Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 13 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Business career of Donald Trump Donald Trump on social media Trump–Ukraine scandal Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

	Readership
This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Brian Flood (21 May 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good," he wrote. "The article is almost a total whitewash. Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke.

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,352 9,352 Early life and education 3,028 3,028 Personal life 19 5,027 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,685 3,685 Business career 149 35,770 Real estate 4,555 15,954 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,168 6,168 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,323 7,323 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,640 3,640 Media career 3,452 5,115 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,663 1,663 Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690 2016 presidential election 18,341 18,341 First presidency (2017–2021) 632 176,824 Early actions 2,743 2,743 Conflicts of interest 3,367 3,367 Domestic policy 20,687 20,687 Race relations 6,411 6,411 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,112 20,420 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,692 6,692 Foreign policy 2,859 35,965 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,221 4,221 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,456 Initial response 7,681 7,681 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,253 5,253 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,084 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,830 12,830 First impeachment 10,208 10,208 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 23,711 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 8,003 8,003 First post-presidency (2021–2025) 5,018 35,763 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 547 28,363 FBI investigations 5,703 5,703 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 2,969 2,969 Federal criminal indictments 5,378 5,378 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,618 6,618 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 14,635 14,635 Political practice and rhetoric 7,990 46,268 Racial and gender views 9,377 9,377 Link to hate crimes 3,793 3,793 Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,497 5,497 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,426 2,426 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,257 Books 3,217 3,217 Journals 8,022 8,022 External links 5,431 5,431 Total 402,347 402,347

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Highlighted open discussions

• #Can a brief sentence of six words be added to the lead?
• #Proposed new lead immigration text to replace consensus

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?

The following discussion 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.

A few weeks ago, we had an RfC about how Trump's response to the coronavirus should be mentioned in the lead, and it was closed as aborted, but with zero prejudice against future discussion. In particular, people wanted more options about how to mention it. Can we first a) reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article, and then b) Get several (many as many as 10) different options? It's still gobsmacking to me that there's no mention of coronavirus in the lead, even though many less significant elements of his life and presidency are mentioned. pbp 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe, the RFC discussion had no consensus, not even that anything was needed. The close was

No consensus on any of the items listed/the "abort RfC" had a sizable showing. If people want to work towards a more refined list of options through the normal consensus building process and then start a new RfC quickly, that could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Support some mention of coronavirus in lead

Support

1. pbp 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Certainly due in the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Per comment below. This one should be a no brainer and I’m still scratching my head of how people can justify an oppose. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
4. A genius said this is worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, therefore it is surely very important. This personally affects Trump, as he "seems intent on being the public face of the effort against what has become his most serious challenge". This is indeed "Donald Trump's chaotic coronavirus crisis", and the "world looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic". starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Some sort of mention is necessary. The virus is the dominant story of 2020, and it's a dominant part of his presidency now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
6. No question per WP:WEIGHT. Extremely important.Casprings (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Support In November 2019, U.S. Intel warned Trump that coronavirus was spreading and "it could be a cataclysmic event" but Trump "ignored the clear warning signs, failed to follow established pandemic response protocols" which put all Americans in harms way .
   

   Donald Trump has made the Coronavirus a part of his biography, his legacy, because of Trump's willful inactions/actions, Trump's repeated untruthful statements about COVID19, Trump's sending of 18 Tons of U.S. Stockpiled PPE, ventilators, masks etc., to China on February 7 despite being warned by his Adviser, Peter Navarro, in January that "that the coronavirus crisis could cost the United States trillions of dollars and put millions of Americans at risk of illness or death.", Trump's January 18 demands that HHS Secretary Azar not do massive testing because "more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear - the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall." Trump ignoring Dr. Fauci and other medical experts and instead "pushed" U.S. governors force businesses to reopen as coronavirus was spiking and "despite failing to achieve benchmarks laid out by the White House for when social distancing restrictions could be eased to ensure the public’s safety. Yes, Trump has made Coronavirus a part of his biography, so naturally it belongs in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

