Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2019

Correction: President Trump's comments were nit generally viewed as racist, only by his opponents. 96.60.208.54 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please see #Current consensus #30 Zingarese talk · contribs 04:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Had any impact on Trump's life - Biographical articles and re Presidents

Thought I should post here looking for good ways to identify proper content for an article named for a person, 'what fits here'. I will put in one criteria I've seen and said, and if you’ve got others please add to the mix — all measures needed, the question recurs frequently.

Particularly when the person is President there are other articles about them, and most new information about Donald Trump should not go here. There is guidance it should go into the most appropriate article, such as Presidency of Donald Trump, Donald Trump on social media, Mueller Report or a thousand other places listed in the wikiproject WP:TRUMP or dozens of the Donald Trump series.

So --what kinds of things would be up for consideration in whether something fits here ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • Significant effect/impact in their life seems a fairly common point in TALK discussions for what belongs in an article about a person, whether something is OFFTOPIC for an article about the person. This would be either major life decisions by the named person or events that had an effect on their life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Will it be appropriate for this article in the year 2050? - and/or the above. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be too hard to define a general rule that would get consensus. Let sources and editors evaluate the relevancy and timeliness of each statement. Actually this article is being pretty-well maintained with the current processes in place. — JFG talk 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist."

Since this is listed above in the current consensus section, I'm not going to attempt to change this without a discussion, but I think we should change the word from "perceived" to "characterized". It's very difficult to know what someone actually perceives, but it's certainly true that reliable sources have characterized some of his statements as racially charged or racist. Does anyone have a problem with this one-word change? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

May God have mercy upon your soul. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Good catch Rreagan007. Seems like a good idea to me. Gandydancer (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll do you one better: let's just remove "perceived as". That would be factual, verifiable, and a win-win.- MrX 🖋 21:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No: that would substantially change the meaning of the phrase, and thus go against the nuanced RfC consensus. — JFG talk 08:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was kind of the point, otherwise why are we having this discussion?- MrX 🖋 21:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"Characterized" is better, but not beholden to that. Many do "perceive" his comments as racially charged and or simply racist. I personally would not "characterize" it as that but I'm not a reliable source.--MONGO (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, "characterized" is more factual than "perceived". — JFG talk 08:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "Perceived" is better because it is the perception that matters, not the characterization. "Characterized" is what you would say if you didn't take the characterization seriously for whatever reason. zzz (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Support "characterized". Per OP, what we can see is more important than what we think we can infer. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it should remain as "perceived" per our original discussion. "Characterized" would be fine if we were talking about how a single reliable source reported it; however, we were talking about a preponderance of reliable sources. An overwhelming number of these sources described Trump's comments and actions as racially charged or racist, so being the good little Wikipedians that we are we watered it down to "perceived". Using "characterized" would give the false impression this wasn't a prevailing view. I stridently object to this proposed change. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how using the verb "characterized" would somehow give a "false impression this wasn't a prevailing view." Anything we write in the lead section is supposed to reflect the prevailing WP:DUE descriptions of the subject matter in RS, and we can state clearly that a lot of sources did characterize Trump's utterances as "racially charged" or plain racist. If you'll allow me to follow your "good little Wikipedians" trope, "characterized" is a lot less watered-down than "perceived". It also fits with the RfC outcome, in which the closer stated: feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. In the followup to that RfC, you yourself suggested to replace "perceived as" with "described as",[1] and that's almost synonymous with "characterized". — JFG talk 13:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Your last point is a strong one, in my opinion. Merriam-Webster lists "describe" as a synonym for "characterize". While their synonyms lists often seem loose and lacking in nuance, I think the definition (entry 1) suggests that the two words are pretty much interchangeable for this purpose, "characterize" being a fancier word for "describe" in this context. As you know from experience (phenomenon), I'm always opposed to applying connotations not supported by the dictionary. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Synonyms for perceived: look on, view, regard, consider, think of, judge, deem, appraise, assess, adjudge, figure (out), size up, value, rate, suppose, think, sum up, weigh up
"he was perceived as too negative"
Or: "he was characterized as too negative"
I'd say that "perceived" suggests opinions that may not actually be correct while "characterized" suggests a more grounded summation. I think...:=) Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to put a more concrete example on the differences between "perceived" and "characterized". "Perceive" seems to be a more subjective, individual act, whereas "characterized" is more of an objective, collective term. You would never say "reliable sources perceive Trumps statements as racist", but you would say "reliable sources characterize Trumps statements as racist". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's not what is meant by "perceived" in the way it is used. It is intended to briefly state that reliable sources report that Trump's actions and comments have been perceived by most people to have been racist and/or racially charged, not perceived by reliable sources. It's the perception of the people, not the perception of the media. That's why "characterized" won't work, because that would refer to how the media is describing Trump. I think people in this thread are confused by who is doing the perceiving/characterizing, and perhaps that is the true failure of the sentence in its current form. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    But how do reliable sources know what most people actually perceive? Perception is a subjective judgment, and the only person who truly knows how they are perceiving things is the person doing the perceiving. Someone writing about the perceptions of people other than himself would never be able to truly know what those other people were perceiving. Also, can you provide the reliable sources that say most people perceive his comments to be racist? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    It is not for us to decide how reliable sources know. It is enough that reliable sources say they know. If we are going to second guess reliable sources, Wikipedia is basically dead as a useful project. And no, I'm not going to go back and look up all the reliable sources because this was done already when a consensus formed around the current language. If you want to change that consensus, it is incumbent upon you to provide sources that back up that change. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    But the problem is that it is impossible for reliable sources to know what the subjective perceptions of other people actually are, because there is no way to independently verify the thoughts of another person. So if you still want to use "perceived" we would have to change the wording to something like "Many of his comments and actions have been claimed to have been perceived as racially charged or racist." Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    You're missing the point entirely. As Wikipedian's we must assume the reliable sources have reported these perceptions as fact (presumably through polling, etc.) and not try to second guess them. If we try to interpret these sources ourselves, putting in qualifiers like "claimed" in there to satisfy editors unhappy with reliable sources, we are engaging in original research. I understand some editors do not like the "mainstream media" from where most of our reliable sources come from, but that is just too bad because Wikipedia relies on those sources almost entirely. If you want to question the reporting of such sources, perhaps this isn't the right project for you. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a valid point in epistemology, but ordinary language operates under the assumption that the thoughts of other people are knowable to some degree. Philosophers will tell you that we have no way to verify anything, since all we have access to are our own perceptions. TFD (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey: I seriously doubt anybody could produce evidence that the preponderance of reliable sources support "perceived" to the exclusion of other words like "described" and "characterized". The fact is that "trying to interpret these sources ourselves" is what we all do, routinely, when it comes to the choice of specific nuanced words to use in paraphrasing those sources. Your own reasoning is loaded with what you call original research. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
(Re-indenting) I'm sorry, maybe I missed it, but is there a specific suggestion for a change in wording here? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, change from "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist." to "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that “characterized” is a more accurate statement. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tycoon24: See the open RfC on this below. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No obvious consensus here. I'll start an RfC. — JFG talk 06:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Donald Trump

Portal:Donald Trump has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Donald Trump during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do.107.217.84.95 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to streamline lead re false and misleading statements

Proposal. The preceding discussion notwithstanding, I propose the following change to the lead section. From:

To:

I hope editors will consider this a further, stylistic refinement of the existing language rather than a substantive change. The current language received consensus in February after an RfC. I could be mistaken but I believe this proposal doesn't violate the 5 points identified by the RfC closer.

Rationale. The primary rationale is that the proposed language is more concise, and currently the emphasis of the second sentence is all wrong, as both of its clauses are about the media's conduct rather than about Trump. Specifically with respect to each clause:

  • "The statements have been documented by fact-checkers" This is extremely milquetoast... Trump's false statements have been documented by fact checkers... So what? Every prominent politician's false statements have documented by fact checkers. This clause says more about fact checkers (and arguably about the political climate that led to the rise of fact checkers) that it does about Trump himself.
  • "and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." Just difficult to understand, because "the phenomenon" is so vague. I assume this refers to the frequency of Trump's false and misleading statements? If so, why don't we just say that? In addition, the "unprecedentedness" of Trump's false and misleading statements is a verifiable fact. We shouldn't be attributing this in-text to "the media," which violates WP:YESPOV (do not treat verifiable facts as opinions) and plays into Trump's war on the media and the concept that reliable sources are somehow on par with a politician's statements. I'd support removing the "as documented by fact-checkers" phrase, except that that would require overturning the existing consensus.

R2 (bleep) 19:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Too soon to revisit this. The content in question is the result of an RfC that was open for more than a month a mere few months ago, focused exclusively on that little bit of content, and received over 10,000 words from over 30 editors. One of the precious few editors willing to spend their time doing uninvolved closes spent a considerable amount of it assessing that consensus and writing the close. It is far too soon to seek to replace a consensus with that much invested in it. See also WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a wholesale replacement of the existing language, just a stylistic refinement. I don't think the recent consensus requires these sentences to be 100% locked in place verbatim. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that's no mere stylistic refinement. In any case, the time for your suggestion was during the aforementioned RfC. As you indicated, you missed it, and that's just how it goes sometimes. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm not such a procedural stickler. The community standard at issue here is WP:CCC, and specifically, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." I'm willing to withdraw my proposal if consensus forms that it's disruptive. R2 (bleep) 20:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah seems disruptive since it is not a particularly new argument. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't use the word disruptive even if that's the word used in CCC. I just expect a reasonable return on investment. There is never enough time to do everything that needs doing, so we have to prioritize and actively choose to let some things go. That means leaving this alone, freeing editor time for content that hasn't been exhaustively discussed within the past few months. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wasting editor time can be a mild form of disruption. Regardless, if a consensus forms that I'm wasting everyone's time, then I'll withdraw the proposal. R2 (bleep) 22:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not too soon, but lets not - seems this keeps getting revisited after a few months or several months, so I think its been long enough -- but I would suggest to not do it just for a wording tweak. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Updated to ‘Oppose’, agree with Mandruss that wiki voice is incorrect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: What's wrong with wikivoice? The false and misleading statements have been well-documented, there is no question they exist and have attracted wide coverage. R2's version expresses this state of affairs clearly and concisely. — JFG talk 13:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
User:JFG - I had missed it until seeing the later Mandruss Strong Oppose, having mostly an immediate “Not for just a tweak” reaction, but this proposal is ironically a bit false or misleading in presenting this as the last rfc was narrowly approving as something attributed and cited to them, see the closer statements. I also then noticed this proposed phrasing would be incorrect as a summary of the body (which is covering it as a small media bit) and of what seems external reality. It really isn’t a valid wiki voice as if a universal position since most media and fact-checkers just aren’t saying this. Most usually don’t go here, or only note occasionally something (e.g. at State of the union, BBC Reality Check found 6 right out of 7 statements) or are saying this is incorrect. (You can perhaps imagine how Fox or NYPost denounce Politifact and may portray Trump dismissal of Political correctness as being honest.) The extent this false statements is mentioned or counted actually seems narrow, like mostly the Washington Post, Politifact, and Toronto Star, with echoing from NY Times and CNN. Major WEIGHT there, but clearly not universal or even majority. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for conciseness and clarity of writing. The only substance this version would lose is the word "unprecedented", but that could be applied equally to every sentence in Trump's political career so far. As they say in typography, "when everything is bold, nothing is bold". — JFG talk 07:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. I didn't drop the word "unprecedented." R2 (bleep) 16:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, I didn't notice you had placed it earlier in the sentence. I still support the change. — JFG talk 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It includes the essence of the significant points with fewer words. How bad can that be? - MrX 🖋 10:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - It converts the "unprecedented" from attributed to wiki voice, hardly the minor change this is made out to be and directly contradictory to the hard-won existing consensus. The length of the content was pointed out and acknowledged in the very first sentence of the proposal, lest anyone fail to consider it, and the content was widely accepted anyway. Now, a few months later, it's an issue that needs fixing. This kind of change should require considerably more than a local survey of a handful of editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per others. The clause "as documented by fact-checkers" actually means "unprecedented" is in their voice, not wiki voice. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    The word "unprecedented" would fail WEIGHT if it rested solely on the few fact-checking organizations. Of the nine sources we currently cite to support the word in the body, only one—WaPo's Kessler—is listed at List of fact-checking websites#United States. Fact-checkers document the falsehoods but our word "unprecedented" rests primarily on material from other reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    Mandruss is right on this point, as above. This is not a mere stylistic change. Strong oppose the proposed change, it does not reflect the sources currently cited. starship.paint (edits | talk) 08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The close of the RfC said expressly: Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. I'm a little confused how the two of you are saying we shouldn't revisit the RfC, while arguing that we should depart from the closer's conclusions. R2 (bleep) 00:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't mean citing fact-checkers to the exclusion of everybody else. The closer ultimately said, Mandruss's proposal had the most support, and it passes all five criteria listed. The third of those five criteria, from which you quoted, was "citing 'fact-checkers'" and yet Mandruss's proposal attributed "unprecedented" to "the media", not fact-checkers. So I don't see how the closer could have meant what you say he meant.
But hey, let's spend a week or so analyzing a close statement so we might shorten a passage by 13 words, while dropping "in American politics", which was seen as important by some in the RfC, including one of our better editors, MelanieN.[2] Maybe we should bring the closer into this discussion? In my view, it's time to move on to something more worthwhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

