Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Revealing classified information to Russia section

Do we need the section "Revealing classified information to Russia" here? If so, where should it go? It was top-level until I moved it to "Abbreviated timeline", now I see nowhere to put it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this big job. I think the "Abbreviated timeline" section is a good place for this but IMO it doesn't need a separate subsection. I'd put it in the timeline section chronologically, as a sentence or two, including a wikilink to the main article. OTOH I think the "first 100 days" paragraph could be a separate subsection in that area. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Several people proposed removing the "Abbreviated Timeline" section entirely above; that said I'm not seeing any reasonable way to move all that content to other section. I'm not going to make any content edits on this page (or anywhere else) for the next week, other editors will have to make any changes proposed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
power~enwiki - I suggest a new subsection within Foreign Policy. Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Why do you suggest that? Cpaaoi (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm challenging the neutrality, balance and weight of the above named section. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and POV articles authored by Trump detractors in left-leaning partisan sources are not exceptional sources. There is an obvious reliance on such sources per the inline citations and selected quotes which created the imbalance and POV issues. Accusations that a president - any president - breached national security and may have put his country at risk is an exceptional claim; therefore, it requires exceptional sources and an indisputably accurate presentation in this encyclopedia. The NYTimes article linked here is far more balanced than the way the section was presented in the article. To date, Trump has consistently operated within his enumerated powers as Commander In Chief so repeated attempts to make it appear otherwise do not belong in this encycopedia, especially when such claims are sourced to partisan sources and presented in an unbalanced manner with undue weight given to the allegations in lieu of the fact the claims were denied and no foul was called. Atsme📞📧 13:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he disclosed classified information to the two Russians is an extraordinary claim, all right, but it has an extraordinarily good source: The White House's own transcript of the meeting. There cannot be any doubt that he did say this. As for extended analysis of the incident and its repercussions, IMO that should be reserved for the separate article about the incident. I continue to think that a sentence or two in the Timeline would be preferable to an extended item in the Foreign Policy section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, it appears to me that WaPo, the NYTimes and Reuters broke the story May 15th based on reports from anonymous sources which does nothing to boost the public's trust in MSM. Instead, they used terms like said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, and according to a current and a former American official familiar with how the United States obtained the information. The only information I consider factual is that none of it was proven to be true. POTUS and WH officials denied the reports. NBC stated: " Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, told reporters in a brief statement: "The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false." And further stated: "At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed," said McMaster, who didn't take questions. "I was in the room, and it didn't happen." I'm also wondering if it meets Wikipedia:Notability (events) for inclusion. The MSM sensationalized what would be considered routine discussions between a US Commander In Chief and another member of the UN who was once a US ally, and now fighting the same enemy. Why are we including "breaking news" which is noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS? Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to the US, wasn't the least bit concerned over it - reaffirmed the relationship, and Netanyahu also said in response to reporters: "The intelligence cooperation is terrific.” So maybe you can explain why the "speculation" and "innuendos" have been given so much weight in this article? And then I stumbled across Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information, and couldn't believe what I was reading because of the UNDUE and IMBALANCE there, too. The cited sources were more balanced than what is in our articles. Oh, and do you have any idea why the Alleged authoritarian tendencies section wasn't removed after my edit was reverted? The prevailing consensus among editors clearly indicates removal because it was determined to be noncompliant with PAGs. Atsme📞📧 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
RE: "none of it was proven to be true." Oh yes it was. It is indisputably true, confirmed by the White House and by Trump himself, that he did give classified information to the Russians. (He later pointed out that as POTUS he has the right to declassify anything, which is true, but that is usually done formally and after consideration and consultation with staff - not blurted out spontaneously as was done here.) With regard to those "official denials," you may have taken in by the carefully limited wording: "At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed." But nobody said they were (although it was apparently possible to DEDUCE the methods from the information given). Trump didn't directly mention sources or methods; he may not even have known anything about sources and methods. But he certainly did give the Russians highly classified information that we weren't even sharing with our allies. As for your claim that "The MSM sensationalized what would be considered routine discussions": that disclosure was so non-routine that as soon as the meeting was over, other people who had been in the room phoned the CIA and NSA to alert them that the information had been revealed to the Russians.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, you have misinterpreted what the sources stated. Breaking news by journalists who are making extraordinary claims made by anonymous sources, none of whom were in the meeting, is unacceptable for inclusion as statement of fact. It really shouldn't even be a separate section, and at most, passing mention somewhere in the Foreign policy section. WP:RSBREAKING advises us to not cite unconfirmed reports by anonymous sources and those attributed to other news media which is exactly what was done, making it noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. The source you cited above does not state anything indisputably - several editors have disputed it for good reason - and there was nothing confirmed by the WH or Trump himself about giving classified info to the Russians. In fact, Trump and WH officials who actually attended the meeting have repeatedly denied the allegations. Keep in mind, breaking news sources are considered primary sources so they do not pass the acid test for inclusion as extraordinary sources supporting extraordinary claims. To confirm, WP:RSBREAKING also states All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS. In this instance, WaPo's & the NYTimes articles along with other media that attributed what they published to WaPo and/or NYTimes are not considered RS for statements of fact.
We can say something to the effect that anonymous sources told WaPo that Trump revealed classified information but As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law. Technically, he declassified the info when he shared it so we can't say it was classified. White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism. The president was acting within his enumerated powers as Commander In Chief, so all the hooplah about him revealing classified information is nothing but breaking news sensationalism which has already died down, so it didn't even have staying power. McMaster even reiterated his statement and described the Washington Post story as “false”. When the US national security advisor who was in attendance of the meeting says the WaPo story was false, and we know by WaPo's own admission that the story came from anonymous sources with no way to confirm or deny; therefore, the sources are not reliable. The section needs a bit of TNT along with the other noncompliant sections. We've got another 3+ years to go, possibly 7+ and the prose size is already off the scales. Atsme📞📧 05:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Breaking news by journalists..." - this isn't breaking news.
"WP:RSBREAKING advises us to not cite unconfirmed reports by anonymous sources and those attributed to other news media which is exactly what was done, making it noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV" - somehow you missed the "unconfirmed" and "those attributed to other news media" parts. It's perfectly compliant with both NOTNEWS and NPOV. What do these two have to do with anything anyway? You're, once again, randomly quoting policies without rhyme or reason.
"The source you cited above does not state anything indisputably" - yes it does. The headline is "Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador". Hard to get more indisputable than that.
"nothing confirmed by the WH or Trump himself about giving classified info to the Russians" - yes it was (although of course they tried to spin it) [2] [3] [4] etc etc etc
"Trump and WH officials who actually attended the meeting have repeatedly denied the allegations" - no they didn't. Of course they tried to spin it but they admitted that it happened, see right above.
"breaking news sources are considered primary sources" - what the hell are "breaking news sources"? And this isn't breaking news.
"they do not pass the acid test" - what the hell is "the acid test" and what does it have to do with Wikipedia? This is more incoherent nonsense.
"extraordinary sources supporting extraordinary claims" - what in the world are "extraordinary sources"? Do you mean exceptional sources? We got those. The sources are about as RS as sources get and there's lots of them. And the claim is not all that extraordinary given the nature of the Trump administration. They've done crazier shit before and since.
" WaPo and/or NYTimes are not considered RS for statements of fact" - sure they are. And these are stories from months ago. If there's something inaccurate in'em surely you can provide sources that contradict them?
" Technically, he declassified the info when he shared it so we can't say it was classified" - technically, that's original research. And yeah we can say it was classified if sources say so. Which they do.
"The president was acting within his enumerated powers as Commander In Chief" - maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but this is also OR unless you can provide a reliable source.
"nothing but breaking news sensationalism which has already died down, so it didn't even have staying power" - no, it was not sensationalism, no it does have staying power, the only thing that has happened is that other scandals have come up so those get reported on. Oh, and here's a story which mentions this incident from just yesterday [5].
"McMaster even reiterated his statement and described the Washington Post story as “false”." - shrug.
" therefore, the sources are not reliable." - that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
"The section needs a bit of TNT along with the other noncompliant sections." - the section is fine, please stop it with the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT attempts at weaselin' and whitewashin'
In all honesty, I am struggling to find more than a single sentence in your comment(s) above which is not false. To be able to write such two paragraphs, with so many inaccurate claims is truly astounding.
(and oh yeah, this isn't "semantics", it's just plain ol' boring grammar)  Volunteer Marek  09:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, VM your comments indicate that WP:CIR may have something to do with your innate inability to get beyond your snarky rebuttals and refusal to understand the relevancy and correct application of PAGs. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in your POV; rather, my interest is focused on what the cited sources actually state, and the verifiability of what is claimed. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see. ~Edgar Allan Poe. To that I'll add "be suspicious of what you read", especially when it comes to the garbage published on the internet and all the fake and misleading news reports published over the past few years.
  • Savvy editors recognize when weasel words are used in sources they intend to cite in support of extraordinary claims, such as those made by WaPo and the media that repeats WaPo's claims as relevant in the named section. FYI, I purposely used the word "extraordinary" because the claims go beyond "exceptional" but the same PAGs apply, so VM's nitpicking of semantics was a fruitless waste of time and space. While some may consider MSM trustworthy, the majority of Americans do not which is precisely why our encyclopedia should exercise caution when repeating unreliable information from anonymous sources published as "breaking" or "developing" or "bombshell" news in primary sources, especially sources that have demonstrated an indisputable bias against the subject.
  • Again, WP:CIR to understand the concept of "breaking news". In politics and in law it "breaks" at the point of discovery. Our job is to recognize whether or not the breaking story provides substantive evidence for the claims or if it's simply bait & click sensationalism or biased wishful thinking. A major clue that it's unreliable is when unverifiable anonymous sources provide the information which is exactly what we're dealing with in this article.
  • The only verifiable supporting evidence are the published quotes cited to WH officials and POTUS - those who actually attended the meeting - not some unverifiable anonymous source who wasn't there or happens to be a disgruntled former staff member. There is no way we can verify reliability of the information.
  • If editors are following WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and other WP:PAG, it is quite obvious how the weight and balance should be distributed in this particular section, if it even warrants being a section, and I'm of the mind it does not.
  • Editors are expected to read the transcripts or at least listen to the recorded interviews so they can corroborate what was actually said - not what they "think" they said - particularly in the cited sources used to support the MSM's allegations. For example, in the interview May 16th between CNN's journalist Fareed Zakaria and CNN anchor Don Lemon, Lemon clearly stated: ...every single time I have you on, there is some breaking news, the president has done something outrageous and here we are reacting to it...so that debunks your claims that it's not breaking news. Others either headline it as breaking, or they are repeating the WaPo article.
  • To prove my position that the cited sources are simply repeating WaPo's "breaking story", the NYTimes states: The Washington Post first reported Mr. Trump’s disclosure. Where is the evidence, pray tell? Your rebuttal has no substance, VM. I stand by everything I stated above 100% because to date, no one has provided one bit of reliable evidence to dispute it. The detractors are still detracting with nothing burger claims purportedly leaked by staff, and if you actually read what the reports say...such as "Two former officials knowledgeable of the situation confirmed to CNN..." I have to laugh. Former officials may well be CNN's politically correct way of saying "disgruntled officials fired by Trump's Chief Of Staff". Sorry, but I lack the hatred and/or apparent dislike some editors have for this administration, and while I may dislike some of the policies that were passed by the current and past presidents, I don't harbor any animosity toward any US President.
  • My primary concern now is that this article has become heavy with unproven allegations by detractors who have relentlessly tried to discredit this legitimacy of this president, and the UNDUE, IMBALANCED treatment of the information that is being included is noncompliant with NPOV, not to mention the fact that the word count has to be trimmed, beginning with the unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous sources that broke months ago and that's where it died on the vine. Adherence to WP:NOTNEWS is required, especially when a controversial public figure like Trump is the topic. Atsme📞📧 19:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"my interest is focused on what the cited sources actually state, and the verifiability of what is claimed" - the nature of your comments and your edit history pretty much shows that the opposite is the case. You are trying to DISMISS reliable sources. You appear NOT TO CARE about verifiability. Instead you want to include your own original research and personal prejudices in the article. Doesn't matter how many times you quote Poe, or whoever else, you're still the one who's violating Wikipedia policy.
Likewise you can link to "competence is required" all you want, but hey, at least I know the difference between "grammar" and "semantics". Also the difference between "breaking news" and "shit that happened five months ago".
And I don't really care about your own personal crazy opinions so I didn't finish reading your comment. The first para was enough to see that this is just more of the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruptive obfuscation and Wikilawyering. When you're ready to actually address the issues let me know. Volunteer Marek  20:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Markbassett that the stuff should be moved to the foreign policy section, it's very much out of place in an abbreviated timeline. The material was revealed to Russia (as part of Trump's foreign policy), it came from Israel (as part of Trump's foreign policy), and it related to Syria (part of Trump's foreign policy). I don't have any opinion yet about how the material should be edited, though it does seem rather verbose. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Markbassett and Anythingyouwant about a foreign policy section while at the same time - as I already stated above - this article has NPOV issues, and is already way too long for a president who has only been in office 9 months. I just did a DYK word count and this article is already at 12322 11936 12485 words of readable prose. 01:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC) after removal of noncompliant section I did a word count for the other "Presidency of" articles: Obama's 8 years=12828 words, George W. Bush=13560, Bill Clinton=8347+/-, Reagan=5056. There is way too much recentism in this article and noncompliance with WP:NOTNEWS, it is far too wordy, and there are sections that simply don't belong because the information is not factual, is based entirely on innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations by political detractors and partisan sources. We should be summarizing important factual events in his presidency not distracting from them with countless allegations and bait & click sensationalism by MSM. For example...
  • there is way too much info in the Comey section,
  • the 2020 campaign needs to go or shortened considerably and added to the end of the article - too much can happen between now and 2020,
  • the details of the campaign staff and cabinet member firings, etc. can be reduced to one sentence each, as in they were fired & replaced
  • the entire section Alleged authoritarian tendencies needs to be removed as it is noncompliant with NPOV and BLP, and unless there is broad consensus to change those policies, that section doesn't belong in this article, much less in this encyclopedia. It would be like having a section in Presidency of Bill Clinton titled Sexual predator tendencies. Ridiculous! Atsme📞📧 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the noncompliant section - a much broader consensus is needed to add it back. Neither WP editors nor the MSM are qualified to provide a medical psychoanalysis of a US President. It's worse than the handshake article that was recently deleted. Atsme📞📧 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Removal of that section was reverted while concerns of NPOV in this BLP are still at issue. As I said before, it should be removed as noncompliant.Atsme📞📧 01:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing POV about the revealing classified information section (as has JUST been explained to you Atsme). As far as the rest: Comey stuff could be shortened as long as it's done in NPOV fashion, rather than an excuse to remove stuff per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The 2020 campaign does need to go to the end, and probably shortened, agree with that. The cabinet firings and all that - depends who. The Flynn thing obviously deserves its own mention. Who else? We had a discussion about the Authoritarian tendencies section and it's there by consensus. What needs to be done is the spurious tag needs to be removed (and I don't like the "alleged" in there either as it's classic WEASEL but I can see why it's in there). The Bill Clinton analogy is just stupid.
As for NOTNEWS, the Hurricane Harvey stuff needs to be trimmed. I'd probably cut the Cannabis section. Environment and energy should be shortened. Some of the stuff in Trade could be also cut. Volunteer Marek  00:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, I disagree about the POV issues at Revealing classified information, and you are mistaken about consensus for Alleged authoritarian tendencies as evidenced in this RfC and later in this most recent discussion. When noncompliance with NPOV is at issue in a BLP, it is our responsibility to remove it. I did just that and you wrongfully reverted my edit, and with it, the POV tag so you violated consensus on top of everything else. You may have also violated DS by reverting two edits today, and in my case, restoring a BLP violation. Not good, VM. Atsme📞📧 03:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The RfC was f'd up because whoever started it worded it in a confusing manner and the only conclusion in the closing was to keep the tag. And that's on top of the fact that it was a non-admin closure and that sock puppets !voted in it. There was absolutely no consensus to remove it or that it was a BLP issue. You're making that part up. It's not a BLP issue - it's extremely well sourced and Trump is a public figure. I did not "wrongfully revert" your edit, you "wrongfully removed" well sourced text. You're trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies here. Please stop. Not good. Volunteer Marek  03:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to stop, VM - you are the offender. The RfC was clear about the POV tag - what do you think that means exactly? As for the remainder, the closer stated (my bold), "There is also a rough consensus that the section is one or more of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:COATRACK but exactly how it is violative of policy and which specific remedies should be put in place for those concerns requires further focused discussion." Right - a nonadmin closure who apparently doesn't understand BLP policy, and that isn't my fault because I do understand it, and when there is the slightest question of even a potential BLP violation, the wise thing to do is remove it, which I did. We don't need to know HOW it violated policy, just that it did. You would be wise to stop digging. Atsme📞📧 03:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop trying to WP:GAME wikipedia policies - it just shows your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and approach to editing. As to the tag - yes, you're right, the RfC did say it should stay. Which is why I put it back. And what happened? User:Anythingyouwant then claimed that me putting that tag back in was further edit warring. Geez. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess, when some editors are desperate for things they want to "report" you for.
As to the non-admin closure - are you saying the closure was non-legit? Okay, then we should have another RfC. And one more time - no, this is not a BLP violation, not even close. Stop trying to abuse Wikipedia policies. This "slightest question of even a potential BLP violation" (are you sure it's not "slightest possible question of maybe even a minuscule but latent unrealized budding BLP violation in its earliest embryonic stages" - I mean, shouldn't those be removed too?) stuff is nonsense and silly and not backed by the actual BLP policy. So no, you apparently DON'T understand BLP policy. Volunteer Marek  04:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
My desire to reduce the "Revealing classified information to Russia" section is purely as WP:UNDUE, not as a BLP issue. I do think we must avoid having the "Ethics" (or "Leadership and Philosophy") section become a de-facto "Criticism and Controversy" section, due to BLP concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
"White nationalists and Charlottesville rally" is another section that should be condensed to a time-line. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you make a proposal for the first part? For the second part, I think it's fine. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposal made. However, the "timeline" section is now in table format so I can't easily merge this section into it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
VM, while collaboration is unequivocally the best option for productive editing, it is actually supposed to work the same for everyone. With the latter in mind, why does Power~enwiki have to present a proposal and all other editors except you have to discuss potential edits while you just add whatever the hell you want to add and revert whatever the hell you want to revert on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT, or other false equivalent? Atsme📞📧 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Glaring issues with UNDUE, NPOV, and BALANCE