8. Support as a defining issue worldwide, and Trump's actions have been central to the U.S. response. Whether that's effective is more complex, but the basic figures make this significant to Trump's presidency. . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support as the pandemic is the most important worldwide event that happened during Trumps presidency, and the response has influenced how the pandemic influenced the USA. --Gerrit 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support This pandemic isn`t even close to being over..it will be in the LEAD eventually one way or the other..it`s just a question of time as will be the George Floyd protests 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Strong support per WP:WEIGHT. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2. There is no rush to include things and we can wait. After all, Dr. Fauci said at first the estimates were 2 million now it's well under that, and he praised Trump's shutting down flights from China for that, among other reasons. There is no reason to include it at this point. Everything the media is writing now is conjecture. Sir Joseph 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
3. . Can't see as this topic is worthy of any mention in the lede of his life story. https://en.wikipedia.org/Boris_Johnson no mention there either, or here https://en.wikipedia.org/Xi_Jinping there are plenty of places his actions regarding corona are well suited but the lede here is clearly not one of them. 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)
4. Oppose a carte Blanche for undefined “something”. That’s had bad results before - until specific proposals are developed we just cannot tell whether ‘nothing’ is better. I think the last RFC observed there was no consensus but offered the thought for a more refined list. I’ve added a quote and link to the archive of what RFC I think is being referred to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The previous discussion was about how to mention the pandemic in the lead. It's pretty clear from the previous discussion and the few editors who have commented in this one so far that a consensus will not be reached any time soon. Secondly, we don't need to reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article. That appears to be undisputed, judging by the five paragraphs in the "Coronavirus pandemic" section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose. There is little lede-worthy that can be said in this article about the Covid-19 crisis. Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course, with some of his responses lauded as successful and some of his responses derided as failure. It is not inconceivable that further developments could bring about something that is lede-worthy. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
   • some of his responses lauded as successful - That would be what in particular? Source? Please don't cite his own claim that his "China ban" was his great achievement. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
   • Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

   User:Starship.paint - see BBC comparisons to other world leaders for example, or look at individual items such as travel bans like Politifact ”While the United States was not one of the first countries to impose restrictions against travel from China, nor was it late to do so relative to the actions of others," said Samantha Kiernan, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Rather, the United States acted around the same time that many other countries did.". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   @Markbassett: - no, you cannot just look at individual items for responding to a global health emergency. You can't just focus on the travel restriction on foreigners from China. The Associated Press wrote that from January 23 to February 22: key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated ... White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances ... critical weeks lost before the president spoke to the nation on Feb. 26. Also, if you want to mention a BBC source, at least link it. starship.paint (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   User:Starship.paint oh not ‘just China’... feel free to add travel restrictions for Europe ahead of others, a timely and significant financial support, and a now-major and robust testing regime, Democrats largely not even attending the briefings because of that doomed impeachment distraction, and note “stockpile” in advance would have required a psychic foreknowledge that nobody had. I think it’s time you just note saying he did do “par for the course” is an OK view for Busstop to express. Over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   Markbassett - it's funny how you totally ignored what the Associated Press said: slow to act in favour of your own opinion. Here's more from the Associated Press : the Trump administration squandered nearly two months that could have been used to bolster the federal stockpile of critically needed medical supplies and equipment. Here's the Guardian : the U.S. dithered and procrastinated, became mired in chaos and confusion, was distracted by the individual whims of its leader, and is now confronted by a health emergency of daunting proportions, and is experiencing Trump’s failed leadership. Par for the course, you endorse. starship.paint (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   : Nationally, the U.S. needs to be doing about 900,000 tests a day - but it's doing around half of that . Travel back in time to 12 March. BBC says: Relative to other countries dealing with coronavirus, the US has done only a handful of tests ... far fewer than 10,000 people have been tested - compared to 20,000 per day in South Korea.. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   User:Starship.paint *sigh* Don't be silly. You seem to be demanding "par for the course" prove 'absolutely everything must be perfect', including knowledge of things nobody knew at the time and foreknowledge of things to come. It's sad that you also ignored RS saying 'not slow' and the mix of highlights plus that there are normal items in the mix. You're just offering negatives, fine -- and sometimes imagined negatives, not fine -- and not admitting that there are valid positives or reasonable results in the mix. For example, please ignore wishful thinking and get real about what the testing performance level is -- just look at COVID-19_testing#Virus_testing_statistics_by_country and see that most of the world is doing little to no testing, the U.S. is the most tests by far of any nation listed, is robust in the most ways of testing and most advanced testing, and per capita is about typical for developed world right between the UK and Canada for example. Not that testing was really affected by President Trump - he seems to have favored testing and thought everyone could get tested despite the production realities there -- nor was he able to move it along much more than it was going to be anyway. Seems to me Busstop can reasonably say "par for the course", but your insistence that he not be allowed to express that view is what seems unreasonable here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   • Really? Trump's "response" has been almost universally vilified, according to around eleventy-billion sources. 100,000 dead Americans isn't "par for the course" in any stretch of the imagination. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

