their own articles but do not actually summarize them. Some examples would be the Economy, Environment and energy, Health care, and Immigration. Each of those have their own dedicated Trump article but end up being a dumping ground for recent information without even updating the base articles. Should we clear up the article here and just summarize the lead of each sub article here? PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The sections in this article already summarize the actions of the Trump administration within those fields in a short and sweet fashion. Content can of course always be trimmed and summarized more concisely. But it's refreshing to see that you now have a rediscovered interest in trimming the article by way of scrubbing all content after opposing virtually every change that was made to trim the article ten days ago. I definitely encourage editors to update the individual Economy, Environment and energy, Health care, and Immigration articles, but it's understandable that people don't do it given that the articles are forks that no one reads and are primarily about political positions taken by Trump during the 2016 campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just full of surprises huh? PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference here vs above that you are referring to is fairly big. What I am suggesting here is the information that is in this article but not in the proper sub article be added to the sub and just use the lead summary from the sub here. So no actual information is lost, and meets everyone's favorite WP:PRESERVE. Up above that was just straight up removal of RS and information as well as move arounds that I had issues with. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes PLEASE in general to trimming and/or setting the bar for inclusion well above "trivia". The length of Economy (3 screens), environment (5 screens), and Immigration (4 screens) in particular are too long by going into reciting every single tiny event and using quote phrases when it should be identifying the MAJOR events and making a summary. I'll also suggest reducing the number of sections there by eliminating the ones with no major content. For example, Science is just 3 lines -- one news story of not particularly much coverage so is WP:UNDUE proportion here, and Abortion is just one line of routine Republican move with not much coverage compared to the other topics here so again should go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose attempts to redact sourced valid content Andrevan@ 00:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — It's a natural consequence of writing about an evolving topic, such as a current president, that sections will initially appear as dumping grounds. Later we will be in a better position to discern patterns so we can organize these events better. But if we don't document the events here as they occur, reconstructing them later would be much more difficult and valuable information would invariably be missed. soibangla (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as close to a necessity as it can get. WP:Page size states that when readable prose size exceeds 100 kB - Almost certainly should be divided. The current prose size (text only) of this article now is 109 kB (17519 words) "readable prose size". We still have years to go so rest assured, some of it is going to be deleted eventually. 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Atsme removed sourced material about Trump being the most polarizing president. This material appeared to be sourced to Brookings Institution. I believe as long as it is credited properly it is valid material for this article. Andrevan@ 01:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just a point of reference, this exact material was discussed on the main Trump article here under "Why was this edit removed?". PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a good removal. That should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the editor violated DS consensus - and a standing consensus by restoring it - but I'm not one to run to AE unless it becomes a serious behavioral issue. Pack - I may have asked before but why don't we have a Consensus - survey section at the top of these highly controversial Trump articles? Wasn't it Coffee who did the one at Trump's bio? Now that would be truly helpful if you would take on that project, Andrevan - and it will also help familiarize you with some of the past discussions/consensus/surveys. 01:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s a darn good thing you struck that false accusation. Really. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Threat noted. 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You really need to drop this vendetta of yours. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you're casting aspersions. I suggest you move along and collaborate in a productive manner. 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not troll me or I will seek administrative remedies. All you gotta do is drop it. Easy! soibangla (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Consensus was at Donald Trump over this removal which was the same edit that was attempted here. I guess editors can refer to the standing consensus, or get one for this article now that the material has been challenged. The article names are a bit confusing because we're adding material at his BLP that belongs in this article. 01:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC) PS: And I'll add that the survey itself states ...our survey sample featured many more Democrats than Republicans.

To what extent is it relevant that the consensus was at a BLP article? Is this considered a BLP article? I recommend adding contrary sourced material, rather than removing sourced material. SMP0328. (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is not a BLP as I understand it. Furthermore the discussion at Donald Trump suggested that the material made more sense at Presidency of Donald Trump. Also, I don't agree that we should have a survey section. Consensus is not a vote and not a survey. It's a discussion, with occasionally straw polling as a tool to gauge consensus. !votes, which I've noticed you call iVotes, are not votes (! is old computer programmer shorthand for "not"). Not policy-based arguments do not get weight in consensus determination. In this case, you need another reason to challenge this material other than that you don't like it because it is critical of Trump, and it was discussed at the BLP article. Andrevan@ 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The material was challenged for good cause; see the discussions at Donald Trump that I linked to in my comments above. Also see WP:PUBLICFIGURE and keep in mind that BLP policy applies everywhere on WP. DS restrictions apply to this article (see top of page) so consensus is needed to restore the material. Call an RfC if you think a poll that compares a 1st year president to full term presidents is encyclopedic and compliant with NPOV considering (per their blog site) the "survey sample featured many more Democrats than Republicans". 03:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey samples are inequal all the time, for example, Rasmussen tends to give more weight to Republicans. We don't need to take sides, both are acceptable reliable sources, and the correct path forward is to balance them. Andrevan@ 03:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The way I see it there are a few problems with the material that was removed here. First it is a ranking meant to cover the whole presidency and he still has several more years to go. Second it's sources are an blog article and primary source which is never a good combination. Also the poll looks heavily biased to Democrats, with 81 Democrats, 36 Republicans, and 17 independents. A minor thing here it was not 170 respondents for the specific question we cite, it was 134. Finally it does not seem to be covered in the body so why is it in the lead? I would say we do not include the material. PackMecEng (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

None of these "problems" (sic) are actually problems, nor do they have any basis in Misplaced Pages policy. "He still has several more years to go". So what??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

First, it is not intended to cover the entire presidency, it follows a sentence about first-year polling (which has not been removed, BTW), we can explicitly note the survey date to clarify, if desired. Second, Brookings is a RS that accurately summarizes the primary source, which is provided if readers want to verify for themselves. Third, regardless of the composition of survey respondents, the edit specifically refers to views of self-described Republican respondents, and reading the study shows the conclusions are shared broadly across the political spectrum; we can change 170 to 134, easy. Finally, the article needs a significant public/expert opinion section. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_75#Ranking_Trump_in_relation_to_other_presidents for the prevailing arguments to delete. Polls relating to Trump have consistently been proven wrong, so why do we keep including them? As far as his approval ratings, using a specific poll is noncompliant with NOTNEWS, but I see no compliance issue if we include summaries with intext attribution as in the following example:

Trump's approval ratings leading into the second year of his presidency have increased for "specific issues like the economy, foreign trade and immigration", whereas they have been "relatively poor overall compared to former presidents, at times reaching similar lows to President Barack Obama's lowest approval (after a near-shutdown in 2011 and an actual shutdown in 2013) and President George Bush's (after Hurricane Katrina)."