I'm going through this article one section at a time trying to address the blatant POV, UNDUE and BALANCE issues, and my first edit was quickly deleted by Snooganssnoogans as "trivial". I disagree that a world-wide poll about such an important matter is "trivial". Furthermore, I question whether it belongs under the section "Domestic policy" in a subsection titled "Immigration order", especially considering EO#13769 is titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, and EO#13780 is titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States which is clearly about national security or possibly foreign policy. There is mention about Yates insubordination, but when I attempted to address the issue on a global scale, my edit was reverted. Look folks, we can't have nothing but criticism in this article. There has to be balance and a more mainstream view because it is so political. We can't keep citing biased sources and picking out the criticisms while excluding what other world leaders think. I cited the information to a RS, and a reliable poll so to say it's trivial is nonsense. The EUobserver stated: "According to the survey, 71 percent of people in Poland, 65 percent Austria, 64 percent in Hungary and Belgium, and 61 percent in France agreed. Support was also high in Greece (58%), Germany (53%), Italy (51%), the UK (47%) and Spain (41%). Chatham House called the findings "striking and sobering". I'd say that was highly notable and what I included definitely belongs in this article. Atsme📞📧 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You're complaining about POV, UNDUE and BALANCE at the same time as you're trying to stuff some barely relevant poll into the article? I mean really, POV pushing is one thing, but this isn't even the article in which this kind of POV pushing is on topic or relevant - European refugee crisis article is over that way --> Not that it belongs there either. Volunteer Marek  01:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
VM, what makes you think I'm "complaining"? Do you not understand COLLABORATION or how it works? Atsme📞📧 02:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, be sure to wear your sheriff badge out on pov patrol. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifico, my blue blazer sports many different badges but none are as impressive as your ScoobyDoo badge. Atsme📞📧 02:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Is that one of your American things? Ice cream? Footwear? SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't waste good banter here - take it to EEng's TP. He's got lots of TP stalkers who will contribute for your entertainment.[FBDB] Atsme📞📧 05:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First 100 Days, or Abbreviated Timeline?