As described by media and fact-checking organizations, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

This takes care of the Wiki-voice problem by putting the attribution (to both media and fact-checkers) up front, while preserving style and substance. Otherwise I generally agree with R2's points, especially #1: that Trump's falsehoods were documented by fact-checkers is trivial; we wouldn't be hearing about them otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Still a bit self-evident, but less wordy than previous version. I'd support that if R2's version is rejected. Regarding wikivoice, I don't think we should attribute anything in the lead -- if it's opinion or otherwise can't be stated in wikivoice, it doesn't belong there. The false and misleading statements have been well-documented, there is no question they exist and have attracted wide coverage, which is why R2's version is legit. — JFG talk 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
JFG, I believe you and I see exactly eye-to-eye on this issue. My same thoughts about in-text attribution in the lead. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Drops "in American politics" and increases maximum sentence length by 3 words, only to shorten the passage by 10 words. In my opinion there are more important things than reducing total word count to its absolute minimum, like the sum of my previous arguments. The 10,000-word RfC considered five "official" proposals, not counting things mentioned during discussion that never became "official". Here we have two more, and this can go on indefinitely as editors propose more better ideas that don't make that much real difference. If this seems obstructionist or POINTy, I'm sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Mandruss: I don't see anything in the RfC outcome or discussion that prevents editors from attempting to improve the clarity. All this weaseling about "people checked that he lied but are splitting hairs on how misleading or dangerous all these false statements are" is tiresome. Oh, and is it really unprecedented or is that just in America? Gosh! Let's call it a WP:SPADE and move on. — JFG talk 18:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Three months ago, a 71% consensus among fourteen editors, including a considerable amount of editing experience, scrutinized the status quo language and decided that it's clear enough. You're effectively claiming that they collectively failed to notice that it wasn't clear enough, after all.
    If we made your change and "moved on", I suspect you would not be receptive to revisiting this again in August, when another editor sees a compelling need for more more clarity that you don't see. I suspect you would argue that settled things should be allowed to remain settled for longer than a few months, particularly with that much invested in them. Or maybe I'm wrong, and you don't think inefficient use of limited volunteer editor time should concern us. On that we would have to agree to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    You suspect too much. Lighten up! I care for accuracy and conciseness, so I would welcome any further refinements to any text I helped draft. In fact, improving texts for clarity is the bulk of my daily work. WP:Readers first! — JFG talk 19:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sigh. I guess it's somehow unclear that my reasoning is all about WP:Readers first. As an argument, that's about as useful as WP:SENSE. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please Drop this. Went thru multiple discussions and RFCs for the existing line, this failed to state it intended to break with that consensus of NOT wikivoice so this thread smells a bit off to me. Descriptions in RS typically do attribute to a single fact-checker - only a few go into this extensively - so just follow the general RS. No change. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer my proposal since I don't particularly like the in-text attribution to the media, but this version is more concise and focused than the status quo without losing the essential bits, so it's a big step in the right direction. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Passive voice is best avoided, and Trump's lying has been documented by fact checkers, not just described by them.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jobs, jobs, jobs!

I think we need to include something about the strong economy and historically-low unemployment under Trump's presidency, probably under §Economy and trade. It should probably even be reflected very briefly in the lead. What do others think? - MrX 🖋 16:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Um...what wording do you propose?--MONGO (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You first. - MrX 🖋 17:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: - I'll try instead. NO COLLUSION. NO OBSTRUCTION. 18 ANGRY DEMOCRATS. RUSSIAN HOAX. SPYING! TREASON! (delete this if someone has a serious proposal posting here). starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
With jobs numbers out just today, I think we are going to have a hard time coming up with something presented from the historical perspective. Also, every mainstream economist agrees the "strong economy" was inherited from the previous administration, and the "historically-low" headline unemployment rate is largely down to a ton of people leaving the labor force this month. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves and the US economy is doing very well. It's strange that Trump would wish to ruin that by overheating the economy and punishing savers with an interest rate cut, but who knows what goes on in whatever inhabits the space between his ears? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI: private sector job creation during Trump's first 27 months is 5.5% lower than during the preceding 27 months soibangla (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI: it's much easier to create jobs when you inherit a strong economy from the previous administration, then when you inherit a recession from one. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI: The sky is blue for an amount of time most days. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey: You've got this backwards. It's much easier to create jobs when emerging out of a devastating recession than to keep growing the economy once the business cycle has returned to normal. — JFG talk 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a perennial debate, and as with most things, there are complexities. We certainly could not say Trump alone is responsible for historically low unemployment, however there should be some content that acknowledges his role. The New York Times captures it this way:

After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).
— The New York Times

.
The downsides to his policies will probably lag the first term of his presidency.- MrX 🖋 19:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll help craft something but it goes against my endless pleadings that we avoid recent news, even if they all say the same thing. Something simple like lowest unemployment levels since the late 60s and continued job growth overall in his first 2 plus years in office. Rather than caveat that with what he did or did not inherit or what the prognosticators are predicting just stick to a couple simple facts. It's obvious the economy is sometimes based on what a President does and sometimes not and I tend to not give to much credit or fault to Presidents on this issue.--MONGO (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years, with somewhat higher real GDP growth but somewhat lower job creation and real wage growth.

real GDP growth:

9 qtrs of Trump: 2.8%

prior 9 qtrs: 1.9%

average real wage growth:

26 months of Trump: 0.5%

prior 26 months: 1.5%

soibangla (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective. Could we see some sources?- MrX 🖋 22:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Welp, I got the data, but I ain't got it in a secondary source. Fail. Nevermind. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User:MrX This seems a topic more appropriately for Presidency of Donald Trump section on Economy. Related might include the recent record low unemployment noted by RS, and the ‘Trump stock market rally’ or ‘Trump Bull Run’ (from Election Day Dow 17,900 moved monthly 19,000. 20,000 and 21,000 ... 26,500 after a year in office, about where it has remained since.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Well this ended up wrongly identifying that the economic strength we are seeing is due to Trump continuing Obama's economic policies, when most sources attribute the low unemployment rate and strong economy to Trump rolling back many of the restrictions, regulations and policies of his predecessor.--MONGO (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Please provide those "most sources," preferably of the reliable variety. If you're referring to my edit, it does not suggest that Trump has continued Obama's policies, it simply says the expansion has continued under Trump. BTW, his best full-year GDP of 2.9% is matched by 2.9% in 2015, when there were no tax cuts or deregulation soibangla (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that the "Trump economy" can no longer be ignored. We could say something along the lines of this:

The U.S. economy has grown strongly during the first two years of the Trump administration. The gross national product grew by x% in 2017 and y% in 2018, the stock market gained x% since Trump's election, and unemployment dropped from x% to y%, the lowest level since 1969. The government attributes this performance to their deregulation agenda and pro-business tax cuts, while opponents argue that Trump is reaping the rewards of the Obama legacy, and that the country's deficit is still growing excessively.

To be sourced, obviously. Sounds neutral enough, presenting first hard facts, then contrasting explanations by supporters and opponents of Trump's policies. — JFG talk 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I would have to see the sources that that's based on, but that's roughly what I had in mind.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
ETA: We also probably need to mention the precarious nature of the economy due to trade wars, etc.[3][4]- MrX 🖋 13:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Too much growing! This would be a better beginning: "During the first two years of the Trump administration, the gross national product grew by x% in 2017 and y% in 2018, the stock market gained x%, and the headline unemployment rate dropped from x% to y%." Other than that, I echo MrX's thoughts about trade wars and I think data on wages and wage disparity is also needed for a fuller picture. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The economy hasn't really "grown strongly" relative to history. The 2.2% in 2017 is below the post-war average of 2.9%, even when including all recessions, and was matched/exceeded in four Obama years. The 2.9% in 2018 was matched in 2015 and is much lower than during expansions of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Job creation and wage/earnings growth has been lower than before Trump took office. The most notable aspect of this economy is its continued strength so late into the expansion, not that the strength itself is notable. Based on the data so far, there is no reason to conclude that the economic performance thus far under Trump, as unremarkable as it actually is, can be attributed to his policies, as we had 2.9% in 2015 with no tax cut or deregulation. We need at least another year of data to conclude Trump's policies made a difference. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: We need at least another year of data to conclude Trump's policies made a difference. I'll mark your words right now, and I bet you $100 that after another year of good data, most pundits will still pin this success on Obama, and will be up in arms about the deficit. — JFG talk 18:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the growing deficit, as I didn’t say anything about the direct stimulative effect of Trump’s increased deficit spending...until now soibangla (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
So unremarkable that the media that spends most of their time finding every booger Trump flings under his mattress have all been saying how remarkable it is. Secretly, they all hope it crashes about this time next year...and most even get their crystal balls out and prognosticate that a recession is likely to happen in 2020. No, the most notable thing about this is the low inflation levels and half-century low unemployment rates.[5], [6], [7]--MONGO (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for those "most sources" you mentioned. In the meantime, I provided a link in the article with economists cheering about the continued strength in the economy, and I just gave you factual data to show that the economy is unremarkable relative to recent and long-term history. The GDP growth is actually below average. The unemployment rate didn't suddenly drop off a cliff when Trump arrived, it had been steadily declining for several years, across all demographics. Inflation has been very low for several years, this is nothing new. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing new...hence the headlines saying the opposite..."over 3 percent GDP growth"..."gross domestic product rose by 3.2 percent in the first quarter"...[8] [9] "On deregulation, Trump ordered that rules be pared back or eliminated across the board. During his time in office, Congress has cut back on the Dodd-Frank banking reforms, particularly in areas affecting regional and community institutions, rolled back a multitude of environmental protections that he said were killing jobs and took a hatchet to dozens of other rules. The Dodd-Frank rollbacks have been particularly helpful to community banks, whose share prices collectively are up more than 25 percent over the past year. Small-cap stocks in general have strongly outperformed the broader market, gaining 23 percent over the past 12 months at a time when the S&P 500 is up 17 percent." however, same ref: "This is temporary...most economists think we have a recession in 2020, because of these policies.”--MONGO (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
We can do without the forumy edits. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That’s semi-interesting, but nowhere does it suggest deregulation has stimulated growth. And one quarter of GDP does not a trend make: it was 5.1% and 4.9% in back-to-back quarters in 2014, but came in at 2.5% for the year. soibangla (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey I like the brevity and just facts of that — just need cites and it’s good. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
How about the market just went down 400 points today..is that relevant ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That's relevant to Trump tariffs escalation within the China–United States trade war. Not here. — JFG talk 01:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Because you say so..it`s relevant in this talk page..someone starts an article related to the economy..I have a right to respond to the rhetoric.107.217.84.95 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "perceived" or "characterized" as racist

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was characterized. I note that several editors, although, voicing a preference, concluded that it isn't all that important. A few more editors favoured going with neither preference, but that view, though fairly significant, did not enjoy consensus. El_C 02:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the lead sentence about Trump's purported racism use the verb "perceived", or "characterized"? 07:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read the preliminary discussion about today's proposed change, the prior RfC that established the current wording (August 2018), and the followup discussion on amendments to the RfC wording. See also yet another earlier thread on racism (February 2018). — JFG talk 07:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Please state your preferred verb (perceived or characterized) with a short rationale. Longer arguments should go to the #Discussion section below.

