Talk:Erika McEntarfer

Fired vs. to-be-fired

No sources in this article (as of this comment), nor any sources I've seen elsewhere (as of this comment), support that McEntarfer has officially, mechanically, been fired. WP:BLP applies here; information needs to be carefully and properly sourced Placeholderer (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: A new source has been provided: President Donald Trump has fired Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Placeholderer (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

McEntarfer was not officially fired until about an hour ago. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should feel vindicated or deceived Placeholderer (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: "altered"

@Jagman1017 to clarify: Trump alleged McEntarfer "RIGGED" and "faked" job numbers. Those quotes are provided in the references for that sentence in the article. "Altered" should be an uncontroversial way to paraphrase this in an encyclopedic tone Placeholderer (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As for "to discredit him and Republicans", the source quote is The president alleged that the data had been 'RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad'. That should be uncontroversial paraphrasing.

As for helping Kamala Harris, the source quote is 'Dr. Erika McEntarfer ... faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala's chances of Victory,' Trump posted on Truth Social, referring to former Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Placeholderer (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe "altered" is fine but I don't see the reason to enter the line about "discredit" since Trump was a candidate for election and the numbers "altered" would not discredit him but, potentially, boost the chances of President Biden. Jagman1017 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

One alternative would be to say "Trump alleged McEntarfer 'RIGGED' BLS job reports 'in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad'". I think that would be less encyclopedic Placeholderer (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If we refer to what Trump actually said, we get this: ""I was just informed that our Country's 'Jobs Numbers' are being produced by a Biden Appointee, Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, who faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala's chances of Victory,"

That does not mean to state there is a discredit to Trump but to say he is accusing her of attempting to boost Kamala's chances of victory. I'm leaning more toward being straight down the middle and not leaning in any direction. Jagman1017 (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The discrediting issue is from another quote. See the other quote that I provided for you above and included as a courtesy in a citation: The president alleged that the data had been 'RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad' Placeholderer (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

We have two different items in play:

1) The overstating of job growth in March of 2024 and August and Sept of the same year in what Trump seems to think is an attempt to help his political opponent (Biden & Harris)

2) The revision to the job growth in the last month

Then we have the reference to making him and the Republicans look bad but that is only in reference to the last job growth revision. Is that a matter of discrediting him or more a matter of her incompetence and the real reason for her termination? Jagman1017 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Is the issue here with sentence grouping—i.e keeping a firewall between the discrediting quote and the election quote? Would Trump accused McEntarfer of incompetence and of altering figures to: discredit him and Republicans; and help Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election resolve your concern? Placeholderer (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Or, Trump accused McEntarfer of incompetence and of altering figures to help Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election and to discredit him and Republicans? Placeholderer (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - it's Saturday and have a family thing for a few...

I think the second sentence is better - it's separates the two points but it might be good to also add "to discredit him and Republicans in the most recent job growth numbers". Jagman1017 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries!

I ended up doing something slightly different so that it didn't look like Trump was connecting the July report to the 2024 election. Does this seem appropriate? Placeholderer (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I like what you did there. That seems more fair and impartial and it sets the two incidences apart and clarifies them. Jagman1017 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Excessive lead?

@Mike Gauya While I don't have a strong opinion on including "controversially" (MOS:CONTROVERSIAL is against describing people as controversial), I think After Trump claimed without evidence that she manipulated the numbers, labor statistics experts from both parties issued statements explaining why that was not true doesn't make sense to include in the lead. The lead should be the most straightforward possible reasonably complete summary. This is a short article and analysis of the firing is super accessible. Anything Trump touches tends to have Trump stuff fill up its article; the lead shouldn't be excessively Trump-heavy Placeholderer (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s the single most important thing about her. Mike Gauya (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Arguably the most "notable" but definitely not the most "important" about the individual, and the firing is already in the lead Placeholderer (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree that weakening faith in the US markets and potentially causing billions of dollars of harm is unimportant. Mike Gauya (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Our disagreement is what's most important to the biography of Erika McEntarfer, not what's most globally impactful Placeholderer (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

No - you are wrong and it’s embarrassing that you keep doubling down. Don’t you want to have credibility in the community? Mike Gauya (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. About the extra stuff in the lead? I never removed any of it; other people who also thought it was unnecessary/unhelpful did Placeholderer (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the editor controversary that has come to take up much of this Talk page section.

However, on the topic that the OP originally started this section: is the lead "excessive"? ... I have just reviewed the lede, and I don't find it excessive. Seems to the point, and a good summary of the sourced info in the article, without excessive Trump focus in this BLP. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, question was about the quoted passage, which did end up getting removed. But if all is well, then that's good Placeholderer (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Aspects of the firing.

Greetings. I added the issue of the firing to the article False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, and linked the sections. In order not to duplicate sources and facts, I propose to keep everything related to Trump and his officials' words, plus fact-checking, in that article. The section about her firing at Bureau of Labor Statistics would include subjects related to the Bureau's workings, credibility past/present/future, and the impact of that firing on the economy, and politics. The section about her firing here at Erika McEntarfer would be about the discussion/defense of her character, resume, and work. Ideas, suggestions? Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)