There's currently a top-level section entitled "First 100 days". There's no specific section for any events that happened after the first 100 days. I propose that the section be renamed to something like "Abbreviated timeline" so events from after the first 100 days can be included. One specific move would be to put "Hurricane Harvey" there and not under "Domestic policy". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. I've made a few other section heading changes as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to move "Accusations of bigotry" under "Ethics", but I suspect somebody may object to that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • power~enwiki - I'd suggest deleting the 100 days section instead. It's not matching with the general Presidency style where the general organization of the article is by areas of Presidential actions. The division by areas of 'What' seem more useful and it is always possible to include a date anywhere the date is of significance, or narrate anywhere that a predecessor was a cause. I do not think the exact date would be of interest, such as does anyone really care what day of the week DACA shutdown was announced? Instead I think that giving substance or dependency of speech X was said to be in response to event Y will be clearer. Markbassett (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree to delete. There is much duplicate information across articles already. Keep this one organized by themes. — JFG talk 22:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree with deleting it (provided we make sure that important referenced information is covered elsewhere). I think this probably only existed because everyone (including Trump) was making such a big deal of it DURING the first 100 days. More of a RECENTISM thing rather than actual encyclopedic content.
I disagree with removing it at least as of now, since it does cover some notable moments in his young Presidency such as the Syria strike, Muslim ban, and his response to Hurricane Harvey. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Any notable bits would be moved to the appropriate topic section - Harvey would be domestic, DACA would be with immigration, and so forth -- and if something was only noted because it was within the 100 days it would be tossed. Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the best course of action than just deleting it entirely. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I just moved Harvey to that section, I can move it back. The consensus seems to be leaning towards removing the section entirely, and to rely on the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections for categorization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving most of the contents to other sections, but not deleting the content. A 'timeline' section could maybe be restored after 3-4 years of the presidency and reflect assessments of 100 days, year 1, year 2 etc. by reliable sources. The first 100 days should be its own section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Table timeline

I see that User:Anythingyouwant has converted the timeline section from prose to a table. Was this discussed? I personally think it is out of place in a prose article. If we are going to do it this way, maybe we should split out a separate Timeline article? --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There are already a bunch of timeline articles (all using tables BTW), so I wouldn’t favor spinning out another one at this point. The thing that’s messed up about this one is it stops in February. If no one wants to keep it current, I favor just deleting it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with ATYW'S timeline suggestion, but I have already challenged the information included as misleading, innuendo and POV. It is not classified when a US President declassifies it as what Trump did, and what a Commander In Chief is supposed to do to defend and protect the US. Perhaps he should have cleared it with WaPo or the NYTimes first? Possibly WP editors? *lol* Not our fault if the biased MSM doesn't approve of Trump's tactics, what his generals and national security people have advised, or what foreign leaders have said in support/defense of what he did and is doing. The information in that section regarding that particular meeting is clearly POV, UNDUE and IMBALANCED. Please fix it. Atsme📞📧 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Is that in the timeline? See Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Abbreviated_timeline. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Wellllll...uhm, no. ATYW, would you believe me if I said it was meant as a "just-in-case" reminder? trout Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Atsme📞📧 00:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the table format is helpful. I renamed it from "First 100 days" to "Abbreviated timeline" as there was no good reason to not include later events in the same section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, if we want to have “timeline” in the header then we ought to deliver. A timeline is generally understood to be a “table listing important events for successive years within a particular historical period.” Wikipedia has particular guidelines for how to do a timeline, e.g. see WP:Timeline. There are already immense timelines at Wikipedia for Trump’s Presidency, and the easiest way to summarize them is by using the same format. If a more narrative presentation is desired, then we ought to replace the word “timeline” in the heading with something else like “chronological overview” and then have a subsection for each month or quarter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Timelines are quite handy, especially for looooong articles like what this one is turning into. We should probably use them more at AN/I. [FBDB] Atsme📞📧 00:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I also support removing the timeline from this page. The full timeline is already linked at the top of this page and there is no need for an abbreviated timeline. While we're at it, I'd favor removing the "National Security Council" and "Evaluation of first hundred days and secrecy of visitor logs" sections. Orser67 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree it would be okay to remove the “Abbreviated timeline” section and the uninformative “Evaluation....” section. The National Security Council section is kind of weird because it cites Democrat Susan Rice saying it’s crazy without saying why it’s crazy, and without any administration official saying why it’s not crazy, so I woukdn’t miss that section either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
That's crazy. Atsme📞📧 05:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed the "Evaluation" section which only contained vague opinions. Call me crazy. — JFG talk 23:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the NSC section as well. Most of it was criticism of appointing Bannon there, and he's out (of the NDC and of the White House). Rest of the section was not very informative or Earth-shattering. — JFG talk 00:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's earth-shattering crazy. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Insurer profits

I just removed the sentence Irrespective of the back and forth politics surrounding healthcare and concerns raised by lobbyists, doctors and health care providers, financial reports indicate that the top health insurers, including Aetna, Humana and Cigna, realized substantial second quarter earnings in 2017 with a more than 45 percent rise from same quarter earnings in 2016, despite the losses they experienced on the Obamacare individual plans. It was cited to a source from August 2017. I think that juxtaposing insurer profits with the removal of health insurance subsidies has a POV feel to it. I also think this information would be better placed in the Obamacare article rather than in this article about Trump's presidency, so I think the sentence was a bit COATRACKy for this article. Of course reasonable people may differ so I thought I'd bring my revert here for discussion. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The revert was not helpful, and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you should not be reverting well sourced material simply because you think it had a POV feel to it, or that it belongs elsewhere. The material you removed was well-sourced, the statements were directly supported by the source and relevant to the balance of that section. By reverting, you restored the issues of UNDUE and POV which is quite evident in statements like "...refusal to commit to continuing paying Affordable Care Act subsidies, which has added uncertainty to the insurance market and led insurers to raise premiums for fear they will not get subsidized" and other statements expressing concern over the destabilization of the insurance market - all speculation and fear mongering when in fact the top health insurers realized a 45% rise in quarter earnings despite losses caused by Obamacare. Atsme📞📧 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well sourced doesn't guarantee inclusion. Are there RS discussing insurer profits together with this speculation specifically related to the executive order? If not, that conclusion is SYNTH-like and feels POV-like. Also, insurer profits aren't directly related to the presidency, making the profits a COATRACK for this particular article (in my opinion).
I'm unsurprised that you disagree with my removal of the sentence since you had originally added it to the article. I'm hoping other editors will weigh in as well. Ca2james (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC) edited Ca2james (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsurprised that your first edit here was to zero-in on an edit I made out of all the edits in this very lengthy article. Then you reverted my work without good cause and are now accusing me of SYNTH and POV, obviously not having read the cited source. We really need to stop meeting like this. Atsme📞📧 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Reports to consider

[6]

[7]

[8]

SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • All 3 articles are, well...sleazy for lack of a better word, on two counts: (1) the sources are politicizing the death of American soldiers while trying to switch the blame to Trump, and (2) they are capitalizing on it. It's time to start adding some balance to this article with some positive things our readers actually care about - they can read National Enquirer if they want sleazy stories about this presidency. This article is already UNDUE with negativity and criticism published by leftstream media. I don't see how such constant denigration of a US president would not cause some damage to WP considering the millions of readers who actually respect the office, identify as Republicans and reject the obvious MSM attacks on Trump's presidency. WP is NOTNEWS, and we should not use WP as a soapbox to further the politics of Trump detractors in MSM when their only goal is to discredit and criticize his presidency. Atsme📞📧 21:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can find sources that give a different account of these events. This only came up because POTUS raised it at his press availability a couple days ago, so I don't think it's "fake news". Maybe you can research and write some good NPOV text? SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's time to start trimming this article down to an acceptable size per WP:SIZE which says 60kB of readable prose should probably be divided. This article is at 79 kB (12770 words) "readable prose size". There are far too many lengthy allegations, inuendos and criticism which makes it noncompliant with NPOV (Undue & Balance), and there's plenty that can be trimmed off and never missed. If editors need examples to follow, look at Presidency of Bill Clinton and Presidency of Barrack Obama after 8 years. There were plenty of allegations made against both with Clinton's ending in impeachment but his article is only 13 kB (2054 words) "readable prose size". I don't see any encyclopedic value in politicizing soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice, and I don't see any need to further subject their families to it by including it in WP. That's where our editorial judgement per BLP should come into play: ...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Atsme📞📧 01:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not about the soldiers themselves, it's about POTUS. Anyway there's a simple explanation as to why a 25 years-ago president has a shorter article. It's that we now have the benefit of perspective as to what has enduring significance. Lots of the Trump Presidency content will turn out, in the perspective of future editors, to have been unduly detailed. The problem is that we don't know today what will fall by the wayside. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"and as such violates federal law"

