Jump to content

Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MyJunoBaldwin (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 4 October 2020 (→Split into 4 articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

This edit should be reverted

because the stated reason, that Trump's 2020 claim is not mentioned in the removed text, is irrelevant. The removal of this content fundamentally alters the meaning in a misleading way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&curid=52231341&diff=978276215&oldid=978273451

soibangla (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not, and you should read WP:OR before making any more of these edits- it should be obvious that an editor can't uses sources from 2017-2019 to support something regarding a 2020 speech. Trying to reconnect (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be removed because articles are not supposed to report conclusions reached by editors, per WP:SYN, but only those reached in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The removed content of ”the industry steadily recovered to reach record sales in 2015 and 2016, before sales declined in 2017 and 2019“ is neither OR nor SYNTH. Cited LA Times said about 2016 “beating 2015’s record“ (thus supporting “record sales in 2015 and 2016”) and “It was the seventh consecutive year of year-over-year sales gains, an unprecedented string“ (thus supporting ”steadily recovered”) and cited USA Today said about 2017 “The U.S. auto industry's seven-year sales streak has come to an end,” while cited CNBC said 2019 “US auto sales fall in 2019” (thus supporting “sales declined in 2017 and 2019.”)Thus the removed content is fully supported by multiple reliable secondary sources and should be restored. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 2016 or 2019 statement can't be related to a 2020 speech. That should be obvious . YOU are the one making the connection - taking an old article and using it to rebut a claim made in 2020. That is original research which is not allowed. Trying to reconnect (talk)
Citing multiple reliable secondary contemporaneous sources from the period in question in the statement “the last administration nearly killed the U.S. auto industry“ is neither OR nor SYNTH. Your repeated objection that A 2016 or 2019 statement can't be related to a 2020 speech is baseless, as reliable sources routinely do this and thus such content is routinely accepted here. You are effectively arguing that historical facts cannot be used to evaluate a current assertion. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a 2020 article that uses those figures, by all means use it. Otherwise, you need to read WP:OR and realize that what you are doing is not allowed. Reliable sources can do it, you as an editor can't. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite OR language prohibiting the content. soibangla (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not what I did. As I explained above. the provided references support "”the industry steadily recovered to reach record sales in 2015 and 2016, before sales declined in 2017 and 2019." There is no impled conclusion, the references explicitly support the sentence. You have argued that a sentence of historical facts would be acceptable only if supported by a 2020 reference, but that it is not acceptable if supported by contemporaneous references, simply because the sentence refutes a statement made in 2020. I find such reasoning absurd, and I find the credibility of your argumentation is not strengthened by the fact that you simultaneously and specifically removed the word "falsely" from the edit, thereby fundamentally and incorrectly altering its meaning, and which Snooganssnoogans properly restored. soibangla (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is excatly what you did- you brought forth articles from 2016-2019 which you seem to think contradict a statement Trump made in 2020, in order to state or imply that his 2020 statement is false. Again: a reliable source can do that , and we can then reference that reliable source. But you, as an editor, can't. I removed the word "falsely " because as I see it, Trump's statement is one of opinion, which can't be "proven" or "falsified" - we can't state such things in Wikipedia's voice. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a bit on the above, re: opinion which can't be falsified or proven. One of the statements you relied on is ”Michigan autoworker jobs declined in 2019 for the first time since the Great Recession.“ - that is true, but at the same time, even after the decline, it was still higher than 2016 levels, as the Politifact chart shows. So a Trump hater could look at the trend and say "it's false! Trump saved nothing, 2019 declined over 2018!" while a Trump supporter would look at the exact same set of facts and say 'Trump saved the Michigan auto industry - each one of the Trump years (2017-2019) had higher automotive employment than even the best Obama year!' - Statements like "I saved the Auto industry" are statements of opinion, not facts, and we can't state in Wikipedia's voice that they are false or true. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fully reject your interpretation, and "because as I see it" cannot be justification for overruling a reliable source, which further raises questions about the credibility of your argumentation, as it suggests your true rationale may be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read above. And the justification for removing the materiel was not "as I see it" but rather WP:OR. Read that policy carefully, as you don't seem to understand it, at all. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just said I removed the word "falsely " because as I see it, Trump's statement is one of opinion not because you think it was OR. You're not strenghtening your argument this way. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
while a Trump supporter would look at the exact same set of facts and interpret them incorrectly the way you just expressed it, because the jobs had increased each year for several years, before they decreased, regardless of whether the level remained higher than in 2016. The important metric is whether the increases continued or ended. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for illustrating above why we can't use "falsely" or "incorrectly". The facts are that jobs increased each year for many years until 2019, and then declined one year while remaining higher than 2016 levels. These are facts, and one can be "correct" or "incorrect" about them. Buy what I did is provide you with two interpretations of the importance of these facts, and these interpretations are opinion, not facts, and thus can't be "correct" or "incorrect". If the levels in 2019 are higher than in 2016 - does Trump deserve credit or not? It is matter of opinion. Your opinion is that what matters is the trend. Others may think that what matters the absolute value. So the former would think that a hypothetical continuous growth from 0 to 10 is better than growth from 0 to 1000 and then a decline to 890, and the latter would think otherwise. There is no "correct" or "incorrect' here - it is opinion that depends on interpretation of facts.Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating different things here, progressively making your argumentation less plausible. The "falsely" term does not apply to the jobs numbers, it applies to Trump's quote, which was expressed as a factual statement rather than a opinion, which is is your preferred interpretation, and which was found false by a reliable source, but you changed it because you seem to think you know better, all while accusing me of OR. LOL! Increasing jobs means growth, decreasing jobs means contraction. Growth is everything in economics, it's all about growth. We're done here. soibangla (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's quote was "I saved the U.S. auto industry" - this is a statement of opinion, not fact. If 2019 is higher than 2016, did jobs increase or not? Was there growth in 2017-2109 vs. 2016? We are indeed done, two editors have told you that your edits are not appropriate, so don't reinstate them unless you get consensus. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The auto industry was saved from extinction by the US Treasury Dept., led by Steven Rattner in 2009. Not Trump, in fact. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is yet another opinion, and we obviously can't use a Wikipedia article to rebut or support any claims. Trying to reconnect (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please read up on the auto rescue. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An opinion, based on a Wikipedia article. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Want another one? An Inconvenient Truth: It Was George W. Bush Who Bailed Out the Automakers - from that well-known bastion of Republican thought, The New Yorker. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mask distribution plan scrapped