   User:Scjessey actually, between whether world generally made mistakes versus whether there is actually ‘eleventy-billion’, it’s obvious Busstop is being the saner and more plausible...And the number of dead is sad but unavoidable — since very early a pandemic was viewed as likely unavoidable and what has since been learned about asymptomatic carriers and the actual earlier spread has only cemented that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   • This particular pandemic is unprecedented in modern times, Scjessey. Preventing "100,000 dead Americans" was beyond the abilities of the head of this country. Successes and failures vary by country around the globe but no head of state performed in any way other than "par for the course". This pandemic is unprecedented in modern times. "Preparation" for for the pandemic eclipses the time that Trump has been in office, falling within the auspices of previous presidents and statesmen. But you want to concoct wording for the lede of this article tying "100,000 dead Americans" to Trump? If so, I oppose that. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

   • The Cuban missile crisis was unprecedented as well. Poof!
   • The article text describes specific actions and lapses that affected the course of the disease in the USA. That's what should be reflected in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

7. Oppose For now as ongoing. I would rather wait until the section in the article is more finished and pared down. Then see if it is fit for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose – Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump. Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes regardless of specific measures taken. Can't single out Trump's responses from any other world leaders', unless we fall into the usual partisanship. — JFG 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose – Not specific Trump or any world leader for that matter. Not a result of any actions of Trump. Any praise or criticism of federal response is relative and an opinion and this article in general is already plagued with far too much opinion and misinformation as it is. — OnePercent 04:48, 09 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose Not Lede-worthy in this BIO article. An event in his life that he actually has very little control over. It seems that most of the 'support' crowd above want to slant the article with their opinions of Trump, and not discuss what is best for a bio article. One wonders how many mentions – and where they may be – are in the then president's article regarding the last, huge, and arguably equal, pandemic to reach the US back in 1918-1919? That would have been during the Woodrow Wilson presidency. Regards, GenQuest 14:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

    Think you mean the American Flu, first observed in Kansas, so likely originated in the US rather than "reached". Don't see any evidence in that article that Woodrow Wilson had anything significant to do with it, it gets a brief mention in his bio but no indication he had the prominence of Trump in making matters worse; if you've got good sources you could improve these articles. (Later misnamed the Spanish flu, who says fake news is new?) . . . dave souza, talk 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

11. Oppose – COVID19 is not an issue singular to the current President. Also not enough time has passed in order to objectively determine the full scope of its effects relative to the rest of the world or even within the United States. This is meant to be a reference for verifiable facts, not a publishing board for the latest sensationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlas industry (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording proposals

1. Trump was President during the coronavirus pandemic. pbp 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the way things are going the coronavirus may become the defining issue regarding his presidency 2600:1702:2340:9470:D130:91C3:39C5:9A14 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support no brainer. Biggest crisis of the presidency so how in the world are you NOT going to mention it? Volunteer Marek 03:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, you guys are putting these !votes in the wrong section. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposed wording: would be a good start. Can be refined later as things progress. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I a joke to you? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and K.e.coffman: - just for clarity's sake, can you also provide your vote in the section above? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. That's like saying that FDR was president during the Great Depression and then leaving it at that. Also, past tense is premature. There is a good chance that another president will take over before the pandemic is over. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – This says nothing. "Macron was president during the coronavirus pandemic." So what? This line of thought did not gather support in the recently-closed RfC (as proposal 2 there). — JFG 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Such a non-helpful, non-informative sentence should not be in the Lede. Regards, GenQuest 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

trump is president during the covid-19 virus not was..who is Macron ? he`s not president of the US..what does that have to do with anything ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:5495:F7A9:2143:A90B (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The key points are that Trump failed to act on the early warnings from his administration's national intelligence and health officials, concentrating instead on the potential harm to stock market indices if he took bold action against the virus. We now have the Columbia University study that quantifies the results of his having neglected the dire threat. The study estimated that had social distancing been implemented even a single week earlier, 36,000 lives would have been saved.

A poll is only effective when there is a small number of alternatives. With, e.g. 10 choices, you'll have 2 !votes for each of them. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Going down the road of including speculation as to whether a decreased death toll would've been seen if action was taken earlier is a bad route powered by hindsight and ultimately WP:UNDUE. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, plus, it's up to the states to apply the rules, not the Federal government, as the NPR article even points out, it took several more days after Trump declared an emergency for the states to start implementing social distancing rules. To pin this all on Trump is pure falsehood and spin. Sir Joseph 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11 — an act that had been widely anticipated. Two days later, President Trump declared a national emergency in the U.S. But it took even longer for dozens of U.S. states to order social distancing and shut down business as usual." That's from the NPR article. I wonder if SPECIFICO is going to ask for Cuomo's lead to include coronavirus considering that most of the US dead is from NY and Cuomo is responsible for not closing down NY on time, or the fact that Pelosi told everyone to come down to Chinatown and enjoy shopping, etc. After all, we don't want to be biased in Misplaced Pages. Sir Joseph 02:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The references to Chinese-American festivals and neighborhoods in connection with the importation of disease physically located in China 6000 miles away is a xenophobic deflection. I realize that you are not the one who originated this hateful and irrelevant nonsense, but please don't repeat it here. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Calling it 'xenophobic deflection' is malicious bias. The virus came from China. Chinese people traveled all over the world for an important holiday. 6000 miles is covered in one day of flying. They brought the virus with them. To think otherwise is to say somehow Chinese people traveling were somehow immune to the virus. It's a no-brainer. ] Disciple4lif (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)disciple4lif