That should be the extent of how we use polling and approval ratings - it is compliant with DUE, WEIGHT, and NPOV in general. It also allows us to provide updates without having to delete the material later. 14:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because a piece of text may not be appropriate in one article, does not mean it's not appropriate in another. So your comment is completely irrelevant. And that's not even considering that the discussion you link to is ABOUT A DIFFERENT text! As an aside, your cherry picked sentence completely misrepresents the nature of these polls. Oh and also, it's absurd to try and bring WP:NOTNEWS into this, another ridiculous and incoherent argument. Oh and another thing, blanket statements such as "polls relating to Trump consistently been proven wrong" are... well, wrong (which polls? are you sure?) and to the extent there's something to it, it refers to polls about ... how people will vote! not polls about... opinions of political scientists! Two different kettles of fish. Jesus, how much wrong can someone pack into a paragraph???Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Jesus, how much wrong can someone pack into a paragraph???" Not sure but you seemed to do a pretty good job PackMecEng (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, see, here's the difference. I went through and explained exactly why it was wrong. You just jumped in to make a baseless, unnecessary and gratuitous snarky remark. This is why other users get sanctioned and I usually don't. Might wanna heed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh gzz calm down, I was just having a little fun. You don't have to be a butt about it, you know very well that last sentence of yours was completely unnecessary and almost a civil violation. PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, this is a very typical and classic case of Atsme using WP:DS to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages policy just to remove text per their own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Restore it already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again with the same ole PAs and classic casting aspersions by Volunteer Marek against editors who disagree with his POV. My argument is well-supported by consensus in Donald Trump whereas PAs comprise the argument Volunteer Marek has brought forth. Please restrict your comments to content and the PAs against other editors. 18:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not being "bludgeoned" nor are you being personally attacked. You are simply being criticized. Because you deserve it. The entirety of my comment was about content. Just because some content doesn't belong somewhere else, doesn't mean the content doesn't belong here. The discussion you link to is about different content than the content being discussed here. The cherry picked sentence misrepresents the content. WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant to this content. Polls - content - about voting, are different animal than polls - content - about opinions of political scientists. Your whole comment then was full of completely wrong assertions... about content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And one more time just to be clear - whatever consensus exists at Donald Trump is irrelevant to consensus here. This. Is. A. Different. Article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, and my reasons are valid. You accused me of both gaming the system and IDONTLIKEIT in addition to your criticism of my proposal. Your spurious allegations are unequivocally PAs, and that's all I'm going to say about your behavior. Focus on content, not editors. What I removed from this article began with:

• A survey of 170 political scientists of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section found Trump to be the most polarizing president in American history,

The content that was removed and later rejected by consensus at Donald Trump began with:

• A survey of 170 members of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents and Executive Politics section published in February 2018 ranked Trump the worst president in American history.

The material is basically the same. Your specious argument to restore noncompliant material is what deserves criticism, not the removal of it. Stop wasting our time. If you want the material restored, then follow protocol and call an RfC. In the interim, stop the PAs and unwarranted criticism that you've based on a fallacious premise which I've already demonstrated. Happy editing - I'm done here. 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You can disagree, of course, but your reasons are not valid. In fact, you really need to keep in mind that falsely accusing others of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack. You asserted, falsely, that I attacked ("bludgeoned") you and that my comment failed to address content. As I emphasized above, every single sentence of my comment addressed content. And of course, that was sort of obvious even before you forced me to emphasize it. So... this is the part where you apologize and retract, not double down.

And let's do this for the third (or is it fourth?) time: whatever consensus was achieved at the Donald Trump article is irrelevant here. Different article, different topic. Hell, different text even. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's break it up, this argument is getting contentious, and not in a content way. Atsme, the APSA and Brookings content is clearly reliable and worthy of inclusion in this article (which is distinct from the main Donald Trump BLP), but we can balance it by including some counterpoints and other examples of similar, contrasting info. Andrevan@ 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue to modify it or exclude any longer - as I said below, call an RfC and get consensus to restore per DS restrictions. I'll respond in the RfC. 21:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

An RFC is not the only way to obtain consensus. For example, if the majority of editors agree your arguments are not-policy-based, we don't need an RFC at all. Andrevan@ 22:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Reflexively calling for an RFC is a form of WP:GAME to exasperate and exhaust editors into giving up, or the issue stalemates and fades from attention, so the original challenge/reversion by a single editor prevails by default. It's a akin to a filibuster. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem. Atsme (and a couple others) reflexively make blind-reverts of any content which does not fit their POV per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, no matter how well sourced (freakin' Brookings!), how relevant and how encyclopedic, then invoke the "discretionary sanctions shield" to protect their disruptive edits. It's transparently WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just crap trivia from a bias opinion survey (not study, and not RS at that point) that was jammed into the lead with no support in the body. It has no business in the article let alone the lead (ie undue). PackMecEng (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"crap trivia from a bias opinion survey" — In reality, a survey of highly-educated professionals who have devoted their lives to studying presidential politics, including Republicans who say Trump is the worst president since the 1860s. As opposed, say, to a Drudge online "poll" that some would prefer. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you would use Drudge, they are not a RS for anything as far as I know. Other than for the opinions of Matt Drudge. You shouldn't cite sources like that. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Pehaps some might prefer this language: A survey of 170 political scientists found Trump had the most opportunity for improvement among all American presidents. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Andrevan - miscite ?? Seems a bad cite and wrong to call this 'Brookings'. The cite URL is brookings.edu/blog ... and the content 'survey of 170 APSA' attributed to it being there] seems factually untrue. It seems the same group, but about a different part of the survey. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Restore the edit.

