Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 13

Proposal: mention false and misleading statements in the lede

I propose to add the following sentences to the lede. This mirrors the Donald Trump article, and is virtually identical to the version which achieved consensus in a recent RfC with the exception of the first wiki-link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. starship.paint ~ KO 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.

  • No. Still not met WP:LEAD, contrary to existing consensus was/is against such language here, and again some supports or cites somewhere else is simply irrelevant, it’s failing LEAD and V unless it is in *this* article and about *this* article’s topic and body. This seems just a rerun of recent failed attempts ( archive 7 “Edits to lead” started 9 January, and “This revert should be reverted” started 8 January) with minor changes to phrasing but without any substantive effort at making a better case or improving basis. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
How in the world is it "failing V"? That makes no sense. In fact, how is it failing LEDE? If it's relevant to the main level Donald Trump article it is even more relevant here since it's directly about his presidency. Ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • How can it fail WP:V and WP:LEDE when we have an entire subsection on False and misleading statements with over 15 sources? starship.paint ~ KO 06:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have tightened the section so that the body reflects what is being proposed here. starship.paint ~ KO 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Tosh. It should be obvious: failing LEAD and V here because it is proposed based on content and cites IN SOME OTHER ARTICLE !!! As already stated at all the 3 weak efforts so far, a proposal for lead here must make its case HERE, and have basis on content and topic HERE, or else it fails V and LEAD for HERE. Put some effort into it, do not just keep rerunning the same notion with wrong-for-here material dubbed from elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's notable precisely because his rate of falsehoods is far beyond anyone else in politics. You ask where is the content, we have a whole subsection on False and misleading statements. You ask where the cites are, here they are,[1][2][3][4][5] and also in the article. starship.paint ~ KO 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in US politics.
  2. ^ Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2019. "When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?" presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.
  3. ^ Glasser, Susan (August 3, 2018). "It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 10, 2019. ... the President's unprecedented record of untruths ...
  4. ^ Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2018. Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.
  5. ^ Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication., New York Times (August 7, 2017). "President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level."
User:Starship.paint Sigh. Let me detail out some of what’s looking wrong or deceptive or at least not good practice as an approach and not focused to LEAD or V. (There are nice aspects too ... It’s very good in that it clearly stated content and tagged folks from before. But since it did not address prior objections, and seems to have difficulty in seeing / understanding / accepting any other aspects, and seems intending to repeat or override rather than responding to the concerns.) The proposal is made on the basis of
  • “This mirrors the Donald Trump article”, as if that matters here or for LEAD
  • Being “virtually identical”, which reads as ‘I didn’t like that consensus so here’s my personal rewrite’
  • Also, adding a wikilink is odd/unexplained, not exactly LEAD basis and this link is to not something of Presidency scope and a page argued as a generic POV fork and ATTACK page, with DUE issues and a title that seems sarcasm or at least not followed. (The Veracity of statements by Donald Trump goes into even trivial things wrong, not on ‘Veracity’)
  • No reference to parts of WP:LEAD
  • No reference to the topic of this article and avoiding WP:OFFTOPIC
  • Not mentioning prior consensus (consensuses?) here were without this and prior discussions on similar addition particularly two recent threads
  • Misguided sounding phrasing of appeals to NOTABLE ... I.e. deserving its own separate article,
So... I read a response to LEAD and V that began with an assertion not related to LEAD or V as a bit of unsupported posturing... and various other assertions not simply responding to the lead of this article by LEAD and topic of this article with guidance quote bits and pointing to article content here ... just seems an indication the proposal cannot do so. Assertions made as if personal opinion that it is ‘notable’ or thought ‘important’ are all very well — but that would not suffice as sole POV even in body, and seems nothing to argue it fits LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course consensus on the lede of the Donald Trump article matters. Much of the content ledes are similar, and this content is not about his business / TV stuff before his Presidency.
  • I didn't do a personal rewrite. The text is exactly the same. The only difference is the wiki-link.
  • The wiki-link is relevant, the other page is content on false and misleading statements by Donald Trump, including during his presidency.
  • The proposed text is relevant to the topic of the article, Trump is making many false and misleading statements both leading up to and during his presidency.
  • Relevance to WP:LEAD: includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more ... Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole. Trump's lies are significant and have received much coverage:
  • With the lack of a definitive consensus in the recent discussions as listed above on this page, this proposal seeks to determine consensus now. starship.paint ~ KO 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One of my links above was not valid. As such I have taken the liberty to find more links. Trump's false statements are clearly significant enough to his presidency to be included in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since this had achieved consensus previously why ISN'T this in the lede NOW? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • False premise. Maybe it was unclear the rfc was elsewhere, and not about this proposal. This runs contrary to what was/is consensus for lead. It had not achieved consensus here, it had a kinda-sorta rfc in another article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Trump's main claim to fame so far is the lack of veracity in his statements. We even have an article on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per all the good reasons already stated on the main article. I agree with Marek that there is no reason not to put this in the article now. The proposed content is a highly significant point about the Trump presidency. Does anyone actually refute that? - MrX 🖋 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, refute it as unproven and basically still not even worked on. The first thread is still at the top of TALK here, failed ONUS of there was not consensus for material such as this — basically soibangla just dropped the thread at “This revert should be reverted”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - matches main article, and highly significant point about the Trump presidency. Neutralitytalk 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Neutrality ‘matches other article’ does not suit WP:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A strong and obvious consensus that material belongs on the parent article lead section is obviously illustrative for a lead section on a subtopic article. And you missed the second part of my post: this is a highly significant point about the Trump president (as the cited sources so). And is there really a need for you to respond to every comment? Neutralitytalk 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Neutrality obviously not, but when they’re talking to me or my point then a response is invited. As to your second part ...I took that as just flamboyant hyberbolic, meaning nothing. If you’re seriously wanting me to consider that as a point, then explain it — I ask you to show how “highly significant” is something other than just hyperbole. I don’t see that in common phrasing from RS, and it’s not the mathematical meaning e.g. over 30% of coverage (it seems a low percentage of articles are on it from a relatively few sources), and it’s not a reference to some objectively measured consequence of his remarks, and it’s not a big portion of the article — not a lot of things to even say on the topic. So what is “highly” significant mean? RSVP, cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
and I take the lack of explanation to mean it was just bloviating... Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The many, many sources cited by starship.paint above directly speak to the historical significance of the unprecedented scope of false and misleading statements. And I'd ask you not to be rude, thank you. Neutralitytalk 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Neutrality pfft. You complained I hadn’t noted the apparently empty hyperbole part, now complain when I give it serious attention. Make up your mind. Meanwhile, pointing at a seeming semi-random ten cites to some pretty low-prominence-pubs of little relationship that aren’t in the article and aren’t about “significance” and saying “many many” sounds like that’s pretty much more casual hyperbole, as that’s a pretty trivial level of significance. Anyone could get twice as many of far bigger prominence about Melanias shoes. So second part now noted, still looks like empty hyperbole. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, and multiple-peer-reviewed journals are not "low-prominence-pubs." Neutralitytalk 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You pointed to ten other cites that *are* wimpy as why you said “highly significant”. Now you’re just naming publishers without specifying a cite. Just seems like trying - badly - to hunt about for something. Look, I asked for what you meant by the apparent empty hyperbole “highly significant”. You produced nothing, and now produced two different stories more. No need to keep grasping for my sake, I’m ok with it being just hyperbole. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The grey box that says Sources [show] has New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker etc. Also, I can't really take you seriously with your previous comment that Anyone could get twice as many of far bigger prominence about Melanias shoes. starship.paint ~ KO 07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (against my better judgement) User:Starship.paint Well thanks for the clarification. Still have Neutrality changing about where he was pointing, and never did get his meaning for “highly significant”. So empty hyperbole. As to your taking me seriously that Melanias shoes coverage far exceeds the teeny prominence of list “Informal logic journal”, “American ethnologist”, “Qualitative Inquiry journal”, etcetera he was saying showed “historical significance”? I’ll just suggest we have WP:WEIGHT which applies, and WP:V is a lot more direct and verifiable about her shoes than about the vague aspersions. Neutrality’s “historical significance” here seemed just flailing to defend the first empty hyperbole with another or with WP:OR. Again, no need to flail around trying to find some way to defend it for my sake, the not having a description/definition in hand was enough to know there really wasn’t one. And I’m OK that TALK had some empty hyperbole in it, and really it isn’t needed or helpful to TALK by trying further to find potential backfill on it. Cheers and Over & out again. Markbassett (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You're still disputing WP:V? We do have direct, verifiable sources. They are quoted above in the grey box. As for the other sources, we have books by notable authors, including Pulitzer prizes winning ones. The journals, Informal Logic might be a minor one, but American Ethnologist's citation reports rank is 14/85 for anthropology, and Qualitative Inquirys citation reports rank is 10/98 for social sciences. Not as teeny or wimpy as you describe. starship.paint ~ KO 02:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint Don’t be silly. Duping content from another article meant it is not summarizing the article - not following WP:Lead - and lacks the cites of that other article body - thus failing WP:V. A grey box tucked somewhere in TALK of the article also does not satisfy WP:V for article content. The specific 5 cites in the grey box seem to have 3 that are helpful but insufficient to support the breadth of the claim or the prominence in this article. For the teeny pubs prominence, you’re saying this is no better than 10th or 14th hence lacks prominence or consensus even in those small ponds — it then looks more like Google just found some very remote instances. Citing circulation or Alexa numbers might allow better perspective anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint - To give advance notice and ask your thoughts re venue.... I think it best to ping some appropriate V and LEAD forum(s) to ask for some more inputs and policy clarification about ‘the cites and content summarized are elsewhere’ question. I am thinking WT:LEAD for Lead and WP:RSN or WT:V for V, as the WP:VPP combined forum seems more for proposals. Please ping back if you've thoughts for better venue. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It’s been over a week there, and has gotten the suggestion to mark it as WP:CWW. I’ll give it another day or so to see if anything else appears and then give it a try. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Its been a week and no further inputs since concern voiced that it should be visible too, and the RSN is now archived here. So I will now insert some CWW notation. This item was copied