Unfortunately, DNA evidence has established that the virus was brought to American shores from Europe. What source tells you infected native Chinese travel around the world to San Francisco to eat Americanized Chop suey or dim sum and march with a dragon in the little Chinatown section of San Francisco? Source please. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic. Pelosi went to Chinatown in February to try to stop anti-Asian racism caused by COVID-19. And you want to blame Cuomo for governing the state with JFK? This is Trump's page, stick with discussing Trump, the guy who sets the example by refusing to wear a mask (except in that one photo that most people didn't see). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about Cuomo or Pelosi. Selecting the one sentence in the article that is not critical of the Trump administration's response is cherry-picking. BTW, Trump's repeated tweeted claims about Pelosi's February 24 visit to Chinatown were factchecked and found to be false. Besides, What was Trump doing in February and early March? Golfing, tweeting, and entertaining tightly packed crowds at campaign events in Colorado Springs, Feb 20; Las Vegas, Feb 21; North Charleston, S.C., Feb 28; Charlotte, N.C., March 2 (quote: I think it's very safe). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually the US was fairly timely in reaction to events. The U.S. was early with travel restrictions. The health screening started 17 January per CDC, and further restrictions including a China ban on 31 January. And it is States that control Stay-at-home, as re-emphasised by recent fussing about undoing stay-at-home. Also, this SPECULATION number seems a bit implausible - that between a third and half would not die. Three strikes against this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What is this "ban" of which you speak? Think you may be referring to what the source describes as action to "bar entry by most foreign nationals who had recently visited China and put some American travelers under a quarantine", thus ensuring a rush of travel from China to the U.S. by other Americans who were liable to bring the virus with them. . . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If social distancing had begun 2 weeks earlier, the study estimates one million cases and 54,000 deaths would have been prevented. In fact, social distancing was widely adopted in the wake of Trump's early March prime time oval office televised address to the nation, in which he made clear that he was not prepared to take decisive action. Reports tell us that the this aroused heightened public concern, especially in the most threatened locations, and that voluntary distancing and closure of businesses quickly followed Trump's disavowal of decisive Federal action. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO That’s off the thread topic, because it’s just not a candidate for lead in this article. This just isn’t something President Trump controlled, is not BLP (his life choice or major event to him), plus that is SPECULATION, plus low WEIGHT, plus not a major part of the article so per WP:LEAD it doesn’t belong in lead. And the U.S was fairly timely so it’s rather unrealistic fantasy. Six strikes against it, not something for this thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Obama didn't control Bin Laden, but he killed him. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Less than ten words? Zero due to no candidate? Seems like a nothing. Just a sidenote that the length of any proposal seems should be nothing or little as DUE from article content seems little or nothing. A ‘Trump was President during’ (such as “addressed the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic”) is about the length justified, but that doesn’t seem like much. And that section of content seems just fragmented collection of separate tiny POV whinges so there’s not a big item obvious as candidate for lead coming from content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Don’t know about Xi, but it should definitely be mentioned in BoJo’s article. That’s a problem over there, not sure why we should also make it over here. Volunteer Marek 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It is just not something that requires mention in the lede of a political leaders life story, unless it defines them, it clearly doesn't in this or any other political leaders bio https://en.wikipedia.org/Angela_Merkel nothing there either or here https://en.wikipedia.org/Jair_Bolsonaro. Looking, reading all the other political leaders bios there is already a lot of very different style of content in this bios lede, no idea why but I don't support it and I don't support adding more of the same stuff also, as I have said before, there are plenty of places where it would be worthy of reporting but the lede of his bio is not one of them.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: - the pages of other current world leaders might not be updated yet. In contrast we can look at historical U.S. presidents for a change. Some people in high places feel that this crisis is worse on the U.S. than the attack on Pearl Harbour or the 9/11 attack. Thus I looked at FDR and George W. Bush's BLP articles, well, the attacks are mentioned. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Star. I don't seem to get these ping things but I do sometimes check back. I see, yes other stuff exists I see. I still feel that it does not belong in this lede, that is just my interpretaion of wp:lede for a bio , what a bio lede should include. There are many more interested editors in this so I am sure a good consensus will arise here, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regards indeed, Govindaharihari. I hope you get this ping, at least. starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created a task force to tackle the threat, began giving daily briefings on the American response, and signed the CARES Act rescue package.