  • Characterized, as I believe that this more accurately reflects the preponderance of reliable sources describing Trump's comments as racist. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized. If someone digs into the sources and figures out how many use one term versus the other, I'd like to know that. However in the absence of such data I prefer "characterized" since its about how Trump's behavior is described by reliable source rather than how it's seen by who knows whom. Everything every politician does and says is perceived a hundred different ways by a hundred different people, so passively saying something is perceived by unidentified people so insignificant as to be not worthy of inclusion. What's significant is how Trump's words and deeds are described by reputable outlets. R2 (bleep) 23:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized Knowing what someone else actually perceives is not possible. Reliable sources report what other people have characterized Trumps comments as to them. It's also the case that reliable sources themselves have characterized his statements as racist, so "characterized" works for both reliable sources reporting on others characterizations or on reliable sources doing the characterizing themselves. "Perceived" doesn't work both ways. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Unchanged. What, This again? I think it doesn’t belong in LEAD for a number of reasons previously said, but I suggest de facto be given an edge. Especially with perceived VS characterized having been visited twice within a year, I suggest re-re-re asking the question should be discounted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: Can you help me find where perceived VS characterized has been visited twice within a year? I don't see any of that in this archive search. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Mandruss It’s discussed in a lot of places, with the 4 links at top (Feb 2018 to Apr 2019) being good choices, and I especially was looking at the thread above here and the Feb and Aug RFCs in thinking STATUS QUO of prior discussions and long-standing content should rule when there is this not-strong desire for change. One can also search archives for “racist” or “as racist” to find other discussions of ‘described’ (archive 19, 20) and ‘criticized’ (archive 71), ‘perceived as’ and even discussion in (archive 2). CheersMarkbassett (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The only discussions I see on "perceived" vs "characterized" is this discussion and the one just above, of which this discussion is really just a more structured continuation of. So your claim that this particular issue has already been discussed twice in the past year seems misleading to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized It's more than a perception, but how a reasonable person would characterize the comments. TFD (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized – More factual than "perceived". Accurately reflects the prevailing WP:DUE descriptions of the subject matter in RS, which have indeed characterized Trump's utterances as "racially charged" or plain racist. — JFG talk 08:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Perceived (status quo) per Scjessey's comment in the previous discussion. Alternatively, we could drop "perceived as" to reflect the widely held viewpoint of a vast majority of reliable sources. "Characterized" appears to be a sly way to blame the media for bias against Trump, thus it violates WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 20:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    appears to be a sly way to blame the media – this looks like your own characterization of this proposed change.[FBDB] — JFG talk 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    Or you just perceive it that way. lol - MrX 🖋 21:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Perceived" could be characterized as suggesting that the belief bears little connection to reality. It seems to me either qualification (hedge) can be spun in a way that would make one oppose it. Advocating removal of the hedge is one thing, but I don't see why one would assert one spin over the other. That's not to say that this is a pointless issue, necessarily. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, perceived is less than ideal also. I don't have a better solution that isn't also very wordy.- MrX 🖋 21:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither, with perceived as my second choice. - As documented by a preponderance of reliable sources, Trump has made multiple racist comments (not just "perceived" or "characterized") and taken actions of a racist nature (not just "perceived" or "characterized"). "Perceived" was already a compromise we came to in one of the previous RfCs documented above, and I think "characterized" waters that down even further. Trump is fond of speaking plainly, so it seems only reasonable for Wikipedia to extend him the same courtesy. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized, although I don't think it matters much. Characterized connotes an expression, which is what our sources are doing. Characterized is more of an active word, while perceived is a passive word. But in the long run this is certainly not all that important. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized per Comic Sans. I would be happy to entertain the possibility of removing the hedge and using wiki voice, and I might even Support that—in an RfC that states that as on the table in its listings. The difference is substantial, and many editors reading the listings as written may well be passing this one by because it seems trivial to them. I don't think it would be a good idea to add that option to the listings of this RfC—the issues are too different and that would reduce the likelihood of a consensus for anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized - Being a synonym of described, which is recommended in WP:SAY, it's the more neutral of the two. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized, it is a more objective descriptor following the sources included MinnesotaMuskrat (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized is accurate and leaves less room for confusion than "perceived". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Neither' is accurate. Characterized indicates that they are described that way by some. Perceived means they are interpreted that way by some. As a matter of demonstrable fact, the man has exhibited clearly racist statements, so my preference would be to remove "perceived as" from the sentence altogether. Vertium When all is said and done 14:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither per Scjessey and Vertium, though I prefer characterized if an option must be chosen. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 22:55, 02 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Characterized. While both are WP:WEASELLY, the sources presented in the prior RfC do indeed characterize Trump's statements as racist more than discuss how they are perceived. Even better would be some kind of summary of the effects of Trump's statements, rather than their character, but I can't immediately think how such a statement would go. ("Inflamed racial tensions", per the NYT ?) –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This has already been exhaustively debated over multiple discussions and RfCs, and I just don't understand why we need yet another discussion over what has been stable for a long time now. But since we are having another RfC, why only the binary choice? What about "seen as" or "described as" or other choices? This just hasn't been well thought out, and I think this eagerness to have repeat RfCs over the same thing needs to stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me find where this has already been exhaustively debated over multiple discussions and RfCs? I don't see any of that in this archive search. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
JFG links to them at the top of this RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
As for the binary choice: "Seen as" is interchangeable with "perceived as" in this context. "Described as" is interchangeable with "characterized as" in this context. There is nothing to be gained by adding synonymous options that would only serve to make a consensus harder to reach. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't just adding synonyms ("or other choices"). Rather obviously, Trump is a racist who has made racist comments (as documented by reliable sources ad infinitum) and yet we water down this fact for the article. It's my feeling that "characterized" even further sanitizes "perceived", which was already a compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no objective standard by which to judge whether something is racist or not. So what is and isn't racist is subjective and varies from one person to another. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that it it should just be neither, since he is obviously a racist. (This is satire since we need to have a neutral standpoint and this discussion is not helping.) Being serious, we should make sure that this article is as neutral as possible, because these are not grounds for any political tension. Remember; this is an encyclopedia. There are guidelines. This precious article falls under special pressure, because it relates to a person that many may have varying opinions on. That does not matter, this is about facts, not opinions. All points in mind, I feel that it should not be changed and ESPECIALLY not confirming that he has made racial comments since that would clearly be taking a point of view. Kugihot (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creative trolling

It seems to me that this troll post has elegantly captured the situation in American politics over the last few years. A remarkable feat of écriture automatique [fr; de]![FBDB] — JFG talk 19:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But, it missed entirely the reptilian ancestry of the British crown. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that has been paying quite a bit of attention to the news over the past few years. Good job.Mgasparin (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Defense: "I thought this was the House of Cards fan fiction wiki!" R2 (bleep) 16:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No one has pointed out that was a 700+ words sentence? starship.paint (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

proposed minor edit to add missing facts

"Early actions" currently includes the following text:

On January 31, Trump nominated U.S. Appeals Court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat on the Supreme Court previous held by Justice Antonin Scalia until his death in 2016.

Suggest edit to read as follows:

On January 31, 2017 Trump nominated U.S. Appeals Court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat on the Supreme Court previous held by Justice Antonin Scalia until his death on February 13, 2016. [1]

Ohmega99 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
 Partly done I added Scalia's date of death since it's somewhat important, and not including it is a bit misleading. (The previous text suggested he could have died only a month earlier.) However I didn't include the year of the nomination because the 2017 can be readily inferred from the context. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump`s sexual indiscretions

It seem any reference to trump`s sexually inappropriate behavior is being consistently removed not only from the article but the talk page as well as if this isn`t relevant. I had a lawyer tell me once he didn`t care about the truth..that it only got in the way of him doing his job..this is unethical and immoral.107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're mistaken. We have a whole section of the article entitled "Sexual misconduct allegations." All derogatory information about Trump or any other living person must comply with our policy on biographies of living people. Offending content will be removed, whether in the article or on this talk page. R2 (bleep) 23:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I get that but the link to it has been either removed or moved to an inconspicuous location in the article..I am familiar with both articles and Legal affairs of Donald Trump I don`t see the link anywhere although it could be buried..there is a brief mention to his ex wife`s accusations in the legal affairs article nothing else...what happened? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
What link are you referring to? There are links to the two related articles at the top of the section Donald Trump#Sexual misconduct allegations, just below the section heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

not a breath regarding the 13 year old.107.217.84.95 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Per long-standing consensus, exhaustively discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a significant amount of evidence that he did it..for what reason why would you want to suppress this? The right was willing to crucify Clinton because of a consensual relationship with an adult..I understand the gist of Wikipedia editing and I know how the powers that be work..no matter what get`s posted regarding this you are going to find a way to take it down..that`s what`s important to you not the truth.107.217.84.95 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In that case, why are you wasting your time? Are you hoping to single-handedly defeat the powers that be? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We are Legion. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Think of me as the Socrates gadfly..might does not make right..you are consistently protecting this person using the intricacies`of Wikipedia policy agenda minutia..just like a lawyer..only interested in winning rather the truth..that sicko belongs in prison..now get the last word..107.217.84.95 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations/Archive_8#RfC:_Jane_Doe_content Zingarese talk · contribs 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The last refuge of a scoundrel.107.217.84.95 (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

DPRK redux

I boldly removed the following from the lead today

;and started negotiations with North Korea seeking denuclearization.

JFG reverted my edit, with an ironic edit summary. In my estimation, the summits accomplished little to nothing of merit, and have faded in significance in comparison to the totality of Trump's greatness.

I'm seeking other editors thoughts about whether we should retain this in the lead. If we can't identify a rough consensus, I may start an RfC.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no irony implied in my edit summary, and I stand by my rationale: Although the talks have not resulted in a firm disarmament yet, there is no question that the situation has radically de-escalated since the U.S. and North Korea started talking under Trump's impetus. Significant enough for the lead section. At least I didn't spice it up with a side of kimchi.[10] — JFG talk 00:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, the latest discussion about North Korea, in October 2018, showed enough support for a brief mention in the lead section. The text was added on 27 October,[11] then slightly modified on 20 December.[12] — JFG talk 00:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "...there is no question that the situation has radically de-escalated since the U.S. and North Korea started talking under Trump's impetus", which I found ironic because Trump helped escalated the situation in the first place. Kimchi is indeed spicy! - MrX 🖋 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, understood. I for one am happy that tensions have eased, and Trump calls Kim "my friend" (how's that for irony?) That's much better than running for the bomb shelters in Guam or Tokyo. — JFG talk 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This, this, and this happened in the past few days.- MrX 🖋 11:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes; this surely brings back the subject to center stage. One more reason to keep it in the lead. — JFG talk 14:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Ha! Gotchme.- MrX 🖋 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just in: AFP: North Korea fires missiles as US envoy visits Seoul starship.paint (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support removal. Negotiations with NK have been going on for decades and still look bleak. Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un, "Meet the new boss Same as the old boss" (Apologies to Pete Townshend) O3000 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not the point. Contrary to his two predecessors, Trump's dialogue with North Korea has received voluminous coverage in RS, in large part because of his unorthodox approach ("I have a bigger nuclear button" and "I try so hard to be his friend"), and due to the unprecedented détente with South Korea (which President Moon credited in great part to Trump's impetus). This is why it's relevant and belongs in the lead, irrespective of current state of affairs or eventual outcome. — JFG talk 01:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. We had this discussion before when the sentence was inserted. It is really irrelevant how you assess Trump's North Korean foray. Some have seen it as a positive first step, some have seen it as a achieving nothing, and some have seen it as a horrifying propaganda gift to Kim Jong Un. The point is, it's notable. Everyone has an opinion. But most people agree that it is significant. If it is a foreign policy blunder by Trump, that deserves to be mentioned. This is not a hagiography. He is the first sitting US President to meet a North Korean leader. Many thought he shouldn't do it. Maybe they were right. But he did it. He had two summits. A North Korean leader went into South Korea for the first time since the Korean War. A South Korean leader went to Pyongyang for the first time and got a standing ovation. Yes, the Hanoi summit broke down. But North Korea has not resumed atomic bomb tests or ICBM tests (short-range missiles aren't particularly important). Changes are still happening at the DMZ. We don't know what will happen next, but this is historically significant. It has clearly been a key issue in Trump's presidency, whether it's a success or failure, it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
We had this discussion before when the sentence was inserted. When - couldn’t find it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 92#North Korea, October 2018. — JFG talk 15:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Reliable sources consider it important. I don't know what the outcome will be but the leads for Jimmy Carter mentions SALT II and Bill Clinton mentions the 2000 Israel-Palestine talks, both of which ended in failure. I note too the lead for Clinton mentions that he met Kim Jong-il. Can MrX and Scjessey explain why this president should be treated differently from the other two? Why aren't you changing those articles? TFD (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: I mostly work on the articles of current presidents, not past presidents, so I'm not even aware of the content of the articles you are referring to. Also, "whataboutism" is a not an argument that's going to have any success with me. I'm quite happy to see the North Korea stuff in the article, but it simply isn't worthy of inclusion in the lead by virtue of the fact there are at least a thousand other things related to Trump's life that are more biographically significant, but haven't made it into the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The biographies of past presidents form a useful template for the current president. Partisanship distorts how incumbent presidents are seen. While they were president, Democrats portrayed George W. Bush, Reagan and Nixon as the worst presidents in history; Republicans did the same to Obama and Clinton. TFD (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • All biographies of politicians form useful templates for the current president. Partisanship is of no concern to me, because all of my main space edits are scrupulously neutral (although I'm not afraid to express personal opinion on a talk page). The unique difference we have with Trump is that he absolutely is the worst president in history. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal as procedural / policy violation, possibly seek additional sanctions. Edit to lead did not seek or respect explicit consensus, nor the local norm of here any LEAD edit should be done via TALK. (Edits direct to LEAD have been an issue here.) There is no note at the top of TALK that says any ARBADS or WP:ACDS Special restrictions on LEAD edits, so it might be helpful to think about making the norm explicit. (Winter is coming.... and so is election-year madness.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Starting negotiations implies that they are continuing but they're not. According to the reliable sources: "both sides are at an impasse"(CNN); the talks "collapse[d]" (NY Times); "with talks collapsing", "fundamental differences" (WaPo). Also, current reports do not seem to be indicative of negotiations: missile launch, launch facility, rebuilding site So, if anything at all, that sentence should read and met with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un twice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    If all there was to report was "he met the guy twice", that indeed would not be lead material. But what really happened is much bigger than that. Even if negotiations remained frozen at the current impasse (which is too early to judge), there has already been radical change in the Korean Peninsula balance of power. I'd credit it chiefly to Moon's overtures towards Kim, but Moon himself said he credits this opening to Trump's actions. Contrary to some of the lesser things that we debate regularly at this article, the softening of the Korean frozen conflict is a radical geopolitical development. Both Koreas have dismantled their "security buffer", a Berlin Wall of sorts, they are building roads and railways across the DMZ. In addition to the South Korea détente, NoKo is also discussing economic links with China, Russia and Japan. Kim is no longer seen as a dire threat to the world, chiefly because Trump started a respectful dialogue with him, a dialogue that includes both carrots (you could be a prosperous country if you stop threatening us) and sticks (we blockade your country, we can crush you any day, and we won't budge until you totally denuke). — JFG talk 11:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by radical change in the Korean Peninsula balance of power? What drove Kim to the negotiation table in the first place were the sanctions of the UN Security Council sanctions that were imposed a year before Trump took office and the economic situation in NK becoming increasingly desperate. The Koreas are as divided as before, with less hostile retoric. Clearing the DMZ of landmines in preparation of searching for the remains of Korean War soldiers - that’s hardly a dismantling of the [heavily fortified] border is hardly a dismantling of the [heavily fortified] border. Business Insider calls Trump’s respectful dialogue the "bully-and-threaten approach to dealmaking." That June 2018 article, incidentally, predicted the outcome of the second summit (i.e., impasse) pretty accurately:

There is one other key instance where Trump’s strategy of aggression and cost-imposition has worked: By declaring his intention to cancel the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, Trump forced the North Korean leader to back down from his aggressive anti-US rhetoric and show weakness: He was too invested in having the summit to respond aggressively when Trump called his bluff.
However, this is an incremental victory. Trump showed Kim was desperate to meet, but Kim was desperate to meet because he believed the summit would serve key North Korean diplomatic objectives. In future situations, where Trump’s sticks are not accompanied by a carrot Kim really really wants, I would not assume this technique will work again. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That is just one person's opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Capital or lowercase P in WP:LEAD?