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose- There's no need for this, other than to make the article even more negative than it already is. Name any political office holder and I guarantee I can find false or misleading statements that he or she has made. Reminds me of an old joke: How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment- User:Markbassett is right, there should have been an attempt to get more input here since it appears select editors were canvassed here, rather than all editors that regularly edit the page or have participated in discussions about the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rusf10: - it wasn't canvassing, there was a related discussion about the lede on 8 January 2019, it wasn't archived at the moment I made this post, I pinged everyone who participated in that discussion. If you regularly edit this page and watchlist it, you would see this discussion. starship.paint ~ KO 02:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: and why were the participants of that paticular discussion chosen and not those of the more recent discussion about the lead on Jan 23. This would have also included @MelanieN and JFG:.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rusf10: - the 8 Jan discussion was very related to this one, it was similar topic. The 23 Jan discussion was not related, it was on polling. The two users you mentioned had the chance to reply to the earlier discussion but didn't. starship.paint ~ KO 03:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

For WP:V concerns, I managed to find more sources. I will list them together with what was already found above, so you'll see repeats. There's American Ethnologist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker, The Toronto Star, CNN, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

[1] starship.paint ~ KO 03:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ Sources:
    1. McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented."
    2. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level.
    3. Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2019. “When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?” presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.
    4. Konnikova, Maria. "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico. Retrieved March 4, 2019. All presidents lie ... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent."
    5. Barabak, Mark (February 6, 2017). "There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations — on matters large and wincingly small — place him "in a class by himself," as Texas A&M;'s George Edwards put it.
    6. Glasser, Susan (August 3, 2018). "It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 10, 2019. for the President’s unprecedented record of untruths ... the previous gold standard in Presidential lying was, of course, Richard Nixon ... the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan.
    7. Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". The Toronto Star. Retrieved March 4, 2019. “We’ve had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we’ve never had a serial liar before. And that’s what we’re dealing with here,” said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian.
    8. Cillizza, Chris (May 9, 2018). "President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days". CNN. Retrieved March 4, 2019. We've never had a president with such a casual relationship to the truth ... The sheer rate of Trump's untruth-telling is staggering. It is unprecedented.
    9. Skjeseth, Heidi Taksdal (2017). "All the president's lies: Media coverage of lies in the US and France" (PDF). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.
These are a bunch of opinion pieces. And putting these opinions in the lead and stating it as fact is very misleading at best.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rusf10: - are you saying all of these are opinion pieces? Which ones exactly, can you be clear? The first source is a journal article, you know? starship.paint ~ KO 04:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of them are opinion pieces and some are not, like the last two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: - in the interests of transparency, as I asked above, could you also state which you believe are the opinion pieces? starship.paint ~ KO 04:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and I'm pretty sure there already was consensus to include this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Not at this article. The top of this thread points to the BLP article RFC consensus (now in archive 95 there) to have a similar line on the topic. In this article there was an insert by Soiblanga but discussion about reverting its revert fell dormant (now in archive 7) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most noteworthy and well-covered aspects of Trump's presidency. This material absolutely belongs high-up in the lead section. If there wasn't consensus to include it before, there is now. R2 (bleep) 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The proposed edit is the mildest possible way to characterize who is indisputably the most fundamentally dishonest man ever to be POTUS, and quite likely in the history of American public life. This is not a partisan matter, it's not TDS, it's a fact: we've never seen a liar like him. It's utterly astonishing anyone can still be disputing this, but I will stop short of characterizing their motives or states of mind. Let's get this over with and lock it down, both here and in his BLP. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is simply a matter of fact and extraordinary well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Largely due to the consensus on the main Donald Trump article. It makes sense to also include this proposal, or something similar to it, in the lead of this article.Worldlywise (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Criminal justice

This article is a farce. Under the heading "Criminal justice" we can read various criticisms of Trump, but not a word about the bill on criminal justice reform that he passed. That would seem to me the most significant thing to state under this header, given that this issue had been under debate for decades. Can somebody add something? — JFG talk 23:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:JFG - agree the section is given to criticisms (I think overly NYTimes and too much quotes) and is under-informative. Somewhat WP is following coverage that is a bit overly given to criticisms and sensationalism too, e.g. any cites to NYTimes or MSNBC. Suggest you propose or just add a para on the factual event of criminal justice reform happening. Suggest not just ‘he passed’ — could focus here on his part, can also mention Winona Judd, bipartisan, wikilink to First Step Act etcetera. Maybe pull from USA Today or BBC or Vox or Washington Examiner or.... anyone not the NY Times. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Was there extensive coverage about his role in criminal justice reform? If there was, I missed it.- MrX 🖋 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
As long as he signed the bill, he gets credit for it as something his administration did. That's how it works. The bill should certainly be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course he gets credit for it, but are you suggesting that we should automatically include every bill he signs in this article? If not, what makes this one stand out from the 100+ others? - MrX 🖋 16:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Eh. As long as he keeps it to the body section and a modest length, there is not a lot to justify -- mostly that it is not OFFTOPIC and is factually correct. But if you want an alternative view, a metric of whether this Act is one of his more prominent ones, try this : From those at List of acts of the 115th United States Congress, about 400 total and this one of the circa 30 with articles ... what 10 are bigger for him ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, we can add text on that.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the source; I have added a short description. — JFG talk 03:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing POV election details

Yesterday I removed from the lead's first paragraph details of the electoral college and popular vote,[4] and mention of Russian interference,[5] stating that both of these prominent phrases were unduly placing Trump's presidency under suspicion of illegitimacy. Today I was reverted,[6] so let's discuss. The contested content is:

While Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, he won the Electoral College vote, 304 to 227, in a presidential contest that American intelligence agencies concluded was targeted by a Russian sabotage campaign.