It accurately summarizes in neutral language what the body of the article says. That's all it needs to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey is on the right track: if anything gets mentioned in the lead, it should be a brief summary of any factual actions that Trump took in response to the crisis. No speculation on what he could have/should have done instead. I'd suggest moving this to the "wording proposals" section above. — JFG 06:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a straw man. Please review the article text. SPECIFICO talk 06:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any inclusion of the coronavirus in Trump's lead as of now, but this proposed one is currently my preferred one if one is to be chosen in the following months. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• comment Because Trump ignored the advice from medical experts on the Coronavirus Task Force and Trump "began to undercut" the advice coming from the Task Force, I would strike "to tackle the threat" and strike "on the American response" so it would read, "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created a task force and began giving daily briefings, and signed the CARES Act rescue package."

And maybe we could add, "Talk of cutting down Trump's daily briefings heated up after Trump suggested injecting disinfectant as a potential virus treatment." -- or, maybe that part doesn't belong in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed to that as too much, and for now think having nothing is best. It’s an ongoing item, only ‘big’ for about 10 weeks, so maybe TOOSOON and in a couple more months will be time to try this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is not good enough..people are dying and you want to repress that ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:9A2:CFFD:AFB1:63A4 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support this option, although "2020 coronavirus pandemic" should of course be changed to "COVID-19 pandemic" to mirror the pandemic page. I'm also not sure how necessary it is to mention the briefings, and I'd prefer that the CARES Act be described as an "economic stimulus package" rather than a "rescue package", which isn't as clear. So that leaves us with this:

  After initially downplaying the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump created a task force to tackle the threat and signed the CARES Act economic stimulus package.

{{u|Sdkb}}  06:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I believe this was a discussion, not an RfC. (As a courtesy link for anyone who wants it, discussion at ANRFC was here.) {{u|Sdkb}}  08:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op

First, I think this would be better to rerun as a formal RfC with a neutrally-worded proposition statement. This was exceptionally difficult to follow. Numerous questions were posed in this discussion, however, the main one appears to be whether the "church photo opp incident" (presently the whole of the section titled "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op") should be included as content in this article and that's the only item I'll address in this closing.

By raw headcount, there were 9 !votes to Exclude, 10 to Include, 4 to Include but Shorten, and 2 to Include but move to the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Delving into the substance of arguments, 1 of the Exclude !votes presented no policy-based argument at all and simply consisted of editorializing on the merits of Donald Trump, 4 Include !votes did the same but against the merits of Donald Trump. I have, therefore, per WP:NOTAVOTE, excluded these !votes from further consideration.

The substance of the Exclude arguments were that this is WP:NOTNEWS while the substance of the Include arguments was this passed the WP:10YT.

There is neither a clear consensus to include, nor a clear consensus to exclude. If, however, we assume that those supporting include would also support the "include but shorten position" versus supporting no alternate outcome or the "exclude" option, then a consensus emerges, that consensus encapsulated by Muboshgu's !vote that "it can get a sentence or two here".

By my reading, therefore, there is a consensus for a sentence or two on the "church photo opp incident" (presently the whole of the section titled "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op") to be included in this article. (Obviously, simply removing periods from the prior content to create a giant block of one or two run-on sentences, or other manipulation, would not be in GF.) Also, because of the complexity and difficulty of this discussion, I don't think it would be unreasonable to rerun it in the very near future presented as a more formally constructed RfC. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm The article mentions that "On June 1, 2020, Trump ordered police to tear-gas protesters near the White House so that he could walk to St. John's Episcopal Church, where he posed and waved a Bible at television cameras."

According to this official government source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm this is blatantly false. Could someone with permissions edit this to remove the false info. According to The United States Park Police, no tear gas was used only "smoke canisters and pepper balls." Also based on this official government source it doesn't appear that Trump ordered them to do so and the dispersion of the protesters had nothing to do with the church visit, the crowd was only dispersed because "At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street."

For the sake of being impartial as Misplaced Pages is supposed to be, any talk about whether Trump ordered the police actions and any suggestion that the protesters were tear gassed should be clarified as conjecture/speculation. Also, IMO the wording of " he posed and waved a Bible at television cameras" should be changed to simply "he posed with a Bible" in order to maintain an impartial connotation.