Watson's decision noted that the latest ban “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor” as it “plainly discriminates based on nationality” and as such violates federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”

"and as such violates federal law"

No, the source never stated Trump's ban violated the law, it only stated Watson's POV,

"Watson also wrote that the executive order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that is opposed to federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”"

The way it is included in the article implies Trump's ban is described so in the source especially with the phrase "noted" which implies she pointed out an irrefutable fact, when that is clearly not the case. Either reword this sentence or I highly recommend deletion for WP:NPOV concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-third-travel-ban/2017/10/17/e73293fc-ae90-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html

70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is cited in the source, we include it in the article. Simple as that. Also, note that you violated the "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" warning at the top of the page when you reverted your edit back in. Also again, note that because of Wikipedia:Pending changes being set on this article, your edit is not even visible to the reader. TheValeyard (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well since I saw SPECIFICO get away with doing exactly that for a half a month, excuse me if I failed to take notice. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@TheValeyard: There is a trick to getting past the paywall on the Washington Post. If you open it in incognito mode you get past all that and can read the article. I figured that is why you mentioned cited in the sources since that is not actually what the source says. "in a way that is opposed to federal law" is not the same as "violates federal law". With different implications and meanings. Also it was wrong to reinstate the edit that Specifico challenged here.PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Executive order 13771

I reverted the insertion of a poorly-sourced and weasel-worded reference to this Executive Order.

The order is a vaguely-worded proclamation of a largely undefined requirement that "two regulations" be rescinded for every one new order enacted by the Federal government. The source to which the article text was cited is a rather general discussion of the topic that concludes more or less that time will tell what the upshot of this order may be. The order itself is replete with assertions as to the general undesirability of regulation, but no procedures or standards to determine how to implement the declared reduction in administrative regulation.

An editor, who I will AGF and assume is unfamiliar with the issue and the source, has reinstated the text I challenged prior to consensus here. I hope that action will be reversed so that we can discuss the issue here as required.

For those who are interested, here are some sources: Text of Order 13771
Reporting and analysis: Trump’s 2-for-1 Regulatory Policy Yields Minimal Results
University of Pennsylvania Law Review: "The One‐In, Two‐Out Executive Order Is a Zero"
Trump’s 'Two-for-One' Regulation Executive Order
OMB Guidance Weakens President Trump’s Executive Order on Deregulation
Will Trump’s 2-for-1 executive order lead to 'dynamic scoring' for regulations?

SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's shoot for NPOV:
My position is that the editor who reinstated the text you reverted did so justifiably. Atsme📞📧 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, the question is not whether it's good policy. The text I reverted stated "Trump's actions have had a decisive impact, with little or no net increase in the number of federal regulations occurring in the first nine months of his presidency." But all the sources, yours, mine, and every other source in the universe of sources, states that there has been no effect to date and that it remains to be seen whether this order has a significant impact in reducing regulation (or in anything else, for that matter). I assume that in your enthusiasm you did not actually intend to be saying that it's OK to violate DS rules on consensus. Regardless of what the community decides now upon reflection, I know you support law and order and Discretionary Sanctions. P.S. belated happy birthday wishes! 👸 SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO plays chess with extra pieces. While I wouldn't put her comments here in quite the same category as my personal favorite "Here's what we can say, based on the citations in the recently removed text: 'A Kremlin spokesman denied that Putin personally directed how the hacked material was leaked and otherwise used'. That's what the sources say. No 'repeatedly denied...' without stating what was denied. We must limit this to what the sources say," SPECIFICO is simply flaunting her refusual to read the source in question and/or making things up when she asserts that "But all the sources, yours, mine, and every other source in the universe of sources, states that there has been no effect to date and that it remains to be seen whether this order has a significant impact in reducing regulation." From the source:
Trump has further embraced the use of directives and executive orders in overturning Obama rules and regulations. His most potent such action was Executive Order 13771, which mandated that for every new regulation issued by an agency, two outdated or ineffective or excessively costly regulations had to be killed. It was a clever ploy; the process of combing through old regulations is a time-consuming burden, as is the companion Trump order that the cost to the economy of any new regulation must be offset by savings from canceled regulations. Together, the effect has been to greatly delay new regulations. The government keeps track of the regulatory pace of its agencies through a semi-annual report called the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, and one White House official who has reviewed the autumn edition says that new regulatory output is effectively nil.
SPECIFICO "challenged" this material under transparently false pretenses, part of her long-standing and systematic WP:GAMING of Discretionary Sanctions to purge content she doesn't like and get editors she disagrees with blocked or banned. She should really find something more productive to do with her time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I was planning to remove it too, but got distracted. Actually I was going to reword it to include other analyses, since as it stands it is blatantly one sided and based on a highly partisan source. "Decisive impact" per this one source; "minimal results" per other sources cited above. The bottom line appears to be that not much has happened. So one source interprets that to mean it has had a decisive impact, and another source that it has had little or no impact; both may be true. The truth appears to be that more than 200 new regulations have been created, but most are minor and almost all of them are exempt from this rule. Let's leave it in for now but try to find a balanced way to say that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Manafort