These events are not germane to Trump's presidency, the subject of this article. They are relevant to the 2016 election and are duly noted there. The Russian interference and investigation thereof are covered by a long paragraph at the end of the lead, so readers don't need such innuendo in the first paragraph. — JFG talk 14:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems relevant to note that it was a close and contentious election. Seems like how it would be written for an old-timey "presidency of X" article, so it likely has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I could see removing the last part , in a presidential contest that American intelligence agencies concluded was targeted by a Russian sabotage campaign as it is making a POV comparison. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
JFG, I strongly disagree with removing this and I’m glad it has been restored while we discuss. The issues about the election are very much a part of his presidency, and are part of what history will remember about him, long after the regulations he overturned are forgotten. Furthermore, the popular vote issue has been discussed over and over at Donald Trump and there has always been a strong consensus that it belongs in the lead there - an article which is about his entire life and biography. It certainly belongs in a more focused article about his presidency. I could go along with leaving the Russia interference out of that sentence, since it is detailed later in the lead. In other words I agree with both Snoogans and PackMecEng. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Just for reference the last part was added by Tree Falling In The Forest here in December. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your coments. Russian interference is detailed below, so should be removed from this intro sentence. Details of the popular vote could remain, but should be in my opinion formulated in a more neutral way. The current phrasing starts by "Trump lost the popular vote", and only then kind of concedes that he won the election thanks to the Electoral College. That's totally backwards: the United States presidential election is and has always been the sum of winner-takes-all state elections. The total number of votes in the nation is but a statistical indicator; it has absolutely no weight in the electoral process. Wikipedia should not be in the business of perpetrating political feuds by throwing shade on the longstanding constitutional process of a country. If U.S. legislators start serious moves to change this process, we'll talk about it at that time. — JFG talk 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
We could reverse the order of the sentence - emphasizing that he won. Something like "He won in the electoral college, 304 to 227, although he failed to get a majority of the popular vote." Personally I have never liked the formulation of "losing" the popular vote; that's not how it works. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN: I think there is an important distinction between "failing to get a majority of the popular vote" and "losing the popular vote" - Clinton 1992 won the popular vote (i.e., he got more votes that H.W. Bush and Perot), but did not get a majority of popular vote. It is much more rare for someone to win the presidency while actually losing the popular vote, like Trump (who got fewer votes than Clinton). The former has happened 19 times, the latter has happened only 5 times. That's a significant historical distinction. Neutralitytalk 18:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the proposal to remove this material. The idea that this is "not germane to Trump's presidency" is simply not consistent with reality; these facts deal with how he came into the presidency, which is historically significant, as reflected by the reliable sources, and are important for the reader. Neutralitytalk 18:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Neutrality: Are you talking about the electoral college, the Russian interference, or both? — JFG talk 19:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Both. The Russian interference is addressed later on in the lead section, but given the way the whole affair has been a dominant theme of the presidency, I think a brief mention in the first paragraph is helpful. Neutralitytalk 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the material should be retained. It was extensively covered in sources and reflects historically significant events.- MrX 🖋 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how you all can condone that the first paragraph that readers see about Trump's presidency could be tainted by a phrasing of "Russian sabotage" which insinuates an illegitimate election, especially as this affair is treated in great detail further in the lead section. I'm ready to discuss the wording about the electoral college vs popular vote, but this "sabotage" thing must go. In the face of opposition here, I see no other way than starting an RfC. That would need however both statements to be decided separately, so probably two RfCs. I'm too tired to start this process tonight, though. Let's see if other people comment. — JFG talk 23:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, let’s see where we are at this point:

  • Keep the Russia sabotage stuff from the first paragraph: Neutrality, MrX, PunxtawneyPickle.
  • Remove the Russia sabotage stuff from the first paragraph: JFG, PackMecEng, MelanieN.
  • As for the popular vote thing, we seem to want to keep it but have some disagreement. about how to word it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Neutrality. I disagree strenuously with MelanieN and her methodology. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Arguments/reasoning matter too. Since I was merely tabulating, I didn't repeat what I think is the very strong argument for not including it in the first paragraph: there is already detailed coverage in the lead on that same subject, in the fourth paragraph, so it seems at best redundant and at worst POV to point out the Russia sabotage TWICE, in both the first and the fourth paragraph of the lead. The arguments for putting it in the first paragraph seem rather weak, or don't even really address fact that it is already in the lead in some detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:JFG - Yes. Just a couple words such as “surprise victory” and “Russian interference” isall that’s needed, the line length and phrasing is excess and POV. Really the whole first para needs a deep cleaning, and the whole lead needs a serious diet. Maybe the reasoning needs a bit more detailed and varied shaming added.

  • I agree the electoral bit is POV, there are explicit statements the morning after (Democrat party speaking ‘what now’, though mostly Michael Moore comes to mind) saying to push this line that seems never before in leads and functionally not very relevant.
  • But to me mostly it seems dated and a bit OFFTOPIC. It was something said relatively common in the post election reflection when there was nothing else to cover (criticise) but is not part of the post-inauguration ‘Presidency’ topic events and is a tiny (increasingly so) part of total coverage.
  • Shorten. Cut the excessively flowery phrasing at the least, preferably the whole as the ideal seems appropriate from the guidance of WP:LEAD and the example precedent of EVERY OTHER presidency article managing to do a summary for four or eight years in ONE screen, not taking three screens for the first half-term. Does the lead for Presidency of George W. Bush blather on about his even more contentious election in 2000? No, it simply says “very close victory”. Does Presidency of Bill Clinton show counts or electoral and popular kind? No, it just says “decisive victory”. Does Presidency of Ronald Reagan or Presidency of Richard Nixon or anywhere else make Lead mention of election almost as big as the body part ? No.
  • The Russian part is certainly part of Democrats effort to... mmm, “delegitimise” is motive/goal for some, though I’d add also “weaken” or just “get press” for others are more commonly mentioned motives/goals. This part seems more enduring and actually part of the Presidency period, but again shorten or eliminate. It’s in the index, if the lead would stop and just lets folks get on to that.
  • POV phrasing there as well “Russian sabotage” is more commonly said “Russian interference”, and really the election was more remarked and affected by the thankfully (but POVishly) absent Hillary Clinton email controversy, yes?
  • Outdated - Yes, “American intelligence agencies concluded” is very 2016. We’ve long since had more details and events and a Mueller report, long since past the need to attribute or caveat this.
  • Just a couple words “Russian interference” (wikilinked) is plenty for Lead. Again, lead names parts of the article, gives a link... it isn’t supposed to blather on. That’s what we have this TALK for ;-)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Just a comment: describing the 2000 election as a "very close victory" is like describing World War II as a "foreign policy disagreement.") -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have removed the "sabotage" part, because Russian interference is already covered at length later in the lead section. Open to debate for the electoral college vs popular vote wording. — JFG talk 08:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with removing the Russian stuff from the first paragraph. About the electoral stuff, I agree with your opinion that we should not put the popular vote issue first in the sentence about his election, as it now is. How about this: Trump was elected by a 304 to 227 vote in the Electoral College, although he received fewer popular votes than his opponent. I have never liked the "lost the popular vote" format since it isn't an actual contest that can be won or lost. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I am not seeing any clear consensus for removing all reference to Russian interference from the lead section. I have restored the material pending further discussion, but with "interference" in place of "sabotage," since that word seems to be more contentious among editors. If this is still unacceptable to you, and you want to start an clear and neutrally worded RfC to seek the removal of this longstanding content, then I would happily participate.
I would add that the material later on in the lead section primarily deals with investigations into the Russian interference, not the fact of the interference itself, so the materials are not duplicative. And it seems weird to omit mention of the interference from the discussion about the election itself, because that was the focus on the interference. Neutralitytalk 17:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's trade war