• SUPPORT — soibangla (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ridiculous - Jamming a tiny survey into the lead is horribly wrong -- Atsme did well to remove and politely redirect to consensus here. Get some perspective. This article is for major presidential actions and events of his term. Russia gets headlines and substantial content, as does China, Tax bill, Charlottesville, and a bunch of other things. Not some teeny little survey. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: undue for the lead; fails MOS:LEADREL. – Lionel 06:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove sentence

Remove this sentence please

Opinion polls have shown Trump to be the least popular President in the history of modern American presidential opinion polling, as of the end of his first year in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A000:9E20:7DA9:AB53:B46:B805 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Andrevan@ 18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Modify it for accuracy and compliance with NPOV - according to Time (citing Gallup): President Donald Trump’s approval rating has ping-ponged between a low of 35% and a high of 45% during his first year in office — the worst record of any of the most recent seven presidents, according to Gallup. They also have a graph which is quite useful. 19:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• 538, which aggregates polling, has consistently shown many polls with historic lows. Original text is valid. Andrevan@ 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - call an RfC and get consensus per DS restrictions. 21:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's already a standing consensus for the stable version of the article. Andrevan@ 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Not really disputed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you know better, VM, but Andrevan not so much. Please understand that consensus is required to restore challenged material per DS. This material was added (less the sources which followed), and that is the material I challenged. If you don't fully understand the protocol, please familiarize yourself because this article is subject to DS-1RR-Consensus required. Have you been notified of DS on your TP? Please scroll up and read the explanation in the TP header so you'll know what is required when material is challenged via revert. Thank you. 23:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're referring to different material in a different discussion thread than the material being discussed. Andrevan@ 23:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You may well be correct, Andrevans, and I hereby extend my apologies for the confusion. I cannot find where/when that material was added to the lede, and I should not have assumed it was related to the other material under discussion in the section above. I did find this diff wherein MelanieN removed material per TP discussions, and it was similar to what I recently removed. I will humbly concede if the material under discussion here is long standing, and in no way related to prior discussions that consensus determined to remove. 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopaedia. Any statement about Trump's popularity should be based on global figures, not just American ones. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a basis stated for removal other than 'Please'. Factually it seems correct, and there was no stating it as an issue over something else like WP:WEIGHT or WP:OFFTOPIC. Seems just a troll. Markbassett (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

NY Times "criticism"

A number of sources have noted that Trump has bypassed traditional procedures on pardons (this is a noncontroversial observation). An editor now twists this noncontroversial observation into a "criticism" by the NY Times. The sources note that the cases Trump is pardoning relate to grievances into "various investigations into his campaign, his personal lawyer and his own actions that may have been aimed at obstructing the inquiry of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. This was a straightforward statement in a news article written by a Times reporter. There is no basis for the suggestion that this is opinion, commentary or POV that needs to be attributed. It should be reverted and should not be restored without prior confirmed consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - Please give cites to the said "number of sources". The pardoning was widely covered and can be stated to have happened non-controversially. But not any soapboxing about it. The NYTimes views and speculations of it is hardly neutral or noncontroversial, so should not have been stated in wikivoice as if a fact or widely held opinion, and JFG improved it to shift it to an attributed 'NYT says'. But I'm dubious that every NYT criticism deserves a place. If you can show more WP:WEIGHT of coverage about it then it might be deserving a position. If not -- then reduce it to simply a note the pardoning happened. I'm simply dubious skeptical that there is wide agreement that pardoning Martha Stewart is an imminent threat to Mueller. Markbassett (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty that every single source that covered Trump's pardons noted the erratic process and the bypassing of DOJ procedures. So, I googled the first three news outlets that came to mind: (1) Site:WSJ.com trump + pardon + process, (2) Site:POLITICO.COM trump + pardon + process, (3) site:WASHINGTONPOST.COM trump + pardon + process. And you know, all three sources confirmed exactly what I said.

• WSJ: "the day’s events presented the clearest picture to date of Mr. Trump’s approach to presidential-pardon powers, one focused on high-profile cases, drawing on instinct and bypassing traditional Justice Department processes. In all three instances, Mr. Trump also would be reversing headline-making verdicts won by prosecutors who now count among his critics. The moves also come as associates of Mr. Trump are being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice, leading to questions about whether Mr. Trump could potentially consider clemency in that matter. Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and Russia has denied meddling." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• WaPo: "Trump’s pardon of D’Souza was his sixth act of clemency as president. Each was issued unilaterally, subverting the traditional Justice Department process of reviewing thousands of pardon requests. Traditionally, people seeking pardons apply through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which reviews thousands of cases and advances some to the White House for the president’s consideration. But Trump has used his clemency powers in a more haphazard way, spurred by personal connections or political calculations."
• Politico: "To get a pardon from President Donald Trump, it clearly helps to be famous. As conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D'Souza received clemency Thursday for a felony conviction for making campaign contributions through straw donors, Trump seemed to confirm that D'Souza's high-public profile — primarily in right-leaning media outlets — contributed to his case.While Trump hasn't approved any pardons or commutations through the normal process, he did deny a batch last month."