The WP:LEAD section contains this sentence: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." I see that the "P" in "president of the United States" is lowercase, but is it meant to be like that? The article for the POTUS position has it capitalized, as well as the List of Presidents of the United States. So should the "P" be capitalized? --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Using lower case is required by Positions, offices, and occupational titles and applied consistently across Wikipedia. If you disagree with this guideline, then you should first get it changed. TFD (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES and local consensus. This has already been extensively discussed at the global and local level. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is weird. According to WP:JOBTITLES, we capitalize such titles if they precede the name (President Donald Trump, President Trump) and we capitalize it in the unmodified formal title President of the United States, but not if it is modified. So we would capitalize it for Donald Trump is President of the United States, but not what we currently have, Donald Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States. Pretty picky distinction IMO; if it was up to me I would always capitalize President of the United States. We lowercase it in all other uses, such “he was elected president” or “the president said”. We do the same for other titles such as attorney general (Attorney General Barr, Attorney General of the United States, the attorney general said.) (BTW take a look at the article United States Attorney General; it violates what I just said and capitalizes the generic term Attorney General throughout. AFAICS that has never been discussed on the talk page.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    Melanie, if WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, what value is there in pointing to other stuff that doesn't yet comply? We can't fix everything overnight. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    My point was more that this MOS rule may not be as much a universally accepted, ironclad, consensus rule as everybody here is claiming. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    There will never be even close to 100% agreement on any guideline and there are a few vocal editors who think it's constructive to actively resist a guideline they disagree with—out of venue. I call that disruption. The talk page of the biography of Donald Trump is not the place to discuss MoS issues. If an editor wishes to raise the issue yet again, that should be done at the talk page for JOBTITLES, where the greatest community focus and resources can be brought to bear: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    User:MelanieN - I agree with always capitalised, and I tried the position that it is not the preceding word but the nation name afterwards that makes it into a specific title. “President of the United States” is a specific title. Eh. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES and the extensive discussion and consensus behind it. Oppose repeated rehashing of settled issues; we don't need a local consensus to comply with a community consensus on MoS questions; i.e. there is nothing special or unique about this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - some rather incomplete and misleading portrayals above. If it takes a different phrasing to make it President, that’s an option. That the MOS is a recent much disliked and often not done thing is a bit missing in the oppose posts. User:Kingerikthesecond - “President of the United States” is a common usage. But the last bright idea at MOS:JOBTITLES flipped over to little p president when it’s preceded by an article, saying that makes it not a title. This usage has grammar books on both sides, and the latest MOS logic may be flawed or have not considered the effort. The examples MOS provided or didn’t seem a bit aglay. At least a couple editors did seem to take MOS as a mandate to decapitalize and edited prominent articles to rephrase and add an article so it became ‘not a title’, but they only did some and so Wikipedia has a mix of both ways. I think I got them to back off trying little q “queen of England” for awhile... Bottom line, if you have disagreement voice it here but also at the MOS. A local consensus against using the MOS does seem respected by the MOS folks, but so far isn’t appearing at their article enough to drive changes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very much so. Wikipedia's WP:JOBTITLES appears to be based on The Chicago Manual of Style which—as their Wikipedia article correctly notes—"[m]any publishers throughout the world adopt [] as their style." The Chicago Manual's rules are also widely used in the academic world (AE, at least) and in business, even when users do not specifically refer to the manual by name. Here's a link to a blog for a quick look at capitalization of people's titles, Chicago-style. If individual articles use other capitalization methods instead, then those articles should be corrected. In an environment like Wikipedia with editors from diverse backgrounds and occupations and no direction or guidance except by peers with equally diverse backgrounds it makes even more sense to stick to generally accepted rules for spelling, grammar, and style. Putting cleanup of United States Attorney General on my to-do list. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue – Please make your case at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. — JFG talk 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who edits this page

This page is highly biased and does not follow the rules of wiki! JCMonstore (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to anything you don't like in particular? Biased in what way? What Wikipedia rules aren't being followed? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Congressional Investigations of Donald Trump" article?

Events are moving at warp speed with subpoenas and such, and I don't know of an existing article where all this stuff should reasonably go. Is it time for a "Congressional Investigations of Donald Trump" article? soibangla (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a notable topic, and will avoid opening one article per allegation or per investigation. — JFG talk 23:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I would even suggest to just call it Investigations of Donald Trump, so that the FBI and Mueller investigations can also be mentioned in WP:Summary style. — JFG talk 23:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I support this and like JFG's idea. R2 (bleep) 15:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree..this is completely relevant and obvious.2600:1702:2340:9470:D989:DB3A:96D1:31B7 (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

pinging some potential interested editors: is anyone interested in creating this article? @BullRangifer: @MelanieN: @Starship.paint: @Objective3000: @Muboshgu: @X1\: @MrX: soibangla (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Very notable topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I support creating an article and limiting its scope to the congressional investigations. There's plenty of material that could be copied from various related articles to get it started.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Interested but not free, sorry. starship.paint (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign policy section outdated? especially regarding Israel and Zionism

As it stands, the foreign policy section includes the following statements;

"Trump has been described as a non-interventionist[665][666] and as an American nationalist.[667] He has repeatedly stated that he supports an "America First" foreign policy."

And on Israel;

"Regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Trump has stated the importance of being a neutral party during potential negotiations, while also having stated that he is "a big fan of Israel".

Aren't these statements anachronistic? This appears to be what Trump said he stood for when he was on the election trail in 2016, but doesn't really match what has panned out during his presidency. Donald Trump has been described as the "most Zionist" president in US history by Professor Michael Hudson of Georgetown University, he has recognised the Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel, he has moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, he is extremely close to Republican Jewish Coalition big-movers and shakers like Sheldon Adelson, during his presidency the US has sent $38 billion of taxpayer money to Israel for military aid, Trump personally has pressed policies hostile to the Palestinian people, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has extremely close personal ties to the Israeli Prime Minister, Trump has publically engaged in a campaign against Ilhan Omar and now Rashida Tlaib for refusing to put Israel First before the United States.

There are many more examples that can be provided to challenge the current content approach on this topic in the article, but for Wikipedia to portray Trump as a neutral party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or of adhering to an America First foreign policy is laughable at this point and I propose we re-write using some of the above sources, reflecting what has happened since he actually took office. Even mainstream liberal publications like the New York Times are now openly publishing cartoons which portrays Trump as completely subservient on the issue of Israel especially. Ishbiliyya (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Israel section was misleading. I have edited the section to separate his rhetoric as a candidate from his actions as president. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It now looks pretty good to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC improperly ended