I added (most of) this material to the lead in January:

"He enacted tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and other goods, triggering retaliatory tariffs from Canada and the European Union, and a trade war with China."

It was removed at some point. I'm starting this discussion to see if anyone has a good reason why we would omit something so significant.- MrX 🖋 22:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This should of course be in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this seems appropriate to include. Neutralitytalk 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Me three. Restore it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Belongs as a major thread of the presidency. — JFG talk 23:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done,  Done,  Done, and  Done. - MrX 🖋 23:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not Wp:LEAD Material. Going to revert what was stated as contrary to long standing content and not stated as explicit RFC or consensus as is norm for LEAD here. Follow BRD for at least SOME plausible discussion or at least a 48 hour waiting period. A one-sided discussion of 15 minutes and no inputs has little merit or authority, and is a precedent that would open this lead to (further) edit warring. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, would you be so kind as to substantiate why you think Trump's trade war is "Not Wp:LEAD Material" given its extensive media coverage and significant impact to manufacturers, farmers, and the stock market?[7][8] Also, please explain under what Wikipedia policy you derive the right to insist that we discuss this for at least 48 hours when a 5:1 consensus exist now to include this material in the lead? Finally, why do you instruct us to follow BRD, when that is precisely what I did? - MrX 🖋 11:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
User:MrX you did START to follow BRD, except missed the D part of discussion - especially substantive ONUS presentation on your side, discussion with the person(s) who removed your content circa January, responding to any TALK points from then, addressing the long-standing content (de facto consensus) and looking at any prior explicit remarks or TALK. Given that edits straight to lead are for this article very iffy and that trying to revisit past rejections is something that would bog things even further... I’m dubious you should pursue this. I *am* sure that wasn’t a plausible BRD for any article, let alone the lead of this one. Whether 48 hours is enough would be a good question - perhaps 7 days is more appropriate, but I *am* sure that 15 minutes is not reputable, nor is one-sided. If you want to propose that past removals or consensus here can be reversed by any three editors having a one-sided 15 minute TALK post ... Go ahead and float that one as a TALK thread for a standard. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what is the world are you talking about Markbassett? You didn't answer the most important two of my questions. I'm straining to see this as anything other than WP:STONEWALLING.- MrX 🖋 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
User:MrX You're saying this is BRD, then follow WP:BRD -- clearly says Discuss "with the person who reverted your contribution." I'm not sure this was in the article in January, looking back a couple months I do not see it. But for this article and given the length of time lapsed, a minimum BRD discussion would seem to be (0) ping to the deleter, (1) a wikilink to your addition, (2) a wikilink to their removal, (3) quote the comment of their deletion and (4) wikilink any TALK of those times, which I don't think there was, and (5) some narrative response to their objections. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we're not beholden to your special rules of engagement, and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to discuss this with you when it is obvious that you have no valid, policy-based reason for objecting to the actual content. Good day sir. - MrX 🖋 22:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
User:MrX I regret you have no desire to fully pursue BRD in my suggestions or other ways, nor respect for this article’s guidance or other views. That you do not feel beholden to discuss with that earlier editor who deleted, nor respect procedural objections, is obvious. Again, I think it would be better if you were less ready to outrage, tried to read and understand more, maybe watched more BBC and less MSNBC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
You're really testing my patience with your personal comments and badgering. For your information, I don't watch MSNBC at all.- MrX 🖋 13:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
User:MrX That factually I can call out BRD procedural fouls is on you, not me. Up to you how much you do supportive of policy, guides, essays, and generally nice calm slow collaboration or not. OK if you don’t watch MSNBC, though I’d suggest just add BBC would be better to get used to many POVs. And that suggestion applies also to print — read less NY Times and more London Times. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support. He started a fight (economically) with one of America's closest allies and two potential superpowers. Plus, he's a Republican who is against free trade. starship.paint (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

OK now there are 6:1 in favor of this material. Would someone please restore it?- MrX 🖋 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done Per clear consensus here. There is no need to wait a week for discussion on every disputed edit, although obviously discussion can continue to allow for more input. When an issue is important enough to have its own article, Trump tariffs, it is hard to justify omitting it from the lede. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User:MelanieN - that seems not very reputable procedure there, rushing and poor reasoning -- was this put forward based on WP:LEAD ? No. Did they follow WP:BRD for the basis that was stated ? No. Were ANY of the past objections acknowledged or responded to ? No. And there are currently over 1,000 Trump articles so it hardly seems a plausible basis to say as why it should be in the lead here. Seriously, allow some time for things before taking any actions. Is suggesting that any afternoon I and two like-minded fellows are the only ones online it would be fine to ditch any prior consensus seems a recipe for edit wars ? Yes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Family separation in the lead

Trump's family separation policy was last discussed on this page a little less than a year ago. Given that it is still being covered in the press and is one the hallmarks of his presidency, I think we should acknowledge it in the lead. - MrX 🖋 22:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Got any proposed wording? Probably should be just a single sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No, this is a complex issue too difficult to clearly address in the lead. Do update it in the body. — JFG talk 23:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't have to address the complexity in the lead, but I think we should at least introduce it. Let me see if I can come up with something short that might work, unless someone else comes up with something first.- MrX 🖋 23:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No, this is a complex issue too difficult to clearly address in the lead' - unlike... let's see, climate change, health care, financial regulation, and international trade? Right. Those aren't "complex" at all, but taking kids from their parents is. Got it. Come on man! Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This definitely belongs in the lede. It's something this administration and the individuals in it will be renowned for. Something as simply as "The administration implemented a policy of separating parents and children accused of crossing over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally." That's what the Kirstjen Nielsen lede basically says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I don’t think this meets WP:LEAD for an individual mention in size of coverage or effect. (Not in the top 10 either way is my impression.) And especially not a request for carte Blanche permission w/o any nature of wording mention in the context of an already bloated lead gone for flowery sentences instead of just identify (name) the key topics. Feel free to do your own top ten lists and see — what would you say has less coverage/effect than this? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: This was been extensively covered for a year[9] and it continues to be covered up to this day[10][11][12]. It's resulted in scathing international condemnation, major protests across the country, numerous lawsuits, congressional hearings, and the resignation of the homeland security secretary.[13][14] It is by far the most controversial policy of Trump's presidency, if not any president since FDR put American citizens in interment camps 77 years ago. We have a 14,000+ word article that cites 321 sources. Can you please provide policy-based reasoning why you think that this isn't important enough, but you're OK leaving other material in the lead such as the partial Dodd-Frank repeal, TPP, recognizing Jerusalem (with it's fleeting coverage), or Trump's very stable approval rating? - MrX 🖋 13:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It most certainly belongs in the lead (and thanks to MrX for the great summation). Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
User:MrX - Not every item is vital. This policy topic factually is relatively small in coverage and impact -- the key "relatively" is what determines LEAD items. That it has been intermittently covered at a low level for a year does nothing for that. Many silly nits of Trump have been extensively covered for two years, so that this one was hot, went away from headlines prominence and then popped up in this week feeds means it is just middling in this arena. Seems to me more like the bigger topics of 'Collusion' being over, the press is resorting to secondary items to fill the space. That there were protests or demonstrations ... same story, many other items have bigger examples there too. As to "the most controversial" ... that's a finally a basis that is actually in WP:LEAD, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" you'll have to show the metric evidencing and justifying such a claim, and p.s. Japanese Internment was not all that controversial in 1940s. Otherwise ... please explain where in WP:LEAD or any WP policy you see "hallmark" and how to determine what it is -- or better yet, demonstrate if this is a high importance item by naming the top 10 topics for LEAD that maybe includes this, and/or naming several current LEAD items (particularly criticisms) you think would be acceptable to cut out to make room for this one. If it's not able to show it matches WP:LEAD guidance and you're not feeling it is more important than something else already here then it's not seeming like it should be talking LEAD. Belongs in BODY yes, bu not in LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you really just characterize Trump's family separation policy as a "silly nit"? My God! I have already explained (above), with specific reasons, why this is so significant. I have already named four items in the lead which are far less significant, far less impactful, and that have been covered far less extensively in reliable sources. I decline to name 10. The lead introduces the significant points covered in the article. One shouldn't need to parse the language of the MOS to know that. - MrX 🖋 00:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
User:MrX No, I didn’t say that. (You really should be less ready to outrage - try to read and understand other views more carefully, view BBC more than MSNBC.) The separation story is not among the top ten topics of his Presidency. It got relatively little coverage scattered among a year, which is not impressive as many silly nits have two years and more coverage than that. So this is notable but secondary and seems like it should be at least a para to maybe a sub-subsection of BODY. BODY yes, LEAD no. If you cannot make enough effort to think of what the top 10 are or are unwilling to do reasoning based on WP:LEAD, consider that as indicative that this cannot satisfy ‘most important contents’ or counter it with some other LEAD criteria and just has not been justified as LEAD material. Those should be easy and clear for any clear LEAD item, and get more difficult as one goes down their list, but should not be hard to discuss for anything that is a serious contender. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett - you say relatively little coverage scattered among a year, which is not impressive as many silly nits have two years and more coverage than that - do you know why it has scattered coverage? Because the sheer outrage and protest at this policy led to the administration reversing course in less than three months. This speaks volumes about the impact of the policy. You say many silly nits have two years and more coverage than that. - many? please list 10 then, since you are a fan of top 10 lists? starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Seems of interest for me, though note I asked for you to think of such mostly as a lead to relative importance (or WEIGHT) by doing so. Please indicate what use you intend for it — is this a serious question of personal interest, an edit intent to use in change the header, a rhetorical request not intended to be answered, a whimsical request ... what? Knowing that would shape the kind of details I should provide. Also, I have a concern here that I keep talking facts and policy or guidelines and perspective in overall picture — and hear lots of emotional posturing instead. I’m dubious that my producing more detailed facts would alter that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett - well, if you want something productive, if there's any of the many silly nits have two years and more coverage than that. that isn't in the lede, I'd like to know, so I can judge and maybe help argue for inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Okay, though note looking for my mentioned “many small nits” with numbers showing got more coverage than this is not the same as a “top ten” biggest coverage sillinesses that would be serious LEAD candidates. (The smallest covered ones bigger than this, not the largest silly things.). Things like “small hands” or “Jane Doe” just not reputable by size or qualities. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett - I'm sorry. I can't understand what you said. starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint I’m saying that making a list of “many silly nits of Trump” seems unlikely to be useful for LEAD inclusion, though sure you can check. Things like “small hands” just don’t seem likely candidates, from no impact to the world and (like this thread) having a relatively low WEIGHT among many other Trump items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - indeed, I agree, so silly nits need not be included even if they run for two years. Thus, length of coverage is not the only factor in determining the importance of a topic. So this topic (family separations), even if it doesn't have continuous two year coverage, may still be considered important enough. starship.paint (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint How are you meaning “important” ? If a relatively low importance to the topic by WEIGHT and impact to the subject or defining the article scope are not the means of determination, I’m dubious what you are meaning by “important”. Having something of shorter duration coverage would seem to require it be off greater impact such as some relatively recent item of overwhelming nature. Just not the case here - this hasn’t strongly affected the course of the presidency and declined sharply in coverage until this last week it hit the feeds a bit again. So I’m not seeing how you conclude relative importance enough to be LEAD. Can you explain further ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - hasn’t strongly affected the course of the presidency and declined sharply in coverage until this last week it hit the feeds a bit again - (1) because the administration was forced to reverse course after two months because of how awful the policy was. Naturally it fell out of the news cycle when things supposedly go back to normal. The Trump administration reversing course on a major policy is exactly what points to its importance. (2) I'm hearing that the House Democrats are investigating now. Keeping in mind that the entire Congress was in Republican control during the previous session, it's of no surprise if the Republicans didn't investigate, and if there was no investigation, there's nothing in the news cycle. (3) some relatively recent item of overwhelming nature - so something recent is okay, some thing not recent is not okay? Just read the Reactions, that is overwhelming. starship.paint (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Orrrr... Something in place for only several weeks just did not have much duration, accumulated effect, and lacked time to do accumulation of WEIGHT in coverage. Was never a major policy with high level document signing and presser until his E.O. ending it, and was not big in news until after quietly in place for a while. His E.O. after that point makes this a short controversy and hence less relative to others - not as important to this topic so not LEAD. Also... that Trump changed position or that Democrats in the House are investigating are both kind of not at all special, both of those seem common or even the intended norm. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Suggest you look at dates on Reactions ... seems even more narrow than I said above, 90% + date from one week 14 June thru 21 June, and most of the rest from the week later. (Leaving church reactions to Sessions re Romans was slower, cite to Flores is years before, and quote of one Democrat posturing is recent.). So big deal in press for a couple months a week, by that article. (My recollection it was longer than that may have been off.). And effect to this article ... not seeing much actual difference to Presidency so far and lawsuits+Democrat investigations don’t look likely they would. Markbassett (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett - It's the breath of reactions that differentiates it from other issues and points to its impact. 1) Medical and scientific community. 2) Religious groups. 3) Academia. 4) Civil rights and humanitarian groups. 5) Governors. 6) UN and international bodies. 7_ All the living First Ladies. 8) U.S. chief federal prosecutors. 9) Business groups. 10) Airlines. This speaks for itself. On your other point - that Trump changed position or that Democrats in the House are investigating are both kind of not at all special - let's see more examples of Trump changing his position on a policy already implemented. If it's not special, I'm assuming there will be 10 over his presidency. We're about 60% in, so do you have 5 other examples of a U-turn of a major policy already implemented? Please don't quote some minor regulation. starship.paint (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Again, separation wasn’t a “major policy”, not extensive in detail or high level enactment or wide effect or deep implementation reach ... the only official or high level policy on it actually seems the E.O. to not separate and even that’s not a “major” policy. As to Trump changing positions, news reports put it as many as 4 in a day or as fast as Asylum seekers within 38 minutes, though I caveat NY Times, HuffPost, et al interpret whether a position was actual or if a detail constitutes a ‘reverse’ into fake news perhaps. Reported reverses of position by Trump include positions and actions for DACA, ACA, shutdown 1, shutdown 2, Mueller testifying, healthcare subsidies, Russia 2016, Great Lakes restoration, torturing terrorists, China tariffs, Asia trade pacts, Pentagon spending, troops in Syria, Special Olympics funding, Russia in Venezuela, NATO...think that’s enough. Now, whether you’d consider things like the couple hundred miles of Trump wall built so far a reversal on position when it went from Mexico will pay to being a National emergency is a more nuanced question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett I didn't ask you about mere reverses of position. I asked you about Trump changing his position on a policy already implemented. If it wasn't clear, it's about policies actually implemented by the Trump administration, then reversing that implementation. I don't know all your examples off-hand, but they haven't repealed the ACA, the shutdowns are not policies, neither is Mueller's testimony; the Special Olympics thing was only a proposal and never implemented. As for your other argument, important polices don't always have to be wide effect, instead, deep effect must also be considered. One example is torture, if an administration approved torture, assuredly, most people wouldn't be affected by it, but that does not mean it's a minor change. starship.paint (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Point still this wasn’t a “major policy”. (Lack of wide effect, yes ... AND lack of extensive detail, AND lack of high level implementation, AND lack of deep implementation reach.). Hasn’t shown much towards “important” either. “Reversal” or “Investigation” are also common. Lack of cumulative WEIGHT. Lack of duration. I’m seeing you say how you concluded relative importance enough for LEAD... but mostly it just doesn’t seem all that solid. I see ‘broad reaction’ and ‘forced’ nature of reversal as basically it so ... BODY yes, LEAD no. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, Trump loves to take credit where it isn't due - strong economy, low employment? That's wasn't Obama, that's Trump's work! TRUMP WALL IS BEING BUILT - except when it hasn't even started. But when it comes to family separation - Trump says "Obama did it first" (a lie). Why? Because it's cruel, and terrible, and Trump knows it. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Such an inhumane policy obviously deserves to be in the lede. Plus it’s on immigration, a key Trump hallmark. Officials didn’t even track how many children were really separated, and estimated that thousands more were separated than the official 2,737. This is easily one of the top ten items of the Trump presidency, if not the top five (I'd put the Russia stuff and climate change up there). How often did we see the Trump administration change course on a big policy? starship.paint (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The Trump administration implemented a "zero tolerance" policy of separating parents and children accused of crossing over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally, resulting in national and international outcry, then restricted the family separations two months after its official announcement.

starship.paint (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It should tell how they didn't track who the kids parents. Also they are in cages like dogs. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:36 (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
2600, that's for the body. Not the lede. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint's proposal is a good start but "... then restricted the family separations two months after its official announcement." is pretty vague. - MrX 🖋 13:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in the area. Gandydancer - you are the major author of that article - can you propose an improvement? starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that this is one of those cases where the information is so extraordinary that it must be kept either very, very brief or quite extensive with no choices in between. As the facts slowly leaked out it was discovered that they had been separating families with no intention of ever uniting them. And then as more facts leaked out it was found that thousands had been separated in the previous year as well, beginning shortly after Trump took office and of those thousands remain apart and perhaps will never be reunited. This has indeed been and continues to be a very black mark on our nation. For the lead I'd suggest your wording "The Trump administration implemented a "zero tolerance" policy of separating parents and children accused of crossing over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally, resulting in national and international outcry." and leave it at that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett - took you up on your question of top 10. starship.paint (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. Russia/Mueller investigation - A plague on his presidency through and through. Battle continues.
  2. Climate change - Thanks for dooming future generations, abdicates American global leadership, fulfilled major campaign promise.
  3. Family separations - Most outrageous policy. Investigations ongoing.
  4. Tax cuts - We've got to include a success somewhere, even if it's mostly for corporate and the rich. Would be lower if he actually had more legislative successes.
  5. Trump wall - #1 campaign promise? Quite a failure though. Battle continues. Would be higher if he succeeded.
  6. Supreme Court nominees - Another success, altering judicial landscape for decades.
  7. Tariffs and retaliations - Fulfilled major campaign promise, and got into a fight with America's closest allies and other potential superpowers. Battle continues.
  8. Iran deal withdrawal - Major campaign promise. Abdicates American global leadership, pissed off five powers plus the European Union.
  9. Healthcare - Major campaign promise, failed to institute Trumpcare. Most of Obamacare remains. Battle continues. Would be higher if he succeeded.
  10. Muslim ban. Major campaign promise. Sparked protests and many legal battles. starship.paint (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Thanks. Umm please also state what is this the top ten of and/or why — your intent for it? Are you proposing these in response to me as your count of largest in coverage, or proposing edits that these be the largest parts for LEAD, or is it just in the theme of ‘top ten’ from my mentions? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett - it's just my top ten. There is no singular factor going into it. We can't only go by coverage. starship.paint (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Family separation in the lead - First draft

Based on the obvious consensus to include something, and building on Starship.paint's wording, I have added this to the lead:

The Trump administration enforced a "zero tolerance" policy of detaining families unlawfully entering the U.S at the U.S.–Mexico border, controversially separating parents from their children, resulting in national and international outcry.

I'm not married to the specific wording, but I think it gives the briefest possible introduction to the topic.- MrX 🖋 14:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There is plenty of RS that states that both those that applied for entry at border crossings and those that came in illegally were separated. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
So should we remove the word "unlawfully" Gandydancer? It seems like that might be misleading.- MrX 🖋 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
ETA: I see you have already made the change. How do we make it clear to readers than not every family crossing the border was detained and separated?- MrX 🖋 17:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Gandydancer - please respond. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The separation policy was unlawful. Not the asylum seeking protected by US and international law. That word unlawful should be in front of Policy. Not refugees. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:6F (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Starship I have not responded because I have no information regarding how many of those crossing were detained and separated and how many were not, if in fact some actually were not. It is my understanding that they were all detained and separated. MrX will need to provide RS that explains his position suggesting that some were and some were not and hopefully enter that info at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: I don't have a "position suggesting that some were and some were not". My position is that families illegally entering the U.S (not all; just the ones who were apprehended) were detained and separated. Is that in dispute?- MrX 🖋 11:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is in dispute. Parents that presented at border crossings were separated from children as well, at least in some cases. See: [15] and there are other reports as well. It would be best to not use the word "illegally" in the lead information that we use. Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
OK.- MrX 🖋 18:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That some anecdotes exist of some illegally crossing who were not separated and some claiming legally presented yet were separated is a moot item if the wording is about the zero-tolerance policy. That there were reports/allegations the actual enforcement differed from the policy would be for lower level details or the separate article about this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_8&oldid=903821215"