These are not critiques. They are observations by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - those prove my point -- they say things that do not match the NYT language proposed for the article "used the pardon power on public figures whose cases resonated with the kinds of grievances that Trump levied at investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election". The WaPO quote is just saying it did not go thru channels; the Politico article is only noting he favored famous cases. The WSJ article is giving primacy to their being famous cases (e.g. Martha Stewart), and secondly being his critics, and a remark at the end that occurring at this time leads to wondering if ther might be further use. So - outside the usual channels yes, the rest of it no. Also -- I tried google elsewhere and get different results so there may be WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV issues.

• No results found for site:bbc.com trump +pardon +process
• No results found for site:theindependent.co.uk trump +pardon +process
• No results found for site:latimes.com trump +pardon +process

I suggest the 'NYT says' version is inappropriate as NYT is not noted or echoed elsewhere, but that 'outside normal channels' might be said in minor amount since it appears in a subset of common channels. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. How deceptive and shameless can you be? Did you seriously not expect me to look this up?:

• BBC News: "Over the years the presidential pardon authority has been governed by an extended (some would say overly bureaucratic) process of review and approval by Department of Justice lawyers. Breaks from those traditions, such as with George HW Bush's pardoning of Reagan-era Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger and Bill Clinton's of financier and deep-pocketed political donor Marc Rich, came in the final days of a presidency and were met with controversy and outcry. Mr Trump, with his pardons over his first 16 months in office, is eroding another political norm and flexing political power the scope of which, in the US Constitution, is largely undefined."
• The Independent makes no mention of the process. And who in their right goes first to the Independent for detailed takes on anything?
• LA Times: "President Trump’s announcement on Thursday that he is giving a full pardon to conservative provocateur Dinesh D'Souza and considering clemency for Martha Stewart and imprisoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has underscored the relish he takes in that power — in ways that break norms dating to the nation’s founding. The D’Souza pardon would be Trump’s fifth, and the latest in a pattern of using the president’s near-absolute authority to benefit individuals in legal trouble based on his political whim or convenience... Since George Washington, however, presidents have, for the most part, voluntarily accepted restraints on their ability to pardon. Starting in 1789, government lawyers have been designated to review pardon applications. And since 1865, presidents have typically relied on a review by the Justice Department before granting clemency. Trump, so far, has sidestepped that process... Trump has seemed to act on impulse or at the urgings of friends and celebrities in making his clemency decisions. Three of his pardons have gone to people backed by his conservative political allies... Another pattern is that Trump has seemed to favor clemency for people prosecuted by his nemeses."

Are you unable to operate Google or did you simply not bother to read the first result that popped up? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans 'Load of' would be codswallop -- unless you're complimenting my manhood. Thanks for the google check, my copying the plus signs from your work made it malf. Those ALSO prove my point -- they ALSO say things that do not match the NYT language. Since the NYT story is not widely echoed, and is not widely noted by others, then that phrasing would at least need to be narrowly attributed 'NYT says'. And it still has WEIGHT an NPOV issues of there is no reason to give this particular NYT article any placement at all. One might give a generic paraphrase of the response from many -- outside normal channels seems commonly said -- but the wilder and speculative bits are not common. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Should not be described as "criticism" - this is clear from the NYT source + additional sources that it's a non-controversial statement, so couching in editorial language is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but the bit about "Trump only pardons people based on his own grievances" is still opinion, and must be attributed. Besides, the edit I reverted also falsely asserted in wikivoice that Trump's pardons were related to Russian interference, a claim that the cited source absolutely did not make. — JFG 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To take into account remarks from various editors above, I suggest changing the text from:

The New York Times criticized Trump for taking no action on more than 10,000 pending applications, but rather using the pardon power on "public figures whose cases resonated with him given his own grievances with investigators."

to:

The New York Times remarked that Trump took no action on more than 10,000 pending applications and that he solely used his pardon power on "public figures whose cases resonated with him given his own grievances with investigators."

I believe this correctly represents the source's reporting. — JFG 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been quoted in this talk which, along with the NY Times source, demonstrate that Trump also bypassed the traditional process by which pardons are granted, so that should be added. Also, in regards to "Russian interference", the investigations in question obviously relate to the probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election (the WSJ source above makes that explicit), but it's of course more precise to speak of investigations more generally (given that not all investigations that Trump has grievances with relate directly to the Russia probe, such as Cohen's SDNY case). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I could get behind JFG's purposed version. Cuts down on the editorializing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Times-reported facts should not be described as criticism, as explained by SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, and K.e.coffman.- MrX 🖋 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose that we add the following sentence:

Trump bypassed the traditional process for presidential pardons, taking no action on more than 10,000 pending applications, and opting instead to pardon or commute high-profile figures or in the words of The New York Times, "public figures whose cases resonated with him given his own grievances with investigators."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree that the "bypassing of traditional process" merits mention. We don't know for sure how the process is handled by this administration. Hard data suggests that other presidents also used their pardon power rather sparingly; nobody ever addressed "10,000 cases". How each president selects the cases to address is ultimately left to their own discretion. — JFG 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No. As the RS states, the Dept. of Justice has processes to support the Presidential pardon power. These are the traditional processes that Trump bypassed. No "hard data" contradicts the involvement of the DOJ in the process that the Times RS calls the traditional process. Everything is not just a matter of personal style. There are governmental and civic processes from which RS say the current Administration has significantly deviated. Please read about the established institutional processes here SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The bypassing of the traditional DOJ process is not the same thing as granting a pardon to every applicant (which you seem to suggest).