Massive waste of energy. Go edit the article or something. — JFG talk 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What the hell happened here? I've reverted the change to the article because the RfC wasn't allowed to finish and be properly closed. Time and time again, RfC's have been allowed to run here for 30 days, with much of the discussion not happening until near the end of this window. This is entirely inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What I saw was that Rreagan007 posted at AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 97#RfC: "perceived" or "characterized" as racist) asking for a close, and then it was closed - I didn't realize the close was early, and so acted accordingly. I think El C should get a chance to chime in before we decide what to do --DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
But that's not what happened. It was "closed" AFTER being archived. I've never seen that before. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There was nothing "improper" about it. Since the discussion had been archived, I reasonably concluded that the discussion had run its course and made the request for an uninvolved admin to do the close. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment: "There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." The discussion seemed to have run its course and consensus seemed clear. I think the close was proper and should stand. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the discussion had gone stale, since there had been no new comments in a week. I just thought I'd expedite. Feel free to reopen and unarachive, but not on procedural grounds alone. El_C 19:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rreagan007 for the RfC refresher. Comment stricken since there is no binding procedure. El_C 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I saw that no one had added anything for almost 3 weeks to the discussion. Why should stale threads be kept? Mgasparin (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
RfC's frequently go "quiet" on this take page during the 30-day window they are usually open. You should've requested a close before removing the "do not archive" tag, since it was that act that created this mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
For the record: It was 11 days, not three weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey, please do not make edits on the mainspace on the assumption that consensus had not been reached. That is what's being debated here. Wait for that discussion to conclude first. You should view the RfC as properly closed unless shown otherwise. El_C 19:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The "closure" you made was highly unusual. The RfC was archived before the discussion had run its course, and you closed it without letting anyone know on this talk page. No other RfC on this talk page has ever been archived early and closed in this way. RfC's frequently are quiet for a few days before picking up again nearer the end of the usual 30-day window. I strenuously object to what has happened here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No discussion—RfC or otherwise—should be closed on the archive page. Editors need the opportunity to review and challenge the close, and the close needs to be part of the talk page's history. Doing that also violates the principle that no change should be made to an archive page except (1) removal of a discussion that has been restored to the talk page, and (2) a fix of the extremely rare serious formatting problem. We try to use {{DNAU}} to prevent auto-archival until after the close, and we just missed this one (the DNAU removed by Mgasparin was in the precursor discussion, not the RfC). But, if an RfC is archived prematurely, the solution is to restore it.
In my opinion the RfC should be restored and then can be closed on this page if appropriate per the closing guidelines. I have no opinion on that point, but as noted the 30-day thing is a widespread misinterpretation of the bot de-listing time and should not be a factor in that decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Twenty days duration seems fine. I see no need to neither reopen nor go through other hoops on procedural grounds alone. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. El_C 21:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.2600:1702:2340:9470:51D0:6F48:F0C9:BBAA (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but your citing WP:BURO shows a failure to hear my comments, which are considerably more substantive than unnecessary bureaucracy. If you don't do the restore, I expect somebody will do it for you. Possibly me. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With an "apparent" consensus (although since it was ended prematurely and procedurally improperly, who the fuck really knows?), I am not going to make any further stink about this. I think Mandruss makes excellent points about why it should be restored, even if the final result will be the same. But we need to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again, so I suggest the "rules" of how we conduct RfCs on this highly controversial article talk page should be clearly defined going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey, it did not end prematurely. Mandruss, go for it. I think it's unnecessary and doesn't makes a difference, but by all means. El_C 21:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Roger wilco. Please don't close discussions on archive pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
What? RfC is still closed. El_C 21:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so you wanted me to close it a 2nd time. Fine. But it seems unnecessary. This very section header serves as a notice to editors about the RfC's close. Oh well, not important. El_C 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey I think that idea of local RFC guidance could a constructive benefit out of this. Please do start a thread and propose a few. (Hoping it doesn’t take much.). I’m oddly impressed by your StarTrek famous example, I think I’ve seen some vicious ones in gaming articles that ran on a bit too. Good to be reminded this one isn’t the worst in heat or longest threads. (I suspect it’s a contender for the most threads or most archives.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:El_C - Improper closure just messes up the whole RFC. I didn't want this RFC topic yet again, but User:Scjessey and User:Mandruss are correct that RFCs here should not be oddly closed with handwaving of BURO and wrong statements "no one had added anything for almost 3 weeks" for the edit in question (commented "It's been 19 days since there was any activity in this thread. Why not let it archive?") where I note that 6 May to 15 May is less than 9 days and the exaggeration is increasing. There is no urgent need to get a conclusion 10 days sooner and given the contentious nature of the article wind up with a questionable result that might not be respected. The quick responses came from the usual suspects -- fresh inputs, if any, are more likely to be latecomers. I'm not going to start the RFC again, but would not want this type of close to be repeated on any RFC here -- and will be unsurprised and inclined to accept if someone else reopens this one - arggh yet another time -- just because of this close. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't an improper closure — nothing that was said here so far leads me to believe so. So it was closed on the archive — big deal. So it was 20 days instead of 30 — big deal. I doubt the closure will be challenged on that basis. Burro applies to the crux of it. And please don't misquote me. El_C 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The close was entirely proper. There is no minimum length for an RfC. The RfC had gone cold and was automatically archived as a result. I highly doubt anyone was going to be commenting on an RfC sitting in the archives. Consensus was clear with 80% support and the RfC needed to be closed. From what I can tell, the people complaining about the close are just not happy that consensus went against them on this RfC and are trying to attack it on a specious procedural ground. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The close was not improper, nor was discussion about it. The close on the archive page was improper and I would be happy to meet anyone who disagrees at the Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Not a big deal. This discussion serves as sufficient due notice that it happened. I'm not sure I see the significance. El_C 23:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this RfC is not going to be reopened, unless I see a consensus of other uninvolved admins that it ought to be. El_C 23:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, it's less than desirable that it was closed on the archive, but that's water under the bridge. Obviously, the lesson from that is for me to pay more attention. But no need to exaggerate its significance, either. I, for one, feel like we've exhausted this. El_C 23:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If you agree not to close on archive pages, I agree we've exhausted this (and exhausted me); otherwise we're just kicking a can down the road until the next time, here or elsewhere. This is not something where editors should agree to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you say that continuing a discussion on an archive page is not a big deal? I hope not, and I fail to see why a close of that discussion is any different. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel this to be circular. Yet again, since everyone already knows of the close by virtue of this very discussion, it's not a big deal. El_C 00:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, the question is not whether it's a big deal after the fact, but whether you will continue to do it. I think it's unwise to leave something like this without a clear resolution and agreement, but kick the can if you must. Since I've never seen this before in 5 years of editing, it at least seems unlikely to come up again any time soon. We can hope. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I've read this entire thread and I'm still not sure exactly what you would have preferred to have happen in this case. The RfC was just sitting abandoned on the archive page needing to be closed. Are you saying that if the closer had simply moved it back to the talk page and closed it there, you would have been fine with it? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Either that, or just left it alone, and either (1) someone else would've restored it for possible further discussion and close, or (2) the group would've judged that it didn't need further discussion or close (AFAIK there is no firm requirement to close an RfC) and left it alone. As I said above, I had no opinion on whether it was ready to close at that time. (Note to group: I'm trying to drop this, but I was asked a question.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: "I'm still not sure exactly what you would have preferred to have happen in this case. The RfC was just sitting abandoned on the archive page needing to be closed." If you go back and read the beginning of the discussion again, you will see there were two problems:
  1. The section was archived prematurely, after someone removed the "do not archive" tag on an unclosed RfC. RfCs must be closed before being archived.
  2. The discussion was closed after it was archived, which I have never seen before in over 14 years of editing Wikipedia.
As I indicated above, I was perfectly happy with the perception characterization that a consensus around "characterized" had formed (your comment "From what I can tell, the people complaining about the close are just not happy that consensus went against them..." is aspersion-casting bullshit), but I was extremely unhappy with the procedural faux pas surrounding the RfC's closure. Going forward, I insist this talk page adopt some sort of "regular order" with RfCs, particularly as this is an article about a highly controversial figure. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, it's unlikely to happen again. Why are you devoting so much energy on something whose possibility of reoccurrence (in any article) is so remote? El_C 12:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I had already said my piece. Rreagan007 then posted something that indicated they didn't know what the problem was, so I felt it was necessary to reiterate the point. Discussions on this talk page are always very contentious, and RfCs are very commonplace (sadly). It is important that everyone contributing here knows exactly how RfCs on this talk page are going to work. There needs to be an expectation of how long an RfC is going to remain open (30 days is a good target to shoot for), and that a close should occur before archiving. I am disturbed (as are others) that this departure from the normal procedure has been waived away as "no big deal", when it absolutely is a big deal on a contentious page like this. We all need to be lock step with how RfCs are going to go here in order to avoid exactly this kind of pointless squabbling. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If you feel this is a productive use of your time, by all means keep this going, indefinitely. El_C 12:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't tempt me! I was an active participant in the one of the most famous examples of an epically pedantic talk page discussion in Wikipedia history. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I always suspected you were a little crazy, but not Star Trek crazy....[FBDB] PackMecEng (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: It says it right there on my user page:
STAR
TREK 		This user likes firing all phasers and a full spread of photon torpedoes.
-- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
User:El_C No, I did not misquote you, I correctly quoted the Mgasparin comment in the first link of this thread, which incorrectly said the RFC was idle 19 days. I partly quoted your comment of “I saw that no one had added anything for almost 3 weeks” etcetera as going from bad math to exaggeration. It seems you had not actually checked the thread activity itself. And yes, this was called an “improper close”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I did not say that. Why do you continue to misquote me, partially or otherwise? El_C 20:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey:I agree with you that the RfC shouldn't have been archived before it was closed, but the fact is it was archived before it was closed, so something needed to be done about that. Having it sit in the archives unclosed was not acceptable. All indications were that the RfC had reached its natural end anyway and a consensus had emerged, and closing it at that point was the appropriate thing to do given the circumstances. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Er... no. It was only archived early because Mgasparin removed the "do not archive" tag that had specifically been placed there to prevent it happening before the usual RfC window closed. Had that not occurred, I'm sure none of the rest of this mess would've happened either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Er... yes. The do not archive tag should not have been removed, but it was, and the RfC was archived as a result. And there is no set length for a RfC. If an RfC reaches a natural conclusion before 30 days, then it's supposed to be closed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that there is no set length for an RfC; however, on this talk page we have almost always allowed RfCs to run for 30 days. And it did not reach a "natural conclusion" because it was archived before that could happen. This isn't rocket science. I laid out exactly what happened at the top of this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that discussion on it had ended to the point where it was automatically archived indicates to me that it had reached its natural conclusion. I wish the do-not-archive tag had not been removed and it had not been automatically archived, but it was and it did. Since that series of events happened, the appropriate course of action was for an admin do the close. And if people want to have a local consensus that RfC's on this talk page going forward should have a 30-day minimum, in apparent contradiction to the normal RfC procedures, then that is something that should be explicitly discussed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on that last point. Editors all over the project mistake the bot de-listing time for a default close time. Those who know the difference often feel it's easier to let it run 30 days than to start a 5-day debate with those who don't, but there is no requirement that they do so. If things are to be different at this article, that's at least as list-worthy as #Current consensus item 13, which has proven its list-worthiness. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Mgasparin removed the DNAU from the precursor discussion, not the RfC. The RfC had no DNAU because we forgot to give it one. Both of which I said in this thread two days ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump sexual assult alegations

There is nothing in this article related to the charges against trump related to numerous allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior and sexual assault.2600:1702:2340:9470:F4A0:7159:94A:8054 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You’re mistaken. There’s a section “Sexual misconduct allegations” within the section on 2016 campaign, and it also points to the article about them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

{{subst:trim|1= So like I wanna edit it because it is like hard to read and is like um not fun!Ugh I just wanna make it better for den readers trim to learn like about like Donald my bro.We really wanna edit it cuz it sound and looks bad.


 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Corporate raider

MONGO reverted this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=896331565&oldid=896322943

asserting that what many would characterize as pump and dump is "standard business practices, quite commonplace really"

The edit is entirely consistent with the reliable source reporting and I recommend it be restored. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion. This doesn't sound like common trading practice to me. If I'm mistaken then someone should be able to come up with sources to support that. Whether this was actually pump and dump (securities fraud), I don't know and it doesn't really matter for this discussion. R2 (bleep) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a coatrack. Maybe it fits better in a daughter article but not in this BLP. Classifying it as a pump and dump seems to be an editorial decision not supported by RS. A revisit of our BLP policy might be in order.--MONGO (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not characterize it as pump and dump in the article. His activities in these trades are relevant to the Side Ventures subsection soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of Trump's Pump and Dump, per [13][14][15]. It is not a "standard business practice". In fact, it's a form of fraud.[16] The NYT source is already in the article, by the way.- MrX 🖋 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose You need to show its overall significance to the topic. According to the source, this information was known 30 years ago, but has only been reported now. TFD (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wayne Barrett reported it in 1992 - see my below edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest moving this information to Wealth of Donald Trump or Business career of Donald Trump or The Trump Organization. — JFG talk 01:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE - MALFORMED EDIT. As written looks like editor mangled the source — saying he did dump took profit then “lost back” the money (?!?) makes no sense. Also OBSERVE A 48 HOUR WAITING PERIOD. Please do not channel the morning feed here, trying to breathlessly retweet something new into WP that is less than 24 hours old just functionally lacks time to have WEIGHT or full picture and conceptually seems counter to NOTMIRROR just being a retweet, or NOTNEWS or at least not just-breaking news. If it’s important and factual, it will not go away by tomorrow; if it can’t wait until tomorrow then maybe it shouldn’t be here at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
As written looks like editor mangled the source — saying he did dump took profit then “lost back” the money (?!?) makes no sense is incorrect:

From 1986 through 1988, while his core businesses languished under increasingly unsupportable debt, Mr. Trump made millions of dollars in the stock market by suggesting that he was about to take over companies. But the figures show that he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors stopped taking his takeover talk seriously. soibangla (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion as Corporate takeover ventures (or something along those lines) in the Side ventures section. It was a side venture from 1986 to 1992 that initially made him a lot of money and then cost him a lot more money than he had made. Wayne Barrett reported Trump’s stock market raids in 1992, in his book Trump: The Deals and the Downfall, reprinted in 2016 under the title The Greatest Show on Earth, chapter 13, The Billion-Dollar Bet.
Trump's first venture was the Holiday Inns in 1986. Trump bought a 4.4 percent stake for almost $70 million without putting up his own money and "immediately applied for a gaming license in Nevada, suggesting that he had takeover intentions." The stock went up, Trump sold his shares at a profit of around $10 million, and claimed that he had made $35 million.
According to the NY Times, he reported gains of $67.3 million to the IRS for 1986 to 1989 and a loss of $34.9 million for 1990 (i.a., half his prior gains); Trump's tax records for the years when he ran the casinos are available because of casino licensing requirements. When Trump had to turn over most of his assets (yacht, Trump Shuttle, Grand Hyatt shares) to his creditors in 1992 (see also bankruptcies), he had to sell his shares in the Alexander’s department store company which were worth only a fraction (18 percent) of what he had paid for them (Alexander's filed for bankruptcy that year), losing $55.5 million of the $67.9 million he had paid. That’s a total loss of $90.4 million.
I’m not saying that we should go into great detail but it’s a sizable venture that is noteworthy for this bio. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering the small percentage of these thibgs compared to the entirety of his business dealings it is not notable, least not for this article. So what, he changed his mind on some ventures...and yes that does happen all the time in business.--MONGO (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The dollar magnitude of the trades is minimally relevant, even though they are substantial by a typical person's standards. What is relevant is that he was engaged in an activity that falls into a dubious zone of legality that is most commonly associated with boiler room operations run by shady characters until they get raided by the FBI soibangla (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
An aricle in Memphis provides a different interpretation.[17] Trump thought Holiday Inn was undervalued because of the appreciation of its real estate portfolio in the 1980s. He intended to buy the company but his plans were derailed when the directors found an angel investor and the real estate holdings were sold off. Trump, who had acquired 5% of the shares, profited, but not by as much as he would have had he taken over the company. This isn't pump and dump, as the shares actually had value. TFD (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that the article actually says what you say it says. Indeed, it isn't flattering of Trump's motives, it actually smells alot like greenmail. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn’t say that Trump intended to take over the company, just that he made its management believe that he did. The author appears to believe that Trump’s intent was to force the compay to sell off its assets separately. Barrett writes on page 388 that "[t]hough contemptuous of the [Holiday Inns’] management, at least in part because of the generous terms it had given him in 1982, he liked the company’s assets, especially the two Nevada casino’s run by its Harrah’s subsidiary and its highly profitable Harrah’s Marina in Atlantic City." We don’t know what Trump’s real intentions on any of his stock buying ventures were. We only know what he did or didn’t do. According to Barrett, Trump was "[s]ure that he could turn a profit on the raids even if his takeover attempts failed." For a while Trump’s strategy of acquiring stock and dropping hints about takeovers worked. But since he never followed through on any of them, eventually the stock market got wise to the scheme and didn’t take the bait any more. Trump’s shares didn’t rise in value, and he was stuck with the debts for buying them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Googling trump greenmail bally shows lots of contemporaneous reporting of suspected greenmail and he was fined for not reporting on a timely basis his stock purchases surrounding these activities. I think there is good reason to expand a "Corporate raider" subsection. soibangla (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not the article was complimentary. As you correctly write, "The author appears to believe that Trump’s intent was to force the compay to sell off its assets separately." That is how Trump intended to profit. Pump and dump would mean that he would profit from people buying his shares on the basis of false information. For example had he falsely stated that the real estate assets were undervalued. This article does not mention "dropping hints." In fact the FTC news article provided by soibangla shows that he did not disclose his purchases. It is not illegal to buy shares on the assumption they are undervalued. It is against the law to falsely state that shares you have purchased are undervalued. soibangla, in order to include information in the article you need to show that it has received significant coverage in secondary sources. A report by the FTC does not count. TFD (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Earlier this month, Nevada Gambling Commission Chairman Paul Bible accused Trump of 'greenmailing' and said state regulators don't like those maneuvers. Trump had purchased a large block of Holiday Corp. stock, which then underwent a major financial restructuring before Trump sold his shares...Nevada was reacting to that deal--at least in part--when it enacted a law several weeks ago prohibiting "greenmail" of casinos in that state...One of the Wall Street naysayers, analyst Harold Vogel of Merrill Lynch in New York, said Thursday: "I tend to think, if history is a guide, that Mr. Trump gets the pot all stirred up. Speculators big and small start to salivate and chase after the stock. Then, within three months, Mr. Trump announces that he has sold his shares at a handsome profit."...According to Greenfield, the repurchase plan amounted to ″greenmail,″ the practice of buying up shares of a company and selling them back for a profit at an inflated price. ″This is a classic sense of Mr. Trump selling the shareholders down the river,″ Greenfield said...Mr. Trump recently applied for a Nevada casino license, but Paul Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission at the time, said that Nevada regulators would look askance at any greenmailer who hurts casino companies operating in Nevada by acquiring large quantities of stock in order to sell the stake back to the company at a premium...The central issue for many was whether Trump was engaged in the tactic known as "greenmailing." It was an entirely legal strategy repeatedly deployed by activist investors throughout the 1980s -- a practice that, for lack of a better description, amounts to a corporate ransom payment. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

30 year old articles are not good sources for articles. Trump said he sold the shares to a third party, so it would not be "greenmail," which in any case was perfectly legal. I am sure that there must be a more complete account of the matter written in the decades following. So here's what we have established: Trump bought shares in a company he believed was undervalued. The shares went up and he sold them. Note too this occurred during a time when both stock and property markets were booming and it was not unusual for speculators to make fortunes overnight, only to lose them after the crash. TFD (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any problem at all with 30 year old articles, particularly if nothing has contradicted them in the meantime. I don't think we should say in WP voice that Trump engaged in greenmail, as that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources, but it's appropriate to mention the accusations. R2 (bleep) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
One problem is that we did not know then whether Trump leaked information about his purchases in order to inflate the price, whether he sold them to management or to third parties and whether his selling price was inflated. If these facts were known, then it could be determined whether the transactions were pump and dump, greenmail, or an attempt to gain control of the company or just shrewd speculation. This is a BLP and we should not publish defamatory claims against a person without checking whether or not they turned out to be true. There is an irony in discrediting Trump without checking our facts. (Isn't that what he is accused of doing and the reason we don't like him?) TFD (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No, he's accused of lying. And there are many reasons people don't like him, but not checking his facts isn't quite one of them. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is clear that noteworthy allegations are appropriate. R2 (bleep) 18:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, your edit summary for the revert was "standard business practices, quite commonplace really." Do you have any RS for that statement? Even if you did, that wouldn’t be a reason for a revert, according to WP:DONTREVERT; engaging in "standard business practices" for several years and making and losing hundreds of millions of dollars seems worthy of—at least—a short and well-sourced mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Trump’s takeover bids/stock buying and selling activities (Holiday Corp., Bally Manufacturing Corp, Allegis Corp., Federated Department Stores, Alexander’s Department Stores, American Airlines—the list probably isn’t complete) were covered individually in newspaper articles in the 1980s and early 1990s—I’m still sifting through the lot I was able to find. CNN did an in-depth report in 2016 that seems to have been generally ignored (everyone too busy reading DNC and Podesta emails?). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers

As a replacement for the procedural thread above, please discuss here which language and which sources should be used to cover the impact of tariffs on American consumers. — JFG talk 08:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

More discussion of process ~Awilley (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reverted edit was perfectly adequate in every respect and should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously some editors disagree, so the WP:ONUS is on you to convince them before the content can be restored. — JFG talk 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you or others like to explain precisely how the edit is BOLD, as opposed to, say, WP:IREALLYDONTLIKEIT? soibangla (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Any edit that adds content is bold. WP:BRD states: Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. and If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. Anyway, that is not the point: the process discussion was the previous thread. Here, you are invited to make your case on the merits of your proposed content. — JFG talk 06:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If Any edit that adds content is bold were true, countless editors would be routinely citing BRD to revert edits they don't like. Alas, that is rare, in fact. BRD is being GAMED in this instance. soibangla (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Not gaming anything at all. Myself and several others seem to find your additions to be undue weight for THIS article. I see you have added the same material to daughter articles and there I have made no BRD. I suggest you start an Rfc so we can determine consensus for inclusion.--MONGO (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is whether such belongs here at all — there’s two main hurdles (I’ll agree with what was mentioned by MONGO).
  • First, does such even belong in BLP or should it get redirected to the Presidency of Donald Trump.
  • Second, does an aspect have enough WEIGHT to mention. The tools I have, pending books being written, is prominence in newspapers and search results, or Google count.
  • I think any such should talk actual fact, such as the area or kinds of goods affected. (Electronics and shoes to U.S., food to China). The comparison mentioned before is verging on WP:CRYSTAL - while it’s only reporting that someone else projected years into the future, with whatever good or bad math. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not ready to weigh in on specific language or sources, but I support inclusion of this subject matter. We mention Trump's tax policies prominently, we mention his tariffs policies prominently, so an assessment of the net impact of those policies seems noteworthy and appropriate. R2 (bleep) 17:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Have to strip out the artistic hyperbole here ‘core’ or ‘persona’ or ‘signature’ are speculative psychology, not factual events. Also comparisons and “unique” are usually rejected as problematic and appears a bit false. The 30 years ago being support for Reagan doing similar sort of argues against unique, as do articles comparing these to Nixon’s mistakes, or folks simply walking thru items like Johnson’s Chicken tax, Nixon’s Nixon shock, Bush senior 2002 United States steel tariff, 2009 Obama tire tariff, solar tariff, etcetera or Tariffs in United States history. UNDUE in spin, but unemotionally and stripped of artistic frill phrases one could say his policy includes tariffs as a much wider number of articles mention the facts of his support. But, when stripped of personal psychology ... it’s not BLP, Again, more a topic for Presidency article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These edits are not proposed language for the article. They are rationales for restoration of the reverted content, to show why it is DUE. Sure, other presidents have imposed tariffs, but He is unique among modern presidents in his enthusiastic embrace of sweeping tariffs. It has been a consistent theme of Trump the man for decades, not merely Trump the candidate/president recently, so that's why it belongs in the BLP. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Soibangla This is the wrong venue for that, this is a thread for language discussion, of possible bit, not for proposal about un-reverting yet again with the objected to bit. I'll suggest you might take out the many individual adds you did for that here, except for the two that have replies -- and recraft a language proposal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • An April 2019 study conducted by economists at the University of Chicago and the Federal Reserve found that the Trump tariffs on washing machines raised $82 million in federal revenues but cost consumers $1.5 billion in higher prices, and while foreign producers shifted some production to America to create 1,800 jobs, each job cost $817,000. The study also found that, rather than absorbing some portion of the tariffs, manufacturers passed on between 125% and 225% of the costs to consumers, improving manufacturers’ profits. Washer prices increased by about 12%, and because washers and dryers are typically sold together, manufacturers also increased dryer prices in tandem with washer prices, even though dryers were not subject to tariffs. soibangla (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • May 2019 analysis conducted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that although Trump's steel tariffs helped to create or save American steelworker jobs, they came at a cost of over $900,000 each. The total number of created/saved jobs was 12,700, according to analysis by the pro-tariff Alliance for American Manufacturing, although the number of workers in industries that consume steel outnumber those in the steel industry by a factor of about 80:1. The tariffs have caused domestic steel prices to be higher than foreign prices, which helps American steel producer profits, but makes consumers of steel at a disadvantage relative to their international competitors. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • March 2019 analysis conducted by Princeton, Columbia and FRBNY economists found that by November 2018 “tariffs were costing U.S. consumers and the firms that import foreign goods an additional $3 billion per month in added tax costs,” with a “reduction in U.S. real income of $1.4 billion per month” and “the full incidence of the tariff falls on domestic consumers.” soibangla (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Unpublished non peer reviewed paper the centre even says that using the paper as a citation should take into consideration that it is a provisional paper...aka as unendorsed.--MONGO (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • March 2019 analysis conducted by economists from UCLA, UCBerkeley, Columbia and the World Bank found “U.S. import tariffs favored workers in tradeable sectors living in electorally competitive counties. We find that the majority of counties experienced reductions in tradeable wages due to foreign retaliation. However, workers in very Republican counties bore the brunt of the costs of the trade war, in part because retaliations disproportionately targeted agricultural sectors.” They also found “complete pass-through of tariffs...suggesting that U.S. consumers bear the incidence of the tariff.” soibangla (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • February 2019 analysis conducted by Trade Partnership Worldwide found:
    • Effect of existing tariffs: U.S. GDP (annual percent): -0.37, Annual impact on family of four: -$767, One-time net impact on U.S. jobs: -934,700
    • Effect of existing tariffs plus threatened additional tariffs on all Chinese imports, with retaliation: U.S. GDP (annual percent): -1.01, Annual impact on family of four: -$2,294, One-time net impact on U.S. jobs: -2,159,500 soibangla (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed the addition regarding Kudlows comments that you inserted, was BRD removed by JFG and then restored by you in violation of BRD. I also removed MrX addition to that paragragh as a BRD move. Gain consensus for further restoration of this material.--MONGO (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

I reverted this removal of cited content on the basis that it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. I think this should be properly discussed first. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I already did the BRD...sorry if my revert of that undue material was not characterized as a challenge by my reversion already. That belongs in the Presidency article, not this BLP.--MONGO (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There are some edits in the subsection that probably don't belong there, but this particular edit isn't among them. If we're going to have an "Economy and trade" section in his BLP, a significant effect of his signature economic policy is most certainly germane. soibangla (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There were numerous sources before and after the election that Trump was going to cause a stock sell off/recession/economic turmoil etc. and for most folks that has not rung true. If were going to be adding prognistications its best to do it somewhere off the BLP main page.--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
In this case it is based on the economic reality that the administration has imposed tariffs which directly increase the costs paid by businesses/consumers buying imports, and economists have actual empirical data to work with. If anything belongs here, this does. soibangla (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Irregardless, my edit was the BRD so Scjessey should self revert.--MONGO (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It belongs in the article.2600:1702:2340:9470:9C71:218B:7331:3E2E (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Your edit summary said Undue for this BLP, perhaps in Presidency subarticle. Why are his decades in TV (wrestling, beauty pageants, Apprentice) undue for a personal bio? You removed the occupation "television personality" from the info box in the same edit. That's not something that could happen accidentally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Removing the television personality was not intended and should be kept of course.--MONGO (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • REMOVED. Please follow WP:BRD - don’t restore the changes or engage in back and forth reverting. The para comparing tarrifs to tax breaks had been deleted, posting a thread and discussing was good and proper. Restoring it immediately, not so much.
This seems yet another same-day posted story, and as I’ve said before that simply gives no time for WEIGHT (if any) to appear, or responses and further details. WP is not a news hotline, give it a 48 hour waiting period and it will be more obvious whether it is big or not. I rather doubt it though — this is a speculation and calculation against if tariffs go on vs comparison, a created item rather than factual event or causally linked item. Newspaper has to fill the space up with something every day and this is a good do — but WP doesn’t and shouldn’t copy every one. Also, this does seem the wrong article, OFFTOPIC as not BLP - not one of his personal life decisions or impacts - and CNBC remarks are too low a detail for here. It might take the mentioned suggestion and try the Presidential article, though even there I think it should be viewed as little coverage (UNDUE) illustrative speculation and/or partisan posturing. And WP simply cannot usefully add immediately same-day tales, each day, of every story du jour of daily spin. As a crafted portrayal rather than simple report of event facts, it should only get space if it shows some duration, spread, and effect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The material is appropriate for this article, every bit as much as the tax cuts passed by Congress. It has been extensively covered by major news organizations. We should also add that Trump lied[18] about Chinese paying the tariffs: "So our country can take in $120 billion a year in tariffs, paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us. A lot of people try and steer it in a different direction. It’s really paid — ultimately, it’s paid for by — largely, by China."[19][20]- MrX 🖋 12:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

After I reverted MONGO's edit and then posted here, I went offline until just now. Looking back at the edit history, I see that I had incorrectly assumed the paragraph in question had been there for much longer. I apologize to @MONGO: for reverting their quite proper BRD edit. I would've self reverted, but I can see that I sparked off a bit of an edit war. For the record, I am in favor of retaining the paragraph per comments made above by Space4Time3Continuum2x and MrX, but I would be perfectly happy for it to be removed pending the outcome of this discussion. My bad. Apart from the big tax give away to rich people and corporations, Trump's tariffs have had more of a direct impact on the economy (and the stock market in particular) than anything else he has done in the last couple of years, so obviously it is something that should be included. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. There were numerous sources before and after the election that Trump was going to cause a stock sell off/recession/economic turmoil etc. and for most folks that has not rung true. What does that have to do with the added costs for businesses and consumers through tariffs imposed on imports and those costs going straight into the government's coffers? That's not soothsaying, it's math. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The edit is not BOLD. That it may be stunning to and intensely disliked by some does not make it BOLD. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Soibangla The Revert comment of MONGO for the CNBC 5/16 comparing projected tax cuts to projected tariffs was “Undue for this BLP, perhaps in Presidency sub article”. Please BRD Discuss with MONGO, preferably in policy and factual evidence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I did discuss it with MONGO on the terms you describe. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Soibangla Where is it? I don’t see showing evidence of WEIGHT and doing my own Google, the topic of Trump Chinese tariffs got 65 million hits — that but tariffs equivalent to taxes is a microscopic 76 thousand of the 65 million (about 00.1 percent). And I see a bit about if there’s an economy section this should be here ... which isn’t showing this is part of a biographical bit. I’m willing to say the economy section doesn’t belong in a BLP ‘story of his life’, nor this part. But we don’t need to talk OFFTOPIC if this part can’t even show WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


  • I cannot believe the people here who are NOT abiding by my BRD reversion. My reversion should not be edit warred over until a consensus is achieved either way. @Awilley: maybe can check the recent editing history and issue reminders to MrX and others who keep restoring this material without a consensus to do so.--MONGO (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This also might be a good opportunity to re-examine the reasonableness of invoking BRD when an edit isn’t actually BOLD. soibangla (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You inserted this content on 17 May 2019, 18:02,[21] and MONGO reverted two hours later at 20:19.[22] Per BRD, the first edit was Bold, the second was a Revert, and now people are Discussing. There is no need to re-examine the reasonableness of invoking BRD, unless you want to question a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. — JFG talk 07:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not questioning a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. I am saying that the edit was not BOLD to begin with, and I already explicitly stated that to make my position abundantly clear. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
After the initial B and R steps, various editors edit-warred over the content (Scjessey, Rogerd, Kingerikthesecond, Markbassett and MrX); that is improper. Please all wait until this discussion reaches consensus. In the meantime, the disputed content must stay out, and I will remove it now. I have not yet formed an opinion on the merits of this text; this is purely a procedural removal — JFG talk 07:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a new thread to discuss what to say about the #Impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers. Thus, procedural issues (discussed here) can be segregated from content issues (to be discussed in new thread). — JFG talk 08:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: As I said above, I had not realized the material was only recently added when I challenged MONGO's edit. I thought I was initiating a BRD cycle. It was not my intention to edit war, and I specifically apologized for precipitating one in my comment above. It is absolutely correct that the paragraph in question should not be in the article unless a consensus for inclusion is reached. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you only realized this later + you took the right step by initiating the discussion. No problem at all. — JFG talk 13:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Making a single edit is never edit warring and I don't need a reminder, thank you. My edit was perfectly reasonable.- MrX 🖋 12:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but JFG is right. This article is under WP:1RR, and technically every edit removal/addition of the content after MONGO's is a violation (including mine and JFG's). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Huh? 1RR is not a shared restriction. I made on 1RR. I'm not responsible for the others. Please read WP:EW if you still think a single revert ever qualifies as edit warring.- MrX 🖋 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: It's not WP:EW that you need to be concerned about, it's WP:ARBAPDS. I've previously received warnings for a single edit that initiated or perpetuated an edit war, and all the edits after MONGO's initial reversion did this. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That's just not right. I initiated the Arbcom case that resulted in ARBAPDS and at no evidence whatsoever was presented about editors making a single revert, nor did Arbcom have any findings of fact in that regard. You may be thinking of Coffee's restrictions, which gave inordinate control of these articles to sockpuppets and SPAs who had no interest in developing articles.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: Once an edit has been "challenged" per WP:BRD (as MONGO did), there should be no further deletions/restorations of the material in question, and it most certainly not be edit warred over, even if it is only a single edit. That's akin to tag teaming, even if it isn't specifically coordinated. Administrators have taken a dim view of this sort of behavior, including when it comes to enforcing ARBAPDS. Yes, Coffee was responsible for some particularly aggressive enforcement, but that still doesn't change the underlying enforcement policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
We’ve come all this way without any explanation as to why the edit was considered BOLD to begin with, but instead the reverter demands that the editor explain why it isn’t BOLD. Thus the reverter succeeds in vetoing an edit by demanding others prove a negative, when the reverter hasn’t even justified the basis for the reversion. This might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the reversion is based on a false pretext, a ruse when no valid reason to revert is readily available. IMO, it’s GAMING. It’s IDONTLIKEIT. And why do I get the feeling that some guys are smirking and snickering as they read this? soibangla (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: I got a warning after one damn edit? WTF?? Are you saying that 0RR applies now? This edit is UNDUE --rogerd (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to "warn" any of you. I just wanted to stop the edit-warring, and let people discuss the merits of the text in a proper thread below. — JFG talk 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It isn't EW. Read the special restriction. X is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it is. Under the restrictions, any reversion that is again reverted can be considered edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes; BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing; BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle soibangla (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is true MONGO should've begun a discussion on this talk page after reverting, they did provide an explanation for their reversion in their edit summary:

"Undue for this BLP, perhaps in Presidency subarticle"

-- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As I explained to MONGO in this thread, There are some edits in the subsection that probably don't belong there, but this particular edit isn't among them. I find it interesting that s/he finds the only "UNDUE" edit in the subsection to be the one that reports from multiple reliable sources on the actual outcomes of the tariffs now coming in, confirming that the warnings from the overwhelming consensus of reputable economists when the tariffs were proposed are now coming to pass. Trump calls himself Mr. Tariffs, it is his signature economic policy, he's been talking about it for 30+ years, and a brief discussion of the outcomes of that policy is DUE, while other edits in the subsection likely are not, yet no one ever called those edits UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla, in your edit summary here you stated that: "Although Trump has repeatedly asserted that his tariffs contribute to GDP growth, the consensus among analysts — including Trump's top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow — is that the Trump tariffs have had a small to moderately negative effect on GDP growth"...and the edit added the same passage. Indeed the sources do claim that economists believe Trump is wrong to say that increased tariffs have helped to increase the GDP, however, you framed it in a manner that suggests that Kudlow is in total disagreement with Trump on the tariff issue. Your factchecker source even clearly states Kudlow's full stance on the tariff situation is that, “a risk we should and can take without damaging our economy in any appreciable way” in order “to correct 20 years plus of unfair trading practices with China. We have had unfair trading practices all these years, and so in my judgment, the economic consequences are so small that the possible improvement in trade and exports and open markets for the United States, this is worthwhile doing, Kudlow said" here. We cannot just cherrypick portions of comments without putting them into their full context. THAT is exactly what tendentious editing IS. But all this gets back to my belief that this addition(s) are undue for this BLP...we must go into great depth to keep the section neutral and that causes us to stray away from following summary style. This is why we have subarticles dedicated to this sort of detail.--MONGO (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not cherrypicking, you are. Kudlow acknowledged that the White House estimates that increased tariffs on all Chinese goods would amount to “about two tenths of 1 percent of GDP, so it’s a very modest number." That's why my edit said it was a small or moderately negative effect. Contrary to what Trump has said, that tariffs contribute to GDP, Kudlow has said it has a negative effect, albeit a small one. "without damaging our economy in any appreciable way” does not mean "positive." soibangla (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As I explained, other edits in the subsection may be UNDUE, particularly because they do not provide a comprehensive explanation of all the tariff actions, as the Economic Policy article does. Why haven't you reverted those? In contrast, Trump calls himself Mr. Tariffs, he has been urging tariffs for 30+ years, it is his signature economic policy, he claims the tariffs add to GDP which has nearly universally contradicted, including by his own top economic advisor, and now CNBC has actual data showing it the equivalent of a large tax increase. That is certainly due here. Golly, you think some partisans might not want that to be known here? soibangla (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's tariff claims

This was removed:

Although Trump has repeatedly asserted that his tariffs contribute to GDP growth, the consensus among analysts — including Trump's top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow — is that the Trump tariffs have had a small to moderately negative effect on GDP growth.[1][2] On several occasions, Trump also falsely said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury—a claim also contradicted by Kudlow.[3][4][5]

Sources

  1. ^ Farley, Robert (May 14, 2019). "Economists: Tariffs Not Boosting GDP".
  2. ^ Congressional Research Service, Trump Administration Tariff Actions: Frequently Asked Questions, February 2019 — https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45529.pdf
  3. ^ Bort, Ryan (May 13, 2019). "Trump's Most Blatant Lie Is His Lie About Tariffs". Rolling Stone (magazine). Retrieved May 20, 2019.
  4. ^ Jacobson, Louis (May 14, 2019). "Who pays for US tariffs on Chinese goods? You do". PolitiFact. Retrieved May 20, 2019.
  5. ^ Newburger, Emma (May 12, 2019). "Kudlow acknowledges US will pay for China tariffs, contradicting Trump". CNBC. Retrieved May 20, 2019.

If there is good reason for removing this widely-reported material, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, I'm inclined to restore it. (BRD is not a valid reason for removing it.)- MrX 🖋 21:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support If the article was less about his presidency, I'd say leave it out. As his presidency is included in general, and tariffs in particular, and the changing tariffs have had rather large effects on businesses, workers, and markets, it belongs. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
We went over this already. It is UNDUE and nothing but cherrypicked one sided nothingness. It exists in the Presidency article where I already clarified these details and made sure Kudlows comments were put in proper perspective. If we go into this level of detail here we are not following Summary Style.--MONGO (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Not cherry picked. The first two Google search results for Trump tariffs are "Trump tariff increases hurting US businesses in China, survey says" and "Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?".
What is the "other side" to Trump's falsehood that China pay's US tariffs on Chinese exports?
What is the "proper perspective" for Kudlow's comments and why is that needed in this article?- MrX 🖋 11:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is it needed? A. For the purposes of neutrality. B. So the ratioanale for the tariffs can be placed in perspective. Do you really think Trump is imposing tariffs to destroy the economy deliberately? That is how the wording you came up with looks. In addition the fact that the tariffs will and have led to a shrinking Chinese dollar valuation means our exchange rate increases, and that increases our purchasing power on their goods. The fact that even most economists are talking about a 0.04% increase across the boards in the long haul is also omitted. My point is, simply slapping a negativism about Trump up to malign his policies without taking in the full ecominc forecast is not a neutral treatise of the issue and since we are trying to follow summary style here, going into the level of detail needed becomes undue. Now if you can figure out a way to present the tariff issue more neutrally I might agree. Can you summarize this in a manner that is more neutral?--MONGO (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It's highly noteworthy that the President of the United States is either very uninformed about how tariffs work, or he is blatantly lying to the American public. I can't think of another time in history when president expressed such wanton ignorance of basic trade economics. It's far more important that recognizing Jerusalem, attempting and failing at detente with North Korea, and Scottish golf resorts. Also, still waiting to hear about the other side of China not paying export tariffs.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The full text on this issue in the Presidency article is: Analysis conducted by CNBC in May 2019 found that Trump "enacted tariffs equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades," while Tax Foundation and Tax Policy Center analyses found the tariffs could wipe out the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for many households.[1][2][3][4] While Trump has repeatedly asserted that his tariffs contribute to GDP growth, the consensus among analysts — including Trump's top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow — is that the Trump tariffs have had a small to moderately negative effect on GDP growth.[5][6] Kudlow was also quoted as being in support of the administrations efforts to renegotiate tariffs with China, stating that this is, “a risk we should and can take without damaging our economy in any appreciable way” in order “to correct 20 years plus of unfair trading practices with China.” Kudlow went on to state that, “We have had unfair trading practices all these years, and so in my judgment, the economic consequences are so small that the possible improvement in trade and exports and open markets for the United States, this is worthwhile doing,”.[5]
And even this level of coverage is incomplete.--MONGO (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Liesman, Steve (May 16, 2019). "Trump's tariffs are equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades". CNBC.
  2. ^ Keshner, Andrew. "Trump's escalating trade war with China could wipe out benefits from his tax reform". MarketWatch.
  3. ^ "Trump Tariffs Could Wipe Out Tax Cuts for Many Households". www.msn.com.
  4. ^ "For Many Households, Trump's Tariffs Could Wipe Out The Benefits of the TCJA". Tax Policy Center. May 14, 2019.
  5. ^ a b Farley, Robert (May 14, 2019). "Economists: Tariffs Not Boosting GDP".
  6. ^ Congressional Research Service, Trump Administration Tariff Actions: Frequently Asked Questions, February 2019 — https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45529.pdf
Kudlow is not the central topic.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking about cherry-picking. Found your clarified ... details—by searching for "Kudlow"—buried at the end of a section that is at least a dozen paragraphs long, with a link that doesn't work. This link (NYT) works; you used four long quotes from Kudlow's Fox News interview, but you didn't find this one worth mentioning: “In fact, both sides will pay,” Mr. Kudlow said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Both sides will suffer on this.” (but—in his judgment—no big deal, the economic consequences are so small that the possible improvement in trade and exports and open markets for the United States, this is worthwhile doing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That is where the additions were recently made to that article and my link worked for me and is the same one used a day prior.--MONGO (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of this material. Tariffs are a key component of Trump's economic policy, so excluding their economic effects would be bizarre. In fact, doing so would give the false impression that Trump's tariffs are somehow good for the economy. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:31B2:15B8:E989:8543 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1702:2340:9470:31B2:15B8:E989:8543 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support but trim way down. The content in dispute appears to address two related but separate issues: (1) the effects of tariffs, and (2) Trump's false statements about the effects of tariffs. (1) is appropriate for inclusion, (2) is not. The purpose of this article isn't to debunk Trump's bullshit, nor is it to describe the he-said, she-said between Trump's bullshit and the verifiable truth (playing into the Trump/Bannon "the media is the enemy of the people" paradigm). That stuff belongs in the "False statements" and "Relationship with the press" sections. The "Economy and trade" section, on the other hand, should ignore the bullshit and focus on the verifiable facts. R2 (bleep) 18:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Trump's level of competence and truthfulness are very important, and very biographical. I could care less about debunking anything.- MrX 🖋 22:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Got it. The issue about Trumps statement on the tariffs and the impact on the GDP are the focus apparently. See no reason to load up this BLP with forecasts and what-ifs that probably have no more reality to them than the forecasts that said the election of Trump would crash the stock markets cause an economic downturn and lead to increased unemployment.--MONGO (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course Trump's incompetence and untruthfulness are very important and very biographical. They're just not sufficiently on point in this particular section, in this particular article. We could veritably inundate the entire article with all of Trump's statements in every aspect of his life and presidency and how bullshit they are, but taken to an extreme it would violate WP:BALASPS. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The tariffs, the false claims about them, and their detrimental economic impact are all very widely sourced and the length is appropriate. The two separate references to Kudlow are a bit much (can't that be consolidated into a single sentence?) but that should be handled in the ordinary course of editing. Neutralitytalk 01:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but without the Kudlow remarks. Per Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but without the Kudlow remarks Per Neutrality.</s This man's knowledge of economics is relevant. starship.paint (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Snooganssnoogans and Starship.paint. Would you support a single sentence about Kudlow's comments, as suggested by Neutrality, or do you think any mention of him has to be omitted entirely?- MrX 🖋
As in...?