Also for the sake of impartiality perhaps later in the paragraph Rubio and Walker's defense of the photo op detailed here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/02/walker-rubio-among-few-republicans-to-defend-trump-over-church-photo-op/#481ab4027f04 should be mentioned to give two examples of a positive reaction to go along with the two examples of negative reaction already in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brboyle (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What's blatantly false is your official government source: historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. According to the rector of the building: Just after 10 p.m. on Sunday, someone set a fire in the basement of the parish hall, which firefighters quickly extinguished, The Washington Post reported. The fire was contained to a nursery room, although there was smoke and water damage to other areas of the basement, according to the Rev. Rob Fisher, the church's rector. "We’re very happy to report that the rest of the church and parish house is untouched except for some exterior graffiti, which the city's graffiti team has already covered up". You also should have read your own Forbes source past the first paragraph because in the next one they say that police used tear gas. That would make me double-check everything else Monahan claims. We use reliable secondary sources, not possibly self-serving primary ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't just the NPS. There were several other agencies with bodies on the ground, apparently at the behest of Bill Barr. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the whole section. As a main biography of the subject, this particular article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. — JFG 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a good move. I've reinstated it. Regardless of how it is trimmed, expanded, relocated, or rewritten, there is no doubt that it is a noteworthy, well-sourced topic that will endure in this article. Denial and erasure doesn't help us get to the best format for article text on this topic. Among other things, you could start by proposing a different location within the article or further discussion of the use of military force on domestic civilians, or the swift condemnations by diverse notable individuals. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit deleted the section on Trump having lawful demonstrators driven from Lafayette Park and surrounding streets for a photo op in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. Edit summary: This article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. (Don't count me among the shocked, I was expecting something like this.) @JFG: you support the expansion of the section on primary, secondary, tertiary fencing, steel posts, etc., and this is where you draw the line? Federal law enforcement (secret service, national guard, the freaking park service) attacking Americans lawfully demonstrating in front of the WH so bunker boy Trump can safely wander across the street for a five-minute photo op? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am firmly in agreement with JFG on this one. This is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. It might be something for Presidency of Donald Trump, but I think it unlikely this will ever have the WP:WEIGHT necessary to have a significant impact on Trump's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of the kind of information on recent developments that is sometimes deemed appropriate if this event doesn't qualify? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, "incident of the day"? SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I dunno. A declaration of war, perhaps? A heart attack? While the clearing of lawfully assembled protesters was deplorable, it is not a thing that is going to have a significant impact on Trump's life. It fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't violate not news unless this article becomes a newspaper consisting of "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" ← Of course, we commonly and extensively include such routine content anyway when it involves sports or entertainment, so why you or anyone else would decide that NOTNEWS should be expanded to include widely reported, non-routine material of obvious societal importance is totally beyond my comprehension. - MrX 🖋 12:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: It would be fair to say my view on this issue is evolving. It does, in fact, appear that this has a little more legs than I originally thought. Nevertheless, I still maintain this is something that belongs in Presidency of Donald Trump, not here. At least not yet. To suggest this has any biographical significance to Trump at this point would be WP:CRYSTAL. Trump has weathered countless controversies like this in the past, things that would end any other presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough Scjessey. There is no way to know for sure if this will have lasting significance, but I predict that the images of park police using shields to shove protesters out of the way while the protesters are being pelted with pepperballs amid smoke will have the same enduring values as images from 1968, and perhaps even 1933. A year from now and five years from now, we can review the article content from more of historical perspective and make adjustments as necessary. - MrX 🖋 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with JFG and Scjessey. The point that keeps getting made over and over is that Trump's presidency is an endless stream of noteworthy, well-sourced topic that will endure in this article, at an average rate of roughly one per week. We already have far too much of this, and its existence doesn't justify even more. Almost all of it violates the spirit of #Current consensus #37. I implore editors to stop reacting to today's headlines in this article merely because of its high visibility, and to start taking most of that stuff to the Presidency article and other sub-articles for consideration. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

While it’s very obviously due to for the Presidency article (I don’t think any reasonable person can deny that), I do have some consternation whether it’s due here. It certainly passes the WP:10YT, as this will be talked about for years to come. There’s no doubt about that, given the coverage this has already evoked. However, I do agree with some of the editors here that this is not “overly” due, as of yet, for the top level biography. As in, it doesn’t need extensive coverage. I think we can certainly devote a few lines to this, though, as it’s obviously historic. But we don’t need paragraphs of content. Piping links will likely be adequate if a reader wants to know more about it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This will be edited, perhaps shortened, placed in context with reaction such as the unprecedented rebuke from Trump's Secretary of Defense. But how can we say that this is less significant to the narrative of who Trump is and what he's done that the trivia about World Wrestling, the details of some real estate, casino, or other transactions, or similar events that affected Trump and his counterprties and few others. Moreover, arguments such as Mandruss' that are about otherstuff and not about the specifics of this event as described by RS are non-starters and shouldn't be put in play to distract us with off-topic dialogue. I agree with A.A. that this is not a NOTNEWS editorial issue, so arguments based on that knee-jerk reaction will need to go deeper, based on the sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude. Agree with JFG, seems just a story-du-jour, not BLP significant nor 10YT. Also agree with OP that the content seemed dubious on facts ... the photo op seems a show of support due to the church arson, and I’ve seen press saying the orders came from Barr not Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