• WSJ: "the day’s events presented the clearest picture to date of Mr. Trump’s approach to presidential-pardon powers, one focused on high-profile cases, drawing on instinct and bypassing traditional Justice Department processes."
• WaPo: "Trump’s pardon of D’Souza was his sixth act of clemency as president. Each was issued unilaterally, subverting the traditional Justice Department process of reviewing thousands of pardon requests. Traditionally, people seeking pardons apply through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which reviews thousands of cases and advances some to the White House for the president’s consideration."
• BBC: "Over the years the presidential pardon authority has been governed by an extended (some would say overly bureaucratic) process of review and approval by Department of Justice lawyers. Breaks from those traditions, such as with George HW Bush's pardoning of Reagan-era Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger and Bill Clinton's of financier and deep-pocketed political donor Marc Rich, came in the final days of a presidency and were met with controversy and outcry. Mr Trump, with his pardons over his first 16 months in office, is eroding another political norm and flexing political power the scope of which, in the US Constitution, is largely undefined."
• LA Times: "in ways that break norms dating to the nation’s founding... Since George Washington, however, presidents have, for the most part, voluntarily accepted restraints on their ability to pardon. Starting in 1789, government lawyers have been designated to review pardon applications. And since 1865, presidents have typically relied on a review by the Justice Department before granting clemency. Trump, so far, has sidestepped that process..."
• AP: "Trump’s predecessors largely relied on a formal, Department of Justice process to identify those deserving of clemency. None of the clemencies that Trump has granted have come through the front door of the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which typically assists the president in exercising his pardon power."
• Bloomberg: "The president has charted new ground in issuing pardons outside of the traditional vetting process."
• USA Today: "A pardon for Johnson would continue a Trump pattern of granting pardons outside the regular process at the Justice Department for vetting pardon applications."

It's clear according to reliable sources that Trump has with his pardons bypassed the traditional process for presidential pardons. If he begins using the traditional process, then we can update the article. Just as we could update the article if Trump at some point becomes an open borders advocate and recants his past views and policies on immigration. Nothing's set in stone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text seems to suggest that "bypassing the process" is akin to "taking no action on 10,000+ applications". While the first part may be notable, the second is not, because no president ever took action on thousands of cases. I could get behind a version that talks about the unusual process but that does not unduly emphasize the "lack of action". What do you think? — JFG 22:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a straw man and it does not justify removing important well-cited RS information and context from this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG - drop the NYT theories and go with an overall paraphrase -- "outside the formal DOJ process" might do. In looking, a google count shows me about 66M hits for Trump and Pardon -- and about 11 Million when Process is added -- so I suppose about a sixth of whatever pardon material might go to mentioning "process". Since the NYT theories are not echoed or cited widely, I think it would be NPOV or WEIGHT issue to give them even if carefully attributed -- there are a number of theories of mind on how or why President Trump made the pardons he has. (And I'm not ruling out that there is no method and it's all just ad hoc or as the mood struck him.) But they're all speculations and fragments of POV so I suggest sticking to objective facts or widely reported items, and skip trying to describe what is not known and is not widely said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO we absolutely should say that he is bypassing the traditional process; that is factually accurate and reported by everybody. I think we should not add the comment that his choice of people to pardon seems to parallel his own grievances or possibly future liabilities; that seems to be a bit of synthesis on the part of the Times. Some commentators have noted that many of his pardons seem to be deliberately aimed at overturning actions by James Comey or the Southern District of New York, but IMO that is also synthesis and should not be included. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

While it is synth, in my experience it was not "some" outlets that mentioned the connection but most if not all news outlets. I get my daily news from PBS and they immediately discussed the connection in length. IMO we should include it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer - I'm finding many alternative speculations. Other explanations out there included that he's pardoning celebrity & conservatives ; or that he is being as idiosyncratic as other aspects of his presidency (unusual and impulsive); or ap that he is trying to right a perceived wrong where prosecutions were politically motivated. There was a comparison/contrast made to Obama gave pardons to promote policy goals while this seems not systematic. Individual cases were examined and things like undoing what Obama did was mentioned as a motive, or simply showing he can break out from the 'deep state' bureaucracy or PC channels. Half dozen odd pardons is a tiny amount, hard to draw any conclusions from them and nothing says it eliminates the other venues. In any case, all of these are just guessing or WP:SPECULATION, so look undeserving of space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Characterization of Breitbart and other news sources retweeted by Trump

Following this edit, there seems to have been a small revert war over the characterization of Breitbart's politics (and whether it should be characterized at all.) I reverted back to Zukorrom's version, but in retrospect it might have been more circumspect to revert to back before it (and I'd have no objections if anyone wants to do so until we get this settled.) Either way, I feel that we do have to include some sort of ideological descriptor, since that's what all the sources in this section are about - it's that paragraph's entire story; removing it entirely makes it nonsensical. I think "far right" is probably the better choice, but I don't feel terribly strongly as long as we have some sort of descriptor. Reducing it to "Trump sometimes tweets the news", though, completely fails to summarize the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the Breitbart News article, Breitbart News has been referred to as "far right" by some, but as "a traditional conservative-leaning news outlet". The source is The New York Times. If this article is to include a reference to Breitbart's political leanings, it should include both descriptions. SMP0328. (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at that source, it does not use the word "traditional" (which is obviously central in this context.) And it even implicitly says that it is not mainstream, stating "During the 2016 presidential campaign, including the Republican primaries, the site has offered exceedingly favorable coverage to the campaign of Donald J. Trump, often to the dismay of mainstream conservatives and the Republican Party establishment." This is why it is important to use WP:RSes themselves and not other Misplaced Pages articles. Additionally, our article uses "far right" in article-text as a statement of fact, but "conservative" as something some sources have also used. Beyond that, given that the "traditional" was editorializing by an editor and not something we have a source for, there's no contradiction between the two terms; a far-right group is axiomatically conservative. If you want to argue that it is not far right, you must find a source that says so specifically, since we have numerous reputable sources saying that it is. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is routinely described as far-right by many mainstream sources. That's how it should be described here as well.- MrX 🖋 00:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Use far-right for Breibart, but perhaps swap FN and Breibart so it does not look like FN is being described as "far-right", i.e.: ...including television shows such as Fox & Friends and far-right news websites such as Breitbart... --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Good points. Trump has clear favorite sources, as well as those he labels "enemies", in the media. Those he supports and which support him (...is there any other reason he'd support them?) are invariably very fringe, right-wing, and alt-right, which shows the logical placement of Fox News. It's just a bit less fringe, with a lot more money and influence, with a direct line to creating his policies, with the ideas and talking points often voiced first on Fox and Friends, and then he parrots them and makes them his policies. Fox News seems to often be driving government policy, rather than experienced diplomats, reliable sources, and U.S. intelligence, and these are observations a number of RS have made.