All the Manafort news belongs on his BLP or possibly in the Trump campaign article, not in the Presidency article. The guy was fired resigned, and his prior history belongs to him. Atsme📞📧 17:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)correction 20:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No. It most certainly belongs here. Stop being ridiculous. And no, he wasn't fired. Volunteer Marek  17:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, do you have a source that states that Trump "fired" Mr. Manafort? We don't know the ultimate significance of the indictments, but they clearly relate to RS reporting about Trump's presidency. I think a mention is enough for now and we should not spend too much effort on more extended content until the situation is better understood by RS reporting and analysis. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Just feels weird that the ex-campaign managers actions years before he was the campaign manager has weight on the presidency of Trump. Seems early for the dump it in every article that has Trump's name rush. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not just about his "actions before he was the campaign manager". The indictment covers the whole 2008-2017 period. You guys need new talking points. Volunteer Marek  18:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That is some nice sleuthing there. But no, the RS cited are not tying anything Manafort did to Trump or his presidency. Also with your revert here you violated DS by reinserting a challanged edit. Please be more careful. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree this belongs in the campaign article. Manafort's official involvement ended with the campaign. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
So what? The implications of his involvement are for the PRESIDENCY of Donald Trump. Also, Gates, who was also arrested today, was with Trump through his inauguration. This seems like an attempt to sweep this under the carpet. Volunteer Marek  18:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
There are probably half a dozen articles where I would argue the details of Manafort's arrest and involvement in the Trump campaign are relevant. This is not one of them. Are there sources tying Gates to Trump's presidency? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
James, what are those 6 articles and how do you differentiate them from this one? RS discourse does seem to tie these indictments to the current Administration. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Articles that relate to Manafort, Manafort's involvement with Trump, Mueller's investigation and alleged Russian interference in the election. My estimate of half a dozen is probably low. I have not kept close track of dozens of Trump-related articlse, e.g. Trump's handshakes. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Do we have an article on "Manafort's involvement with Trump"? And while claiming that "half a dozen is probably low" you've managed to name only half-half-a-dozen. Volunteer Marek  11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Charges not directly connected to Trump or his campaign (let alone presidency). No reason to include in this article. As James above notes, there are plenty of articles where this info should be included, but including it in Trump's presidency article is Undue and POV. It's about forum. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You actually have no idea whether the charges are "directly connected to Trump or his campaign". So stop making stuff up. Most sources - and indeed, the reason why this story is so big - believe otherwise. There's nothing POV about adding a single sentence about this to this article. Volunteer Marek  19:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The POV is in forcing something tangentially related to the Trump presidency into the article. Manafort was charged with money laundering and tax fraud connected to Ukraine and his lobbying efforts. Where is the connection to Trump? If there is one it is no where to be seen yet. So, yes, it would be wrong to include it. There are at least 10 articles about Trump Russia allegations, so take this there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
No, the POV is to ridiculously pretend that this is only "tangentially related" to the Trump presidency. The connection is that Manafort was freakin' Trump's campaign manager, that Gates worked for Trump through inauguration", that Papadopolous was Trump's foreign policy adviser during the campaign and that Mueller is investigating... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I mean, seriously, find me a single source which talks about these arrests that DOES NOT mention Trump's presidency. Volunteer Marek  13:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Sources make clear that a money laundering indictment, and even the pre-dawn raid of Manafort's domecile, would not be a particularly big story were it not for the connection they make to a sitting POTUS. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If Marla Maples were in the news her connection to Trump would make that news more significant. It still would not belong in this article. What journalists hope may become relevant to Trump's presidency is distinct from what is relevant. When and if it is we can incorporate it here. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
And what Wikipedia editors wish to be true is even more irrelevant. Actually, what journalists write IS relevant. So if it's in the sources, it belongs in here. Hell, there's sources calling this "the worst day of the Trump presidency" (which, you know, we got some ways to go, but ok). Volunteer Marek  19:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
BLP leave Marla alone. It's RS that tie this matter to the Trump presidency, to its possible (attempted) collusion with Russia, to POTUS deflection twitter campaign, to the conduct of its surrogates, etc. We'll make better progress by parsing the details of your objection, if you'd care to state them, rather than discussing loose-fitting and irrelevant analogies. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
VM & SPECIFICO - you are arguing against consensus. It doesn't belong in this article. VM, you need to self-revert and get consensus before adding the challenged material back. The material is noncompliant with NPOV and NOTNEWS because it implies that Trump is guilty by association over something he had nothing to do with - it happened during the Obama administration. If it belongs in the article, consensus will determine it, not you alone. Manafort became irrelevant to the Trump presidency when he resigned in August 2016, and is in fact more deeply connected to Tony Podesta, who lobbied for several Democratic presidential campaigns, had close ties to the Obama administration according to Newsweek, and based on an NBC News report, worked with Manafort's PR campaign, European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU) to promote the Ukraine in the West. It has since become a criminal inquiry, and there is no evidence to support that it has anything to do with the Trump presidency. Manafort was only with the Trump campaign for less than 6 months - he joined at the end of March and resigned in August 2016 before Trump was elected president. The Times article clearly states - The indictment of Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates makes no mention of Mr. Trump or election meddling.- see the NYTimes. CNBC published a WH statement confirming that Paul Manafort "has nothing to do with the president." #1 - Manafort pleaded not guilty, #2 - indictment is not a verdict of guilty, #3- if the info should be added anywhere besides Paul Manafort, it belongs in Tony Podesta. Tony stepped down from his lobbying firm the same day that Manafort & Gates were indicted. The Politico article says Podesta's firm was paid to promote the Ukraine in the U.S., and that Podesta is currently under investigation by Mueller - Trump isn't the one who is being investigated. Atsme📞📧 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Well Atsme, speaking only for myself I am not arguing anything. I'm asking James to specify his objections so that we can have an orderly discussion of them. So far, nothing on the table except Ms. Maples. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Atmse, I'm sorry but you're being absurd. Tony Podesta was NOT indicted yesterday. You know who was indicted yesterday? Donald Trump's campaign manager. Please take this ridiculous spin and obfuscation to some other website. Volunteer Marek  12:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Color me shocked that someone who posted this on their talkpage would descend into such a rant. If/when Tony Podesta is indicted (just in case you came to the conclusion he was after consuming your media diet yesterday morning), we can talk about where to put the revelations. Oh! Would you look at that? There's already a section started. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave it all out. The recent arrests and guilty plea do not belong in the article. None of the three men involved ever worked in the Donald Trump administration. The Manafort and Gates charges date from before Trump even declared his candidacy, and Reliable Sources are pointing out that they have nothing to do with Trump or his campaign. The Papadopoulos charge relates to the campaign but not the presidency. We have pasted this information into probably a dozen articles so far today, but it does not belong in this one. Someday there may be charges that impact the Trump presidency. But these don't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. None of yesterday's revelations have had a noteworthy impact on the presidency, and we cannot include anything based on speculation that they might. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break. We have the biggest story of the Trump presidency so far - hell, on radio this morning they were referring to it as exactly that - and we have people on this talk page claiming "gee, shucks, it's not really relevant to his presidency". It's freakin' ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  12:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude, I fully expect this is just the beginning of a process that could massively affect the presidency, but it hasn't had any effect yet; therefore, we wait. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
How do you know it "hasn't had any effect"? Given the widespread coverage in reliable sources, I strongly disagree. Volunteer Marek  13:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The "widespread coverage" is all about how it's expected to have an effect, but that effect hasn't actually happened yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's been front page lead news for 5 days now with Trump's name in every paragraph. Upstairs in the White House, with the TV on, Trump fumed over Russia indictments Lindsey Graham: There 'will be holy hell to pay' if Trump fires Mueller. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the sentiment that it would be patently absurd not to include this summary of yesterday's revelations. Of course it relates to his presidency and deserves mention here. The detail brought in the claims belongs elsewhere, but the same reasoning that has led us to include a section regarding Trump's alleged ties to Russia in the ethics section demands that this summary also be included. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So if we don't include this info, should we include the "cheeseburger emoji" controversy?  Volunteer Marek  13:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

More important, we need to put the American Uranium scandal in Presidency of Hillary Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Headline: Schlecte Nachrichten fur Trump. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Headline: Trump Tries to Distance Himself from Trio Facing Charges in Mueller Probe. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about his PRESIDENCY. Not about whether it made him "fume" (he "fumes" over a lot of stuff). Not about what people speculate might happen next that really would be consequential. This is a big news story but so far it is not part of his presidency - meaning, his administration. I have cited multiple Reliable Sources pointing out that the Manafort/Gates charges are unrelated to Trump and the campaign.[9][10] We are supposed to reflect Reliable Sources, not our own opinion or our vision of the future. This story is already, correctly included in a dozen Wikipedia pages. It does not belong in this one and I don't understand why you two are fighting to desperately to get it added. Aren't the other dozen-or-so articles enough coverage here?

VM, you have four times used the word "ridiculous" to dismiss people's opposition to including this. Not to mention one "absurd", one "gimme a break", and one "stop making stuff up". That kind of talk 1) is against talk page policy, 2) promotes a confrontational atmosphere here, and 3) makes your own arguments look weak. Cut it out. And if you can't come up with actual, rational arguments for why this should be considered important to his administration NOW (as opposed to in the future), then stop talking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me to include two-three sentences where the facts of the case are laid out, the administration dismisses that it has anything to do with the President or the presidency, and that the revelations "cast a shadow" (or whatever language the RS use) on the administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
One of those "absurds" was mine, and I would disagree that it is against talk-page policy to refer to an idea as "absurd" when it clearly is. I would also counter that telling someone to "stop talking" is definitely in the same family as "gimme a break". As for the meat of why this belongs: it's not because Trump "fuming" about is relevant, it IS because this is effecting his presidency in a tangible, measurable way as reflected in all of the mainstream coverage of this event. This investigation continues to be a cloud over Trump and his administration, so yes: our two-sentence, well-sourced, description of yesterday's section deserves a home in this article and is critical to a reader understanding the Presidency of Donald Trump. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with MelanieN - it has nothing to do with the presidency. At this point in time, it's guilt by association which makes it noncompliant with NPOV and NOTNEWS. Several RS have already confirmed that the Manafort indictment does not involve Trump. If they had something on Trump, he'd be the focus, not Manafort. Besides, the article needs more trimming as it has become too long and unwieldy with "readable prose size" a staggering 83 kB (13356 words) at only 10 months into his presidency. Trim the fat and stop adding breaking news allegations that are unsupported by evidence, or aren't related to the presidency. Atsme📞📧 15:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but arguing that this has "nothing to do with the presidency", where every single source discusses these arrests in the context of the Trump presidency is in fact ridiculous. I'm not sure what other word would accurately describe this situation. And you are trying very hard to set up a blatant strawman here Atsme - no one here has argued that we should write that "Manafort indictment involves Trump".
And then I see we get to the "the article's too long so we can't include this text that just doesn't fit in with my POV" tactic, which is another Wikipedia standard. No.
Look folks. I am not saying we should put this in the lede. I'm not saying we should have a whole section devoted to it. All we need is one or two sentences about the arrests somewhere in the article in order to observe DUE WEIGHT and NPOV, since this is so widely covered in sources. And it is covered in sources in terms of how it affects the Trump presidency. Volunteer Marek  11:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comments in the section below. I had been under the impression that this article is supposed to be about the actions of the Trump administration, but after taking a closer look at the article, particularly the "Ties to Russia" section, I came to the conclusion that is not what it is about. Based on the coverage in that section about Jeff Sessions, which I assume was put there by consensus, it appears that a very broad interpretation has been placed on what should be included. Seeing that, I think at least the Pappadopopulos guilty plea (how come nobody has mentioned that? when it is the one news item from yesterday that DOES relate to Trump, or at least the Trump campaign?) should be mentioned. I'm still hesitant about mentioning the Manafort/Gates indictment since it relates entirely to actions before Trump even declared his candidacy, but I will go along with it if there is consensus (which so far there isn't). If we do put in something, it should include a disclaimer that "The charges arise from their consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[1] " --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ Savage, Charlie (October 30, 2017). "What It Means: The Indictment of Manafort and Gates". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
Well...actually, content should represent what the title implies, and it should also maintain some consistency with other Presidency of... articles in the pedia. If there's information that is not directly related to the presidency, it should be moved to the proper article. Like it or not, we will be trimming this article per WP:SIZERULE and those items will be among the first to go anyway. It's better to do it now than later - we've got 3 more years to go in his first term and we're already at 84kb. None of the other Presidency of... articles are as detailed after 2 terms, and they shouldn't be. Atsme📞📧 17:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC) 
This content DOES represent the title. As to consistency - sure, in terms of style and lay out. But every Presidency is different so every Presidency will obviously have different info in it. I'm not seeing what is suppose to be "inconsistent" about including two sentences about this event.
As to the "size" argument - that's an excuse. I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff that could be cut. Volunteer Marek  11:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a brief paragraph about Papadopoulos to the "Ties with Russia" section. I think we sort-of have consensus here for Papadopoulos, who actually was convicted on campaign-related issues. I am still opposed to adding anything about Manafort at this time, simply because none of the Manafort charges relate to Trump or the campaign. Maybe Mueller will be able to leverage those charges to get evidence on that subject, but at this point that is just speculation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The relation of Manafort to the Trump campaign is that... he was the campaign manager. Volunteer Marek  05:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly - campaign - which has nothing to do with The Presidency of... Atsme📞📧 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The relation of Manafort to the Trump presidency is that... he was the campaign manager. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ties to Russia section

Anti-Trump Tax March in San Francisco, April 15, 2017

Looking a little harder at the article, I found that the section "Ties to Russia claims" was a complete mess - not in any logical order, and didn't even mention the special counsel investigation. I have reorganized the first two paragraphs and added the special counsel investigation. Considering the length of detail given to the Sessions material in that section, I think a sentence about the Papadopoulos guilty plea (which actually does relate to "ties to Russia") would be in order, but I didn't add it, pending discussion here.

Also, I removed this photo of a completely unrelated "anti-Trump tax march" from the "Ties to Russia" section. Can someone find a better place to put it? --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: the photo - do we have an article for "Tax payers who love to pay taxes"? If so, that's where it should go.[FBDB] Regarding Papadopoulos, meh - he was a former Trump campaign aide who thought he'd be praised for getting opposition research on Hillary Clinton, and made a mess of things. He got himself in trouble by making "false statements and material omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation" on January 27, 2017. It has nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with the campaign. There is already mention of it in Trump campaign-Russian meetings. Atsme📞📧 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

" It has nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with the campaign" - since "the presidency" is under an investigation for what it did during "the campaign", that's a pretty disingenuous claim. Volunteer Marek  05:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
We clearly have different perceptions of NPOV and relevancy but I don't see that changing based on the information you've been supporting for inclusion. What I do want to see changed is your PAs, such as calling me "disingenuous". Focus on content and keep in mind WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't win many arguments and it sucks as a defense for PAs. Atsme📞📧 19:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you're just quoting irrelevant Wikipedia policies randomly and misrepresenting things. I didn't call *you* "disingenuous". I called *your claim* disingenuous". Which it is. Volunteer Marek  06:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think your changes to the section are an improvement overall, though your language surrounding yesterday's revelations is just not strong enough. Papadopoulos should be added, too. A small addition to the text proposed earlier would do fine. A question: has everyone else arguing for inclusion/exclusion actually reviewed the placement of the proposition within the context of the rest of the article? I'm a bit disheartened that it seems editors were arguing over addition/exclusion without a baseline understanding of what is already in the article (presumably by prior consensus). 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, 207.222.59.50, the correct spelling is Papadopoulos - please correct your misspellings of his name. Atsme📞📧 16:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. I also corrected the IP's since pings don't work for IPs. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MelanieN! 207.222.59.50 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • MelanieN - Thanks! I'll offer two other things you might consider as part of your cleaning this section up. First, a starting line or two to make sense of what this area is and why mentions of 1987 or 1996 are here, to explain why something before 20 January 2017, and not a part of the Presidency actions is in this article or part of Ethics. Perhaps 'Due to concerns over Russian Interference with the election, all of President Trump's administration has come under special scrutiny regarding actions and past ties to Russia.'. Second, I note that 'Revealing classified information to Russia' section up near the timeline might fit here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions. I'm going to implement them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, the constant reverting of my edits accompanied by a fallacious edit summary to restore inaccurate, POV information (misinformation by omission) has to stop. Our job is to include verifiable facts, and that is exactly what I did, and carefully worded it to reflect what the sources actually said that are factually supported and verifiable. Let's not forget, the WaPo and NYTimes articles that are being cited are still primary sources. WP:OR clearly states: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. My edit clearly stated verifiable facts whereas the revert by SPECIFICO restored misinformation by omission. My edit basically involved:
  1. inclusion of the important fact that the information came from 2 unnamed government officials. Knowing where the information originated is highly important and should not be omitted;
  2. inclusion of the fact that per the NYTimes: Trump's disclosure did not appear to be illegal because "the president has the power to declassify almost anything". That is simply stating a fact which is highly relevant to the innuendos that Trump did something improper. The way that paragraph is written now is more like an indictment rather than simply reporting what happened and the relevance of it.
  3. the rest of my edit was simply copy-editing.
SPECIFICO's claim in the edit summary rv undue pov rewrite is simply not true. With reference to what was recently pointed out to me over the misspelling of an aide's name, this is still a BLP even where Trump is concerned. Human dignity applies all the way around; therefore, unsupported allegations, name-calling and editorialized innuendo are clearly violations of NPOV and BLP. Things certainly has taken on the smell of a double-standard from where I sit. When edits are reverted because they accurately portray the facts as reported in the sources and are verifiable, something is wrong, especially when the edits are compliant with Wikipedia:PUBLICFIGURE and NPOV. And while we're on the subject of human dignity and BLP policy let's review the following reverts:
  1. I removed the noncompliant section regarding the MEDRS noncompliant medical diagnosis by Trump detractors and journalists but it was restored - it doesn't belong in this article. The neutrality tag has been there since September and nothing has been done to improve it. Instead, more POV is being added throughout the article.
  2. I provided important and highly relevant information that was removed and replaced by tendentious editing.
  3. I again provided factual information that was removed and replaced by tendentious editing.
Now that I have been awakened to the importance of strict adherence to WP:BLP on this TP, as well as to the importance of how carefully we should include and cite (or simply exclude) unproven allegations by detractors and primary sources on TP in a different situation, the same that applies to TP should apply equally to the article. Can we please try to reach a local consensus using WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the prevailing policy which clearly states: If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported, and A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.? Errors by omission are still errors which are noncompliant with the 3 core content policies that govern BLP. There have been multitudes of allegations that, to this day, are unsupported by evidence, and without evidence, they are nothing more than allegations of "guilt by association". Some of the information that has been published in RS and is being cited here includes allegations by anonymous sources which not only fails WP:V because they are unproven and have remained unsupported after years of intense investigation. The best they've come up with is a volunteer campaign aide who lied to the FBI, and 2 indictments to which the accused have pleaded not guilty and to the latter I refer everyone to "innocent until convicted by a court of law". MelanieN, I'm open to your suggestions since you have taken the lead on this article. Atsme📞📧 16:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO's edit summary is right on point. Volunteer Marek  05:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Slow down, let's take things one at a time, and stay with specifics rather than generalities and accusations. Let's start with this recent edit. What specifically did you change? My analysis of the diff is different from what you listed above. You wanted to attribute the disclosure of classified information to "two unnamed government officials"; I disagree with that because Trump himself confirmed that he had done it - while stating that he had a perfect right to do so. You removed the "grounds for impeachment" sentence; I agree with removing that, it was POV. And I agree with your removing the third, redundant sentence about what McMaster did and didn't say. Were there other things that you thought should be changed? The NYT comment about it not being illegal was in the article all along and is still there.--MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, let's start with "two unnamed government officials". The cited NYTimes article begins with President Trump boasted about highly classified intelligence in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador last week... - what did he "boast", what exactly did he reveal, and in what context was it taken? The NYTimes then does a CYA by ending that first paragraph with...a current and a former American government official said Monday. The latter is where the "two unnamed government officials" came from and is basically what I added without detailing former and current. Who were these so-called "government officials" and did they attend the meeting? No, they're anonymous sources. Where is the citation that verifiably confirms Trump admitted to the unethical revealing of highly classified intelligence that jeopardized an ally which basically is what the current paragraph implies? Sounds more like the conflating of facts with sensationalism and innuendo to me, especially in light of the denials and actual enumerated powers of the Commander In Chief. You'll be hard pressed to convince me you're holding a dog when it meows and purrs. First, let's resolve where the information originated. And I sincerely thank you, MelanieN, for opening this up to discussion. Atsme📞📧 20:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Not your job to pass judgement on how reliable sources write their stories. This is textbook WP:OR. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Not your job to pass judgement on another editor. Save your criticism for the topic, not the editor. My explanation requires simple sentence comprehension not OR, and to distinguish between the two, WP:CIR. Atsme📞📧 13:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, if I see somebody trying to justify their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits by doing OR, well, yes, it is my job to point it out. My criticisms are firmly grounded in Wikipedia policy so please don't try to use this "you're discussing the editor" excuse. You are clearly disputing, arguing with, and trying to reject a reliable source simply because it doesn't fit your POV. Textbook OR. Volunteer Marek  05:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: The fact that he said some highly classified things to the Russians is not in doubt. It does not need to be hedged; although the initial report came from "unnamed government officials," it was quickly confirmed by multiple people, including Trump himself on several occasions. Our article already points that out: The following day Trump stated on Twitter that Russia is an important ally against terrorism and that he had an "absolute right" to share classified information with Russia.[11][12] Another confirmation that we didn't bother to cite in the article: After the media (and doubtless the Russians and others) deduced that the source must have been a mole operated by the Israelis, Trump both confirmed his disclosure of the information and denied identifying the source as Israel (implication: yeah, OK, it was Israel, but I didn't say so). He actually blurted that out to reporters while he was in Israel, saying "Hey, folks, just so you understand, I never mentioned the word or the name ‘Israel.’ Never mentioned it during that conversation." [13]
Immediately after the initial reporting, both McMaster and Tillerson issued carefully worded statements which did not deny that he had disclosed the information, only pointed out that "they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations" (Tillerson) and "At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed and the President did not disclose any military operations that weren't already publicly known" (McMaster). [14] Bottom line: Trump did not directly disclose sources and methods (and may not even have knows the source of the information), but we do not deny that he did disclose classified information (from which people were easily able to deduce the source). So let's forget about attributing this information to "unnamed officials" when in fact it is attributed to multiple sources including Trump himself.
About the other issues, I am going to delete the "grounds for impeachment" sentence and the redundant third sentence about McMaster. Anything else? --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. I thought I had seen a "grounds for impeachment" sentence in this section, but it didn't appear to be there now. I added the rest of the NYT statement and clarified the McMaster statement, removing the redundant sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
With utmost respect, I disagree with your conclusion that it was "highly classified material". Please re-read the cited RS because they say "sensitive information", (less the superlatives), and there is a yuge difference between "sensitive" and "classified". There has been no admission of Trump sharing anything, and certainly nothing beyond "sensitive" based on the simple fact that Trump declassified it per his enumerated powers, which he awkwardly attempted to explain to the media. Also keep in mind that the sharing of classified material is a crime, and to say or even imply that the Commander In Chief of the United States of America disclosed highly classified material is the same as accusing him of committing a crime, and that is unacceptable in a BLP. It is important that we get the story right.
  1. The report did originate from 2 "unnamed government officials" per the cited sources, and to say otherwise is OR and/or SYNTH with a splash of tendentious editing thrown in. We are required to exercise caution regarding how things are presented in any BLP (and on the TP), which means we avoid noncompliance with PAGs and adhere closely to BLP policy. Also, per RS: multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. The same would apply to a RS like the NYTimes publishing a breaking story as told to them by their anonymous sources and others citing that same story in their respective publications.
  2. Unsupported evidence is still unsupported evidence regardless of how MSM attempts to portray it; therefore, it is still conjecture and innuendo and should not be considered statements of fact, especially when the source is a known detractor. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE.
  3. I am not the least bit surprised that McMaster and Tillerson issued "carefully worded statements" - it is actually expected of those who hold such high positions in any administration. To reiterate, no classified information was divulged, and the president acted within his enumerated powers. When a person is under the kind of scrutiny the Trump admin has been under, one should not expect anything but carefully worded statements in an effort to avoid misrepresentation by media detractors. The Andes are probably the result of politicians making mountains out of molehills, not unlike the paragraph subject of this discussion. I prefer to not let WP be among those pouring the foundation for those mountains when all one has to do is state what the RS actually state, specifically in that "sensitive material" is not the same as "highly classified" for the reasons I states above. Atsme📞📧 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
About disclosing classified information: as Richard Nixon once said, when the president does it, it is not a crime. As plainly stated in the NYT quote in the current article. No crime was committed and none is alleged. So put that argument aside.
About the nature of the material he disclosed: "highly classified" per WaPo, derived from "an intelligence sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government". The New York Times independently also said "highly classified" information was revealed "in break with ally". Also according to the initial sources, "this is code-word stuff", and Trump "revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies." One official told Buzzfeed "it's far worse than what has already been reported." Also: Immediately after the meeting ended, "senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency", presumably so they could alert the unnamed ally to get their secret source safely out of danger immediately, because hostile states would soon identify him. We could put all this in the article, if you like, and we will if you insist. But "highly classified" is well supported and I doubt if you want us to go into this much detail showing exactly how classified it was - and how damaging it may have been for him to reveal it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. If in fact no classified information had been revealed, that's what McMaster and Tillerson would have said. But they didn't. They did not deny that classified information had been given. They merely insisted that "sources, methods, and military information" had not been revealed (and btw none of the reporting claimed they had been). What the two of them chose not to say, speaks volumes about what actually did happen. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good, we agree there is no crime involved, but WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL comes to mind when I read statements in that paragraph like: "...providing details that could expose the source", and "...could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship". Could expose? Could jeopardize? If only I could win the lottery. That unsupported speculation was debunked, and most everything else is not supported by evidence. The Guardian article states that Israel's US Ambassador Dermer, told the New York Times “Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump.” In that same article, it says Putin offered to hand over to Congress the records of the Trump-Lavrov discussion, and "dismissed the scandal over the intelligence-sharing as “schizophrenia”. Moving on a bit to The Hill article - it includes statements like "Trump reportedly shared sensitive intelligence..." and "The information was reportedly gathered..." and "Israeli intelligence officials reportedly vented..." Their use of weasel words tells me they don't have much confidence in the allegations by WaPo and the NYT, both of which are primary sources, which brings to mind WP:NOR. If we must keep that paragraph why not move it to the Foreign affairs section instead of keeping it in the section with the accusatory title, Claims of ties to Russia? Atsme📞📧 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The ambassador said what diplomats say. So did the prime minister of Israel. In public. Privately the Israelis were reported to be furious, and to have warned their people not to share sensitive information with the U.S., but that is all behind the scenes and not in the article. There is plenty of evidence that there was international dismay about his telling this to the Russians, and widespread concern about possible danger to the source. Even Trump's own aides reacted in kind of panic mode, alerting the CIA and NSA as soon as the meeting was over. Again, that is not in the article, but it does provide support for the inclusion of the widely reported concern that the disclosure "could expose the source" and "could jeopardize" the relationship with an ally.
As for the repeated use of "reportedly" in The Hill, that's a journalistic requirement, because the story is not a product of their own reporting; it is based on an article published in another source, which has to be attributed.--MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. About moving it out of "Ties to Russia": That is possible, but I don't see a good place to move it to. Take a look at the "foreign relations" section; it doesn't seem to be ideal for this kind of narrative reporting of an incident. Anyplace else where it might fit? --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I love signs of progress. With regards to moving mention of any appropriate/inappropriate activities of the Commander In Chief, I'm of the mind the most important role of a US President should have a section of its own, like Decisions as Commander In Chief or National Defense policies, or something along that line. We have far too much fringy stuff in this article, some of which is arguably relevant to the Presidency of... but I'm not too concerned because as time progresses, it will eventually be removed or shortened to make room for the undeniably relevant material. We probably should move some of the allegations about Trump's ties to Russia, allegations about Manafort, Sessions, Trump the candidate and his son & son-in-law's brief meeting that proved to be a nothing burger, and so on. There is also too much emphasis placed on the presidency for things that are actually under the control of Congress or state governments, some of which can be/should be trimmed or removed. Things can get rather confusing in a hurry when dealing with opposing political views and perceptions of how governments should operate, especially considering WP editors come from all parts of the world. The inner workings of a Constitutional Republic are often misinterpreted as democracies rather than governance under the rule of law with 3 separate branches of government. j/s
With regards to the Israeli ambassador, I must have overlooked the published statement that dismissed the ambassador's comment as being "what diplomats say". I also haven't seen anything about Putin's response or his willingness to turn over documents of that meeting to Congress. I am not convinced that they should be shrugged-off as unimportant based on POV that already weighs heavily against Trump.
Regarding the use of "reportedly" by The Hill, yes, I am well aware of how journalists do things, having been a field producer for CNN in the 80s-90s. The "reportedly" precedent is actually one place that editors actually should read something into what is not being said because it helps us make proper judgement calls with regards to inclusion worthiness and presentation of the information. It tells me that The Hill published information that is unconfirmed, and by that I'm referring to not available elsewhere for them to publish it as a statement of fact, and that is what should be raising a red flag of awareness as to how we treat WP:PUBLICFIGURE. When information in a BLP is challenged as I have done in this instance, our PAGs tell us to use in-line text attribution, and to also include the denial. I'm ok with everything but the use of "highly classified material" because it is just plain inaccurate and originated from anonymous sources as published by a primary source. Information Trump shared may well have been highly sensitive - that's what a Commander In Chief does - he discusses highly sensitive material with allies and countries who are fighting similar battles in the name of national security. If it wasn't sensitive, he'd be tweeting the details of the conversation. There is no denying that he discussed national security issues with Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak but it was not highly classified at the time he discussed it with them because he declassified anything that may have been classified at the time, and did so within his enumerated powers as our Commander In Chief. Anything beyond that is POV and innuendo that he committed a crime and it doesn't belong in this article. Reading all the sections in this article is a strain but if it's any consolation, by the time we finish getting it right, it can be nominated as an FA candidate. 😁 Atsme📞📧 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, please remember WP:NOTFORUM and don't go off into philosophical discussions and opinions. We are here to discuss the content of the article, which should be possible to do with brevity.
"Reportedly" does not mean they doubt it. It means that they, themselves, have not confirmed it; they are describing something that was reported by another publication (hence "reportedly"). They use that word repeatedly to show that they are still citing that other publication's report, not their own independent research. When possible, we should probably cite the article that other publications are reporting on, rather than those derivative reports, but that's not a guideline here. Sometimes the derivative sources are simply more accessible, such as when the original report is behind a paywall.
"Highly classified" is still accurate, per numerous sources. I suppose we could say "material which used to be highly classified until Trump blurted it out to the Russians, thus declassifying it," but I haven't seen any source put it that way.
I didn't see a suggestion where else in the article the material could be moved to. I guess that means it stays in the "Ties to Russia" section. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Read my comment again, please. I repeat: I'm of the mind the most important role of a US President should have a section of its own, like Decisions as Commander In Chief or National Defense policies, or something along that line. Perhaps you simply overlooked my suggestion, and no, it doesn't belong in Ties to Russia. Next, I am not going to dismiss the fact that the Commander In Chief did not share highly classified information. Who do you think classifies it, and who do you think has the authority to declassify it? Your response is not addressing that issue and your argument is not convincing. The president/Commander In Chief is as high as we go in our Constitutional Republic, and he is the one who says what is or isn't "highly classified" so I'm not quite sure where you're going with the misinformation, why, or what you're thinking with regards to what is and isn't classified or who it can be shared with, but I find it rather disconcerting that the facts are not being presented accurately. I can/will call an RfC if we cannot make a decision locally. It's up to you. Atsme📞📧 22:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead. I give up. Make it succinct and be clear about exactly what you are proposing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The arguments above aside, it is true that the section is pretty messy. In particular the Mueller investigation and the material related to it needs to have its own subsection, separate from the disclosure of classified info etc.  Volunteer Marek  05:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's possible. Where in the article would you suggest putting it? Mueller is tasked with investigating Russian interference, and ties to Russia, and "related matters". Putting it under "Ties to Russia" focuses on just one of those things. But interference with the election relates to the election, not to his presidency which is the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That the President defends an accused child molester is notable

As seen by the extensive coverage of his Moore defense, as well as the lack of Moore defense by any other prominent Republicans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream media is referring to this as a de facto endorsement, so it is certainly notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not, at this point, a significant aspect of his presidency as a whole. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Include on the Roy Moore page, maybe, but in no way does it belong here. I don't know much about the Moore situation, but I totally fail to see how it is especially relevant- presidential endorsements are common and you can't include them all. Being accused of molestation is more relevant to Moore personally. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that all of President Trump's endorsements should be listed. The reason why this endorsement should be mentioned is due to egregious crimes that Moore is being credibly accused of. No national Republican leaders have defended Moore after these revelations, except the President. That makes this notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think it does. It is an endorsement; just because it is an controversial or unpopular one doesn't make it notable. Unless it's proven Moore committed these crimes and Trump continues to support him, I don't think you can say it's especially important to a term of a U.S. President. But I guess that's my opinion, I'll let others form consensus --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I could see mention in the Moore article as well. Also what is with the "Doug Jones - a prosecutor known for successfully prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan who killed four girls in a Church bombing" that you tried to add in that section and Trump's attacks on him? It is not even related to the Moore endorsement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Trump both defended Moore and attacked his opponent. Both are notable and part of the endorsement. Defends the credibly accused pedophile while in the next breath attacking someone who prosecuted KKK terrorists for being "soft on crime". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This is identity politics run amok. What may be noteworthy for an encyclopedia is Trump's pattern of asserting false equivalencies in a variety of contexts, and he used it yesterday to undermine Moore's critics and accusers. But consider what hundreds of articles would look like if we featured every similar statement or political endorsement? We really need to maintain some historical and encyclopedic perspective on these issues. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Also consider WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikinews needs articles. Atsme📞📧 16:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would see leave it out for now but see how the coverage continues. At the moment definitely not worthy of the lead, but may be notable for the body in the upcoming days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

At the current rate of add-ons and spin-offs, Trump may warrant his own Wiki. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 17:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

False and misleading statements

Recently Neutrality added in Wikipedia's voice that Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks here. Which was against concensus on his main page here. WP:NPOV does state "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." but basically goes against every other part of it. It should not be stated in Wikis voice and is possibly a BLP issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this material is directly supported by many high-quality, non-opinion sources, which are all appropriately cited - and does not run counter to any consensus. (The result of the prior discussion, to which you linked, deals with only the word "lie" - we do not use that term, as most of the sources do not use it. The discussion did not bar us from accurately reflecting the reliable sources, which do extensively describe the large number of falsehoods, misleading statements, etc.).
Moreover, my edit is not a "recent" one - it actually restores longstanding material. The change to "accused by the media" was only made on November 9 by a new editor (less than a dozen edits), and was falsely marked as a "minor edit" by that user. My edit restores the longstanding text.
Moreover, the "accused by the media" text is WP:OR - this is one editors' surmise. The sources do not say "accused by the media" - they make statements of fact which are not contested by other reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that counter this text, then they can be brought forth - but I am aware of none.
As far as BLP: no part of BLP is implicated here, and in fact the policy's own text supports inclusion: BLP expressly states: "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." Neutralitytalk 02:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not arguing it be removed, it should not be Wikipedia's voice. The restoration of previous material and the wording "accused by the media" are not relevant to the issue either way it is a NPOV and BLP (see example 2) issue. As far as consensus only referring to lie, and not made a large number of false statements that is really splitting hairs. I am also unsure how you can claim this is not contested material? Yes RS report on it, that does not actually make it fact, others bring up counter points. Again mentioning of false statements is fine, just not in Wikipedia's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but:
(1) The difference between "X is a liar" and "X frequently makes false statements" is not splitting hairs. The reliable sources do say the latter, but they don't say the former (Lie also implies a level of intentionality that we can't know for sure; by contrast, whether something is false or true is a question of fact).
(2) If reliable sources consistently and routinely say something in their own voice, and it is not contradicted by other reliable sources saying the opposite in their own voice, then we too say it in our voice. Something less is usually improper distancing from the sources.
(3) As far as "others bring up counter points" - if you have sources or links, I would like to take a look.
Thanks, Neutralitytalk 04:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
When the difference is either he is a liar vs he is either a liar or ignorant, that is not an improvement in POV. I am not sure another way to interpret X frequently makes false statements other than they are lies or ignorance. Yes the sources support it, but the sources also say tons of BLP vio material that we, correctly, do not add to the articles in Wikipedia's voice. It's also hard to find sources to prove a negative. But here are a few he turned out to be right, [15], [16], and [17]. Again it is a bit of proving a negative, you could say any time he is not called a liar? I don't know on that one though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality is right. PackMecEng's arguments are bizarre. I'm pretty sure that this was something that was duked out on the 'Donald Trump' page in 2016 and we agreed to make note of Trump's propensity for lying (as substantiated by a large number of RS). Wikipedia shouldn't say that Trump is a "liar" and I'm pretty sure that no Wikipedia editors and no RS have used that term. Trump's propensity for telling blatant lies repeatedly is one of the notable aspects of this presidency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality is 100% correct. It is an incontrovertible fact that Trump lies, and frequently so. He lies about dumb things. He lies about small things. His lies have been meticulously documented by numerous impeccable sources. Yes, we can and should say that Trump has made a large number of false statements, in Wikipedia's voice. PackMecEng's arguments to the contrary are rather ludicrous.- MrX 19:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Not according to WP:LABEL which states that value laden labels (see my underline) may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. That does not mean simply citing a RS, rather it means attributing such a statement to whoever said it in the source you are citing. Atsme📞📧 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Uh... what in the text, exactly, do you claim to be a “value-laden label”? Neutralitytalk 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The statement in Wiki voice that says "Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks".[according to whom?] See words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Another option would be to include the false statement(s) and cite it/them - using the most notable false statements, of course. Atsme📞📧 20:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The sentence is directly supported by a number of high-quality cited sources, and is a statement of fact.... A value-laden label is something like “terrorist” or “freedom fighter” or “heretic” (the types of things that the guideline points out). I feel like you’re grasping at straws here. Neutralitytalk 21:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
If it is indeed a statement of fact, it should be easy to find at least one falsity and cite it to a RS, correct? Nothing prevents us from quoting at least two falsities and then we have no problem stating it in Wiki voice as actual fact cited to at least 3 RS. That way, we eliminate potential challenges, and have strictly adhered to policy per NPOV and BLP. Atsme📞📧 21:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you seriously disputing that Trump has made many false statements? Is anyone? There is no benefit to citing specific examples when the content being discussed is a general statement, nor is there a requirement to do so. I have no idea why you mentioned WP:LABEL since it obviously has nothing to do with what we're discussing. - MrX 21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Step out of the bubble, MrX. Our readers comprise a broad spectrum of views, the majority of which may not necessarily support your own, which is why NPOV is essential. We are an encyclopedia, NOTNEWS, so everything we publish must be stated in a dispassionate tone, cited to RS with proper WEIGHT and BALANCE. We don't pick sides, we don't jump up on a SOAPBOX, we simply publish the facts. If Trump made false statements, then it should be easy to attribute them using in-text attribution. There is no reason for us to argue with each other over what is or isn't worthy of inclusion. If it's worthy, there will be plenty of 2nd and 3rd party sources we can use as references. Atsme📞📧 21:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no way that you're not trolling us. I think I'm going to step into a bubble bath right now.- MrX 22:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
😂 Let the good times troll, MrX. Light a few scented candles, and dim the lights...Bubbles galore...let Calgon take you away!! Atsme📞📧 22:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
...and a glass a wine. Mustn't forget the wine.- MrX 00:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Abs-o-lute-ly...🍷 wine...Atsme📞📧 00:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality, PackMecEng seems that section could improve.
  1. BLP/LABEL could improve upon the small number of sources. The WP:BLP line "there will be a multitude of reliable published sources" (and WP:LABEL defense that many say it) -- is not shown. The section is only built on two - the NY Times and Washington Post, plus a tail bit from Politico. Vaguely asserting many exist in TALK is not the same as giving them in the article, and I'd suggest pulling in at least a couple others to avoid it being just 2 papers views. This seems mostly a U.S. media view, but here are some candidates: LA Times (for the scholarly journal), Huffington Post, The Star, The Independent.
  2. Examples -- I'm not aware of any particularly notable ones (to the level of iconic fibs of past Presidents) and this section only mentions about Obama called families of the fallen. Worse to me is not seeing a context or point stated in the section, to make clear to a reader why the section is notable. That there are misstatements, exaggerations, or hyperbole is basically normal -- and for politicians, playing spin or exaggeration is normal -- so why is this here ? I'd suggest starting with it being phrased as 'noted for the largest number' or something else showing what's different or important out of this.
  3. Quotes - the ones shown are again a small selection and seem not notable in themselves, so doing quotes smells too much like WP:QUOTEFARM or WP:Cherrypicking. I'd suggest dropping them in favor of a paraphrase among the wider array of sources.
  4. WP:NPOV - not seeing the 'show all significant positions' part of that, so suggest a paragraph be added of the White House responses and Trump-supporting publications.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_3&oldid=1084079115"