While I know “story-du-jour” is a favoured phrase of yours, I’m a bit surprised that you don’t recognize this passes 10YT, as it has for the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally. And we can’t speculate on where ‘orders‘ came from (Trump is capable of making his own determinations). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, this isn’t a vote. “Exclude” isn’t necessary. We’re just discussing.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Exclude, Remove, Delete, this *is* my discussion. This was just WP:RECENTISM plopping in a breaking news item. Now it is past my usual desire that there should be a 48-hour holding period so WEIGHT and more info can arrive, and it’s obvious this is not a BLP life-altering item. I’m curious what specifics you were thinking of by “the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally.”, but not much. Really, this never belonged in his personal Religion section. And it doesn’t belong as a whole subsection of Presidency, equal to all the Immigration, or all the Foreign policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I can provide a list of presidents who militarized police to subvert protests, or used the military to do so, but I think it’s immaterial. I’m primarily thinking of Nixon’s administration. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus mmm. Think Hoover and Roosevelt if you’re being historically inclined and looking for military use. If you want more current comparison about black death riots, try Obama sending troops re Michael Brown, or Freddie Grey. I continue to think this just has not been shown as material suitable for the BLP, emotional OR and speculation notwithstanding. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

“Mmm”? Like I said, there are several examples. But this practice has died off for a reason. Mark, look. I live in Ohio. My parents witnessed the Kent State Massacre and I witnessed the 2001 Cincinnati Riots triggered by the shooting of an unarmed black teenager. Since then, I’ve lived in four other places where either unarmed black people were shot, or police brutalized protestors. And not much happened. Never have I seen a politician hold up a bible outside a place damaged in the aftermath. Let alone disperse and injure peaceful protestors to do so. If you can’t realize how historic this is, it only means you’re lacking imagination. Search “Trump” in any search engine, and you’ll see a barrage of reliable sources talking about this, and how it’s relevant to his presidency. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus I am content with your expressed doubts, as I do not see you have a grasp on realities or ability to provide factual specifics here, particularly in context of this article. There seems a lot of imagined items being asserted “passes 10YT, as it has for the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally.” Or (Trump) “disperse and injure”. This kind of TALK isn’t usable for article edits. Search a bit more for yourself on where the orders came from and why... there’s just too much storyline fantasy here, lots unclear and confused, not enough fact or article edit discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

On July 24, 2018 before a group of U.S. Veterans of Foreign War, Trump said, "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." Orwellian? Yes. The absurd notion that Trump has a government website denying Trump used tear gas against Americans protesting the government just so Trump could walk across the street for a photo-op at a church is Orwellian, a lie, propaganda. And the lie starts with Trump's government website falsely claiming that "pepper balls" are not tear gas, but according to the Washington Post the C.D.C. says it is tear gas. I don't know why Trump wants to deny what we saw with our own eyes, but, in the future, if Trump does not want the media to expose his violence against Americans exercising their 1st Amendment right, then he should stop being so violent against Americans. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I know this isn't a vote, but I feel this should be included in Trump's bio because I feel this is who Trump is and who he is belongs in both his bio page and in the Presidency of Donald Trump page. Let me explain what I mean, Trump is an Authoritarian . Not a Republican, but an Authoritarian. So, just as the "Russia's annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine" and Putin using Russian police to attack Russian protesters is within Vladimir Putin's bio page, Trump attacking American protesters with tear gas just to so he can get a photo-op at a church should be in Trump's bio. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feelings are irrelevant here. I don’t disagree on at least a few of those points. But you need to act dispassionately, and be neutral, when editing. Your comment is a lot of polemic. Call me an idealist, but I genuinely try to be neutral and consider all perspectives. Offer your improvements for the article one at a time, and provide sources, as you have prior. But the ones here aren’t sufficient to rewrite a whole section of a biography. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus - your right, my feelings are not relevant here, and that's why I sourced the RS article regarding 'Trump is an Authoritarian' to explain why I support keeping SPECIFICO's edit. I apologize if I my comment above didn't make that clear. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I was a bit harsh. It wasn’t clear. I know you’re just trying to improve the article. I was only saying the extra commentary wasn’t helpful. And the “vote” comment was directed at Mark, as he used a comment standard in !voting, even though we were just all engaging in a discussion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.  I should have been more clear in my two comments.  My first comment was addressing my "non-support" of the editor's proposition, who began this new section, that we exclude truth based off of Trump's most recent fib, untruth, 'it wasn't tear-gas' even though WaPo confirms it was, in fact, tear gas & we saw the tear gas with our own eyes. My second comment was to "support" SPECIFICO's edit. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of this story - I don't think this is a mere passing item in the news cycle that will quickly be forgotten, I think it is a major, pivotal event that completely meets WP:WEIGHT and is totally WP:DUE. It has united Episcopalian clergy in furious denunciation , the participation of the Defense Secretary in the photo op resulted in "A former top official at the Pentagon, James Miller, resign(ing)... from his position on a Defense Advisory Board.... his decision was made over Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s participation in President Donald Trump’s photo op in front of St. John’s Church" and is even splitting his conservative evangelical base the photo op was intended to appeal to .Smeat75 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, but it needs to be put into the context of the worldwide protests triggered by George Floyd's murder, but arguable resulting from pent up outrage about systemic racism in the U.S. criminal justice system. We should also briefly mention SecDef Esper's break from Trump's position regarding the insurrection act. For those who are concerned about lack of room in the article, I would be happy to start trimming an equal amount of non-biographical material as I have offered before. To those invoking WP:NOTNEWS, please understand the words and intent in the policy you are invoking. To those invoking WP:RECENTISM, I will point you to tens of thousands of sports and concert articles added over the past 19 years. In other words, WP:RECENTISM does not describe something that is in opposition to actual widespread practice. - MrX 🖋 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deleted for now - I’ve removed this again. The church photo-op got out of his personal Religion subsection, but got promoted to higher prominence of one of the six parts in the Presidency section. That event alone being set on par with *all* immigration items, *all* foreign policy, etcetera is clearly UNDUE at this time. If and when, meaning *after* it has some real impact (not ‘I think it is pivotal’) come back and convey that. A George Floyd para/subsection seems much more likely, it has much more in events and coverage - and this is just a trivia piece within that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you undo your repeat removal. You are kind of on borrowed time here, and edit-warring against the consensus on this talk page -- especially after the text has been moved and edited to address constructive comments -- is not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Time to self-revert your removal: SPECIFICO talk

User:SPECIFICO the move was a *reason* to delete it, and not seeing any meaning to ‘borrowed time’. If it’s so big then tomorrow or next week it will still be growing - come back then. It doesn’t seem really factually straight or BLP material, and it certainly is UNDUE prominence to put it at the same level of *all* immigration, etcetera. Other than fantasies and reinterpretation framings, there’s just very little to the whole event. Hyperbolic diatribes (here or outside) just have nothing to offer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are calling Gen. Mattis' statement a "hyperbolic diatribe" -- that is kind of a preposterous characterization. Maybe give it a second reading. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Trudeau! Business as usual. Just a day's headline? SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That is the octuplets version of a pregnant pause. - MrX 🖋 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include I can't think of anything brilliant to say. This latest episode of the absolute insanity that has become part of our everyday lives leaves me just totally dumbstruck. The NYT called it something that's going to go down as a memorable event in Trump's presidency and I firmly believe it. Even non-Christians know that the Bible is considered a Holy Book and to use it as a prop to show his special connection to God is just about the most bizarre thing imaginable, especially when it is very well-known that he's never read it and wouldn't believe a word of it if he did. Gandydancer (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude: The federal government was not responsible for the death of George Floyd. I see no evidence that Trump is the main focus of the protests. I don't believe the photo op at the church will be remembered in 10 years time, and I find the claims about historians writing about this fanciful. Is there any basis for these far-fetched claims? If it develops into something bigger, then, sure, include it. But at the moment it seems like a passing news story.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not really talking about the federal government or George Floyd, are we? We are talking about Trump's personal actions with respect to the latter. All news stories pass, but this one has evoked stunning reactions from the current and previous Trump-appointed SecDefs, which in itself makes it highly noteworthy. The huge amount of coverage across the world easily means that it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT according to our policy which looks at proportionate coverage with respect to other content in an article. The bible waving is not the main event. The main event is that Trump, through the US AG (Note: not Trump's personal AG), used unjustified force to clear a path so that Trump could signal his evangelical base right after he proclaimed that he would use the U.S. military to quash protests against the government, in violation of the 1st and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Causing protesters to be assaulted in the streets, threatening to use the military against Americans, waving a bible in a photo-op in a very Christ-unlike manner, and retreating to a bunker like a bitch are familiar images from a very dark and not so distant past. I assure you, this is far more important than golf courses, wrestling, reality TV, recognizing Jerusalem, and Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea. Don't take my word for it. Just listen to what