My point? There is no point in mentioning which sources he uses without mentioning their bias and placement on the political spectrum, because they are anything but neutral sources, with some only 1-3 links away from their direct source in the Moscow propaganda machine. The exact links in the chain of this "three-headed operation" are described here by a subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Skip the characterization. It’s unnecessary to the thread, has been objected to so BRD says listen to that. I will add WP:LABEL and WP:V too. It seems just name-calling editorializing here, not something in the LA Times cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we add the famous G7 photo to the foreign policy section?

Or is it copyrighted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans- Where ? If you are getting it from white house website, the site creative commons license applies. If you are getting it from media, then commercial rules and copyright are to be presumed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Public health analysis by Harvard University scholars

An analysis by two Harvard University scholars of the impact of Trump's proposed and implemented EPA rollbacks which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's forum section was removed with the assertion that the text was "UNDUE". This is precisely the kind of content that this Misplaced Pages article needs more of: expert analysis. The analysis relied on regulatory impact analyses published by the EPA itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a post from "The JAMA Forum" which is an opinion section. It is not a Harvard University analysis as represented by the text added. I agree that it is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

What precisely do you think a "School X analysis" entails if not an analysis by scholars at school X? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well Harvard is not actually mentioned in the article at all... The article is written by someone from Harvard, but if you look at the bottom of the article it makes it clear "Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." This is NOT a Harvard analysis. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why should the authors mention Harvard in the text? It's the affiliation of the authors and can be seen in the "Author Affiliations" box at the top. Secondary RS on the other hand do describe the authors' affiliation when reporting on their analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Because he is writing on his own opinions independent of Harvard. More along the lines of a paper written by someone who happens to work for Harvard vs a paper written by someone for or under the authority of Harvard. It is basically a blog post that is not a RS for anything besides the authors opinions. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the only mistake here is that mention of Harvard was made. The analysis was written by David Cutler and Francesca Dominici and it appeared in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association (and the 3rd leading medical journal). Their opinions are certainly scholarly enough to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not "opinion" such as when a politician or think tank pundit uses a forum for promotional purposes. These are notable scholars and as such their work is fair game on WP, even if it were self-published in their blogs or Op-Ed columns. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer:The bottom of the article states "Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association." It is their personal opinion with no editorial overcite. It is essentially a blog post. Only reliable for the opinions of the authors, which is the same disclaimer at the bottom of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's right, JAMA is not responsible for the conclusions of any study/analysis/or anything else that they publish. However the fact that it was published in JAMA and not some journal that does not have the reputation of JAMA is significant. JAMA would publish only articles that they believe to be suited to meet their reputation as a first class journal. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe? We don't really know since they have a whole section saying how they have nothing to do with the content. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an odd come-back that does not really address my point in the least. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well no, JAMA is not responsible for anything in that article. Them deciding to include it in their blog section means nothing as far as our RS standards go. The argument that just because they printed it gives it credit is incorrect and against policy. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct. RS can include blogs. Per WP: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). In this case the author is extremely competent. Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct they are RS for opinions by the author. Which is what I said a few times above. They should not be used for unattributed statements of fact since there is no editorial overcite. Which goes with what I said about "It is their personal opinion with no editorial overcite. It is essentially a blog post. Only reliable for the opinions of the authors, which is the same disclaimer at the bottom of the article." PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, opinions, as I said in my first post, "Their opinions are certainly scholarly enough to be included." I've never argued that their opinions were something we'd report as facts. I am done here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please send me a journal article written by an academic "for or under the authority" of the school that they're affiliated with? Also, it's not a blog post. It's in the "forum" section of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association. It's authored by two recognized experts who are relying on regulatory impact analyses published by the EPA itself. It's a RS and authored by recognized experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Pack, the "opinion" of the AMA is worthless. The "opinion" of notable Harvard researchers is worth quite a bit, especially when it's backed by scholarly analysis of stipulated data. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: As you noticed, this opinion piece was published in the forum section of the journal: it is absolutely not a "study" that would have been peer-reviewed and subject to some editorial oversight by the Journal (per our definition of WP:RS). Indeed, not worth more than a blog post, notwithstanding the academic status of the writers. Name-dropping Harvard or JAMA doesn't change the facts. — JFG 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG, you are just ignoring all the points in this thread to the contrary. Respond to the central points instead of restating what's already known. We regularly use blog and self-published views of notable academics. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, opinions of notable academics are worthwhile, but they are not RS. And dressing them up as a "Harvard study" is just dishonest. That being said, this particular opinion is rife with speculation and sounds like an all-out political attack piece, that makes it even less credible than it should be. — JFG 20:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"but they are not RS" - of course they are, where do you get the idea that they're not? Now, on the other hand, your ... opinion, that "this particular opinion is rife with speculation etc. etc. etc.", now, THAT is WP:OR and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No straw man arguments here please. Nobody is proposing this study as a statement of fact in WP's voice. Your comment is irrelevant to the this thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a strawman. The text I reverted said According to a 2018 Harvard University analysis, which was clearly a misrepresentation of the source. — JFG 04:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So if the part about "Harvard University analysis" is excluded from the text, you're fine with it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously that would be even worse. The only neutral and sane attitude is to refrain from mentioning this non-notable opinion. — JFG 17:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be included, but attributed to the authors rather than the university: "In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people." Neutrality 17:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE still applies. It’s not in a commonly accepted reference, not naming notable adherents, so is at “does not belong in Misplaced Pages” (except perhaps in some ancillary article). Not-very-noted pieces get no mention. Markbassett (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I confess I find this a very strange analysis. David Cutler and Francesca Dominici are notable scholars. JAMA Forum features "expert commentary and insight into news that involves the intersection of health policy and politics, economics, and the law" (cite). The proposed text features in-text attribution. And contrary to being "not very-noted," their analysis has been repeatedly noted:

• Bloomberg News ("Researchers Argue Proposed EPA Changes Could Cause 80,000 More Deaths a Decade") (and this piece was republished elsewhere)
• Washington Post ("Two Harvard social scientists say 80,000 Americans could die each decade if the EPA goes forward with proposed regulatory changes"),
• The Hill ("Harvard scientists: Trump environmental policies could result in 80,000 more deaths per decade")
• The Verge ("Trump’s environmental policies could lead to an extra 80,000 deaths per decade, say Harvard scientists"); Newsweek ("More Than 88,000 People Could Die if EPA Rolls Back Regulations, Scientists Say")
• Engadget ("Trump's gutted EPA might lead to 80,000 more deaths per decade: Two Harvard scientists estimate that relaxed protections will be lethal for some")
• Inside Climate News (a Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet) ("Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Put Thousands of Lives at Risk, Harvard Analysis Finds")
• The Republican/MassLive.com ("Harvard study warns environmental changes could kill thousands").

Is it your position that you oppose mention or citation of the Cutler/Dominici piece in this article in any form? Neutrality 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Neutrality - you should ping if you want a reply, and you are kind of proving this is UNDUE at this time. It was my position that the deletion was about WP:UNDUE, so the discussion on attribution did nothing to resolve that. Thank you for googling to show that now Posting something when it is less than 3 days old is likely to show UNDUE, and to bring the discussion back to being about UNDUE. So here goes.

• The problem here is the lack of prominence -- what DUE and UNDUE are about. And the ones Google managed to find for you are illustrative, since sites like 'masslive.com', and 'insideclimatenews.org' are showing it as something where coverage is by fairly small publications, and the one prominent site washingtonpost.com was giving it only a small passing mention in a larger article list of many items. Mostly the situation seems few hits and smaller publications, with minimal content about the article in them. They mention Harvard, 80000 deaths, about half or less snip a table or have more than a paragraph or three. When I google the title's "Cost of the Trump Environmental Agenda May Lead to" I see 1,850 hits -- not nothing, decent academic notice but fairly trivial prominence as coverage for this article goes. A nothing compared to the overall google counts for Donald Trump (254 million), where LEAD items are inauguration (21.4 million), Comey dismissal (8 million), TPP (1.34 million), and so on. The smaller realm of "Trump" and "environmental policy" (397,000) is easier, but the number is not on par with "climate change" (193,000) or "clean power plan" (27,900).
• Just wait; Prominence might increase - the story is less than a week old, and TheHill coverage was a day after the removal so prominence did increase a bit after UNDUE was cited. Whether it increases much will be shown in a week or two.
• p.s. Is UNDUE or story-du-jour a general issue for the Environment/Energy section ? In looking at this section ... it looks like it is a running list of whatever was new each month rather than covering things by importance or prominence. That really is infeasible to continue for 3 more years -- and you might read this deletion as some editor not wanting every paper of the month to be listed.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This makes little sense. The "undue weight" policy is explicitly about according weight according to prominent about reliable sources — and we have always given more weight to scholars and experts (like those here). "Undue weight" has nothing to do with Google hits, which are a crude measurement at best.

Here, we have a rare analysis from prominent scholars that gives broad-sweep view of the effects of a major policy area. I simply cannot see how this is "undue." Neutrality 02:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Russia