Analysis conducted by CNBC in May 2019 found that Trump "enacted tariffs equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades," while Tax Foundation and Tax Policy Center analyses found the tariffs could wipe out the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for many households. Although Trump has repeatedly asserted that his tariffs contribute to GDP growth, the consensus among analysts — including Trump's top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow — is that the Trump tariffs have had a small to moderately negative effect on GDP growth. On several occasions, Trump also falsely said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury—a claim also contradicted by Kudlow. soibangla (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that addresses the concern that we should only mention Kudlow one time, or not at all.- MrX 🖋 22:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
MrX, I would omit Kudlow from the proposed sentences in this article. I would think that being a president who doesn’t listen to his aide is more relevant to the presidency article, while being a man who doesn’t know economics is relevant for both articles. starship.paint (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX Please stop. This is in a BRD discussion above, it does not need another Re-re-revert. It does not need a separate thread, the it just needs some discussion of the poster with the reverter on the concerns and hopefully resolve it there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - has no lasting value, it's a prediction (CRYSTALBALL), and it's UNDUE. Atsme Talk 📧 02:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    The only portion of the proposed wording that reads like a prediction is Trump's repeated assertions that his tariffs contribute to GDP growth. But the fact that he said it is not a prediction. It actually happened.- MrX 🖋 18:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oddly, the GDP is up since the tariffs. I also doubt this is related but seems the real issues about the tariffs are secondary to attempts to show a statement Trump made is not in concert with most economists and his economic advisor. The fact that Kudlow also feels Trump should try to rejig the tariffs with China and others is supported by Kudlow doesn't matter since that isn't neutral? Is that what you're saying?--MONGO (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Are you asking me or Atsme? If you're asking me, you will have to clarify the question because I don't understand how it relates to my previous comment.- MrX 🖋 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Double vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interesting that this IP and the IP above (2600:1702:2340:9470:31B2:15B8:E989:8543) both geolocate to same place and each has a total of one edit.--MONGO (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as UNDUE. This article is a BLP about the person, the tariff information belongs in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    That defies reason and evidence. This content is backed by dozens of sources from around the world, all of them about something Trump himself did or said. It has received sustained coverage for nearly three weeks. In fact, WP:DUEWEIGHT is quite clear that we have to include this to maintain a neutral POV.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] We have 6487 words in this article under 'Presidency', but somehow 64 words about Trump's outlandish claim is undue. Trump lying to 300+ million Americans about a major economic issue is not even worth 1% of the space under Presidency in this article? - MrX 🖋 15:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Tariffs have been a consistent theme of Trump the man for decades, not merely Trump the candidate/president recently, so that's why it's DUE for his BLP
  • By that rationale, I can foresee a ton of upcoming cuts to the article, because if "detail" from one of Trump's most significant economic policies can be cut out, then so can detail for a host of other things far less important. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No, we don't POV fork content just because a few editors don't like it.- MrX 🖋 15:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you create a neutral treatise about the tariffs and mostly avoid the analysis about Trump being, as in your response to MrErnie above, a liar? How do your prognosticators explain the GDP growth since the tariffs? Is stating that Kudlow disagrees with Trump in regards to the equation higher tariffs=GDP growth, not allowing Kudlows further comments from the same interview, that Kudlow supports Trumps efforts to rejig tariffs since the benefits outweigh the costs, have to be omitted? Is the goal to just show that Trump is a "liar" or a BLP policy following summary about the tariffs? Bottomline is taking only the portion of the interview where kudlow says the opposite of what Trump says and omitting the clarification is pure cherrypicking. By time we do make this a neutral addition, it becomes a very longish mess, and will be UNDUE.--MONGO (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The content in discussion is a faithful reputation of the sources, and it helps contextualize the trade war material already covered in the article. If you know of a dozen or so sources that tie recent GDP gains to the tariffs, go a ahead write some copy and cite your sources. I would also suggest that people learn how to read sources. News articles have headlines and ledes, which show us what those sources deem to be important.
On the matter of goals, there is no imperative to show that Trump is a liar. What is important is how he has framed his trade war, and how that relates to the reality of the situation.- MrX 🖋 15:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It is faithful to only portions of Kudlows comments. It omits the facts that Kudlow is in agreement with Trump Administration efforts to rejig the trade issues. It omits the mystifying fact that GDP has not in fact yet been adversely impacted. It omits the fact that the devaluation of the Yuan increases American dollar spending power, offsetting some of the "costs". It also doesn't examine why Trump has been engaged in a tariff dispute with China, one that addresses the balance of trade issue and also the intellectual property theft China has been engaged in that Trump wants to put an end to. We can't frame the issue here on this page in a manner that follows summary style. There is no reason this level of depth cannot be better served by being placed in an article dedicated to this sort of discussion as JFG and others have suggested. I will however offer wording within a day maybe we can all agree on as I do think some sort of tariff/trade discussion deserves some mention here.--MONGO (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if we are discussing 1) Trump's claim that tariffs contribute to GDP growth, and 2) Trump's claim that China pays for the tariffs, then I don't understand why we would delve into Kudlow's comments about other things. I also don't see anything about devaluing the Yuan in the factcheck.org source. Are you refering to this in the CRS report?

With regard to the value of the U.S. dollar, as demand for foreign goods may fall in response to higher tariffs, U.S. demand for foreign currency may also fall, putting upward pressure on the relative exchange value of the dollar. This in turn would reduce demand for U.S. exports and increase demand for foreign imports, partly offsetting the effects of the tariffs.

If so, I don't understand how reduced demand for U.S. exports would boost the GDP (admittedly, I'm not an economist).- MrX 🖋 17:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
"Are Trump’s Tariffs Bolstering the U.S. Economy? Nope — The boost from trade in the first quarter looks like a blip" soibangla (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The contribution of net exports to GDP is highly volatile from quarter to quarter. It's what economists call "noisy" data. For example, during the quarter after tariffs began, net exports added 1.2 percentage points to GDP, but the next quarter it subtracted 2.0 percentage points. The average since the tariffs began is 0.0 percentage points. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - wait until the trade war is over - see RECENTISM. Furthermore, GDP should be calculated annually, so if this is just a quarterly GDP - see RECENTISM. One last thing, it doesn't belong in his BLP - UNDUE. Atsme Talk 📧 20:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
wait until the trade war is over Multiple reliable sources reported this week that Wall Street and companies are preparing for a protracted trade war; Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday that he was personally questioning some of America’s largest companies about their plans for weathering the Trump administration’s trade war with China; Trump just gave farmers another $16 billion in aid
GDP should be calculated annually I agree that first quarter GDP growth of 3.2% does not establish the tariff policy is working, as some assert: the president turned to Mr. Navarro, who showed the senators a slide presentation that documented how the tariffs had helped lift first-quarter economic growth to 3.2 percent
it doesn't belong in his BLP:
Tariffs have been a consistent theme of Trump the man for decades, not merely Trump the candidate/president recently, so that's why it's DUE for his BLP
soibangla, I don’t think your edit has been discussed properly. The discussion of MONGO’s removal, Scjessey’s subsequent reversion of Mongo’s removal of your edit about the tariffs being equivalent to a tax increase—and two additional reversions by other editors on procedural grounds—got mired in a procedural discussion which JFG seems to have tried to put back on track but unfortunately on a different track, i.e., the impact on U.S. consumers in general. As the NY Times Editorial Board says, … a tariff is a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, and such taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they cost lower-income families a larger share of their income than they cost upper-income families. MrX’s discussion on Trump claiming that the tariffs increase the GDP are a related, but different matter. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the reversion of my original edit that initiated this long discussion appears to have slipped through the cracks. Unless another editor objects, I believe that original edit should be restored as well I will restore it. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Object. Post an Rfc to gain concensus for this.--MONGO (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
That didn’t come out right. I should have said that the titles of both discussions (Reversion explanation and Impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers) were misleading. It’s not just consumers who are affected through higher consumer prices but also businesses. What good is the tax cut to them if they go out of business because consumers can no longer afford to buy their products with the tariff/tax tacked on? I think juxtaposing the claims for the 2017 Tax and Jobs Act and for the tariffs is a valid point that hasn’t been addressed in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion without any mention of Kudlow. Is the restored sentence now open to normal editing? I’m late voicing my opinion because I had problems formulating my objection to mentioning Kudlow without violating BLP. Kudlow is not an analyst, he is a successful self-promoter whose "one Big Idea is supply-side economics"; he "attributes every positive economic indicator to lower taxes, and every piece of negative news to higher taxes," and he "has been spectacularly wrong on the biggest economic turning points in modern history." In line with his Big Idea, he saw the tariffs for what they are, a tax increase, and then—to please his current master—did some tap-dancing and spinning to arrive at his usual forecast of the other forecasts being all wrong and the tariffs being "a risk we should and can take without damaging our economy in any appreciable way." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per atsme, Mr Ernie and JFG. WP:UNDUE, subjective opinion; not saying this material has no place in Wikipedia, it is better suited to another D. Trump article e.g., the article about his presidency.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

TLDR

The above debate among learned editors about the finer points of international tariffs and their economic impact is no doubt interesting and relevant to the current U.S. administration's policy and China's reaction. I'm still puzzled that the focus seems to be on showing that Trump said something wrong yet again (in his BLP), rather than explaining what is actually unfolding and how various people represent it (which should happen in other articles). — JFG talk 14:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's been addressed. Trump has used his bully pulpit to personally promote his policy with blatantly false information, as he has frequently done in the past. In case you are not aware, that's also what autocrats do. It's historically unprecedented, reckless, and shows deep character flaw. If you think there is a better way to summarize this information, perhaps you can share it with us. I don't quite follow what you mean by ... how various people represent it". Could you elaborate?- MrX 🖋 17:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I've met four Presidents and they all lied. Since the issue of Trump being a liar is all documented why we diviate from the facts of the tariffs to highlight the alleged lying is telling. What have the tariffs actually done that can be connected to any yet known economic disaster? All we have is forecasts and even those mainly look at what an escalation MIGHT do, based on past incidences.--MONGO (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have done a fairly comprehensive job of explaining what is actually unfolding and how various people represent it, as well as why it is DUE for the BLP, but I have found the response to be strictly crickets. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Where did you suggest article text that explains the tariff situation and its representation? Reading your numerous comments on this talk page, I see you arguing that your first edit somehow wasn't bold, and listing many sources to support your assertion that Trump has been a "tariff man" for 30 years. What's missing is a proposed edit giving better context and balanced treatment. All of which is in my opinion undue for this biographical article. — JFG talk 11:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
If indeed Trump has been supportive of tariffs for many decades (which might be biographically significant), then why not just say that, instead of focusing on Trump's inaccurate details and Kudlow's apparent contradictions? — JFG talk 11:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
That’s your prerogative—no need to shout, dear. I'm still puzzled, 'though, how you know what the learned editors debated if you DR. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I've read most of it, then skipped repetitive arguments and wrote this. — JFG talk 11:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Twitter followers

Mgasparin [36] - does your source actually back up that and as of 2019 he has one of the highest numbers of Twitter followers ever? I don't think they said that? starship.paint (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump is currently #13 in worldwide followers, at 60+ million just behind Kim Kardashian, per our article List of most-followed Twitter accounts, and its main source.[37] Not really "one of the highest numbers", but not too shabby either. — JFG talk 16:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't there an RfC a few months ago in which the consensus was that we shouldn't include content about numbers of Twitter followers without independent secondary sourcing, since follower counts are so easily manipulated? R2 (bleep) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
If he’s 13th we could add “13th as of May 2019”. Or “top 15/20 as of May 2019”. starship.paint (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

At least one analysis found Trump has more fake followers than any other major political tweeter. Russian bots, doncha know. soibangla (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_97&oldid=1226591814"