According to many sources (example), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) planned to distribute hundreds of millions of cloth face masks through the United States Postal Service (USPS) in April of this year. Health officials agree such a move, especially that early in the pandemic, would have sent a clear message of support for the wearing of masks, and likely would have saved many thousands of American lives. The Trump administration scrapped the idea. I would argue this was a significant decision of the Trump presidency that is hugely consequential; however, I am hesitant to add something to this article without consulting with fellow editors. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split into 4 articles

The presidency of Donald Trump has been the most unique in US history. It is one of the most eventful and intricately covered presidencies in American History. This article is currently 172 kB and growing. The parent article Donald Trump is 128+ kB. I think it is now necessary to split this article into 4:

This will allow us to solve two problems: split and summarize more content from the BIO, and make this article actually readable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely opposed to that. It is entirely feasible to engage in a careful and considerate trimming of content, while pushing some content to relevant sub-articles while summarizing it in the main article (this article). It is easier to do the trimming when the presidency is finished (January 2021), as content can be easily written in summary style, and on-going events can be summarized in past tense. Multiple forks will dilute effort and result in lower-quality articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are more hopeful than I. We do not know the presidency is coming to an end but I am not opposed to waiting. Even if it did end, the likely event is more coverage in the ensuing state and federal litigation and criminal trials. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose this. Topical spinoffs by subject matter and targeted trimming make far more sense than a chronological arrangement which would probably increase WP:PROSELINE issues. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's far better to have topics in one place rather than split by year. We already have Timeline articles for per-year coverage. And there's plenty of low-hanging fruit to reduce the article size: do we really need "Presidential pardons and commutations" in this article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this as well. By splitting up the article into four years, it is complicating the overall basis for a Wikipedia page on the Presidential term of a United States President. I do however agree that creating a few spinoffs of other topics, as suggested above with a previous user. Another possible way to trim the content down to take out the fat in a sense, would be to have more events mentioned here linked to articles that go more in-depth about the issue or event. This would trim the article since there are some issues, positions and events that should be given a "Cliffnotes-esque" summary or background, which would be then followed by a link to another article for reference and further explanation. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=981748593"