One editor keeps adding text that misleadingly suggests that Trump has been staunchly anti-Putin and anti-Russia while in office, leaving out comments that suggest a more nuanced and complicated stance on Russia and Putin. For example, just on the substance of the edit, Trump has (1) made both pro- and anti-Russia statements regarding Russian action in Syria, (2) Trump has both made pro- and anti-Russia statements on Crimea, (3) WaPo reported shortly after the diplomat expulsion that Trump had been misled by staff and was furious about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah only shows one side of the situation, there has been much criticism of Trump having a seemingly friendly relationship with Russia. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng might “criticismpartisan claims”, be a closer portrayal or more common case? I am semi-seriously wondering if the RS are more often voicing a claim that it exists or are more often a criticism of having a relationship. Seems frequent partisan pitching would perhaps distort the frequency, but whatever the case, WP NPOV requires we present all significant POVs in DUE weight, so both and more might go there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, over time a more clear picture will come out. But in the meantime a neutral wording addition of the other POV should be there. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What significant credible commentary denies that Trump's policies, actions, and public statements have not promoted Russian interests? Let's survey the RS for credible commentary and figure out what weight to give an opposing interpretation. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO ??? CNN and NY Times would be my first guess, but I think the combination ‘denial of have-not’ is rare and you meant the double negative as emphasis instead of reversal. But my question was semi-seriously whether ‘claims by a Democrat’ or even ‘assertions it exists’ are more frequently how RS portray statements about the relationship seeming close. Rather than ‘criticisms of’ having such a relationship. I find some commentators saying a better relationship is desirable, some that it is too close, some that it is undesirable — but numerically it seems more portrayed as something in partisan arguing debate and accusation rather than the number saying it is something critical of it. I did find theperspective.com “is trump too friendly” poll of interest or “soft on Russia” opinion pieces, but those were relatively few and not citeable. The PackMecEng line just had too many things in it to be other than one view of one subset of it all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Pack thanks for catching the double-negative. Entirely unintended. I am going to correct it now. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The current Russia section is completely inadequate. All it says is that they spoke during the transition. And it cites Dana Rohrabacher - the congressman of whom it was joked that he is in Putin’s pay! I will work on a section that details his meetings with Putin and what actions he has taken with regard to Russia, both favorable and unfavorable. Because this is possibly contentious I will post a draft here for discussion and editing before I add anything to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's very valuable, thanks Melania. I think the secret meeting in the Oval Office with Lavrov and Kislyac where excluded US press and official White House staff, then gloated about firing Comey and, gave away top Israeli Intelligence secrets, and posed for smileys with the Russians was a decisive public display and remains a key event in his Presidency. As you know, that information was purged from the article some time ago. See Revealing classified information to Russia Prepare yourself for an adventure trying to reinstate that. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on this for several hours. I took a lot of the information from the article Russia–United States relations. It's all just a list of individual comments and actions; there's no attempt to summarize or conclude if he is pro- or anti-Russia and I don't think there should be. I did notice the omission of the Kislyak meeting and included it; I didn't know it had been controversial in the past. Anyhow, I have a fairly complete section now and I'm going to go ahead and put it in the article. If people want to challenge or edit particular items, go ahead and we can discuss them here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I know it seems long. It's comparable to the North Korea section, and those two countries probably do deserve the most in-depth coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - I'm sorry, I'm going to revert that edit. I recognize it as substantial effort and it's not bad writing, but an undiscussed 10K chunk is too much/too fast with the real killer being that it is going into too much detail and the wrong approach of turning this into a diary. That is making the section TLDR just 18 months in with items that are relatively low coverage so by UNDUE should exclude except in an ancillary article like you just elevated them back out of. The article seems generally struggling with WP:UNDUE should cut in at some level above trivial and restraint on WP:RECENTISM. Generally, contrast to the amount/level shown at Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Russia or Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#End_of_the_Cold_War - less than one screen of high-level summation. Regrets, Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Revealing classified information was not omitted -- after a relatively routine discussion in Archive 3, it bounced about as section 7, section 4.2, or section 5, and wound up as 10 lines under Ethics / Russia versus 4 lines in Foreign policy / Europe / Russia. Actually, it seems the Donald Trump Talk page had more chats about it in Archive 60, Archive 61, rementioned later in Archive 61, an Archive 67. Seems more a case of lots of flux. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mark, I admit it was quite a data dump, and your reaction was reasonable. But please don't stop there. I'm sure you didn't think ALL of it was undue or trivial. Now could you please take a look at the items that you removed, figure out what you think does belong in an article about Donald Trump's presidency, and restore those items? For starters, my revision of the first (and now only) paragraph was a significant improvement over what was there; would you consider restoring it? And then please give a little thought to what are the really significant issues of his presidency, things that ought to be there - maybe the additional sanctions, or the incident where our missile attacks killed Russian nationals? I can't believe you think the Russia section about his presidency should consist of one uninformative paragraph about a phone call - plus the fairly trivial note about G7 which you left in. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of TMI, that ethics/Russia section needs a severe haircut. Why is there a paragraph about his attempts to do a real estate deal in Russia prior to becoming president, in an article about his presidency? Why is there a full paragraph about Sessions and another about Papadopoulos? For that matter, there is a lot more detail about the "classified information" incident than there needs to be. --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - Yes, I will do as you request and put back your revision of the first para for now. (I think does not have me violating 1RR.) I think it's better and we'll see if others accept it. For the rest and for the Ethics haircut, that would seem like more discussion needed on approach and goal, perhaps two different new threads. I don't remember any since archive 1 #20, and the examples of others such as Obama and Reagan to compare to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Done. And thank you for using BBC.com Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie's recent addition was fine. If something in particular was undue or trivial, then MarkBassett should identify it. I think for example that the mention of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Danang was undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tariffs

Should be mentioned in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, not when there is no major content in the article about it. Content below should come first. See WP:LEAD. The Foreign policy section on Trade might have some POV or WEIGHT issues in its content and gaps, but it would be wrong to put stuff in at the top without content being in the article or not being close in amount to the amount it is within the article. Markbassett (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have revised the Trade section to mention the tariffs. In answer to the question here, I don't think Trump's various trade actions (withdrawing from agreements, imposing tariffs) are sufficiently impactful on his presidency to go in the lede at this time, but that could change if a full blown trade war develops. In the meantime, I have revised the paragraph about the G7 summit; the big issue was the looming trade war, not Trump’s offhand comment about wanting to eliminating all tariffs. Just to document what I did: I added material about Trump’s tariffs and allies' threatened retaliation. I added his call to add Russia to the G7. I removed “At the time of Trump's remarks, tariffs among the US, Canada, and the EU were on the order of 3%” because I couldn’t find a good source for that figure. I removed “The decision not to sign the communique was criticized by senators from both parties,” because the sources did not support it. I removed Navarro’s insult to Trudeau as out of place in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - thanks for putting something in. Some mention on Tarrifs was DUE, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support this is more important than While Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, he won the Electoral College vote by a tally of 304 to 227, with faithless electors splitting the seven remaining electoral votes among five other candidates here, and the lead isn't too long in any case. It's been a big story for a few months and I expect it to get bigger. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki - I agree tariffs is DUE more than popular vote as I get Google count of 45 million on Donald Trump and tariffs versus 1.68 on him and 'popular vote'. (About 27 times as much.) Or I'd be happy enough to see the lead made closer to the shortness at the start of the year. It's got to follow putting more content in the article ... LEAD can then follow the rule to be a summary of article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of Hispanics

The atrocities at the border camps have been reverted with a snide comment about "controversy of the day". Please be aware that this personalized disparagement has no meaning to the community of editors here and cannot be a valid reason for an edit. A clear explanation that is intelligible based on a the community's common understanding of PAG is what gives us a helpful edit summary.

It seems to me the article needs a section about the Administrations actions toward Hispanics, including the neglect of Puerto Rico after the hurricane, stereotyping and false statements about Hispanic gang violence, and the treatment of refugee children at the Southern border, including the Administration's insistent misstatements as to fact and law. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention migrant family separations in the lede?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• Unknown-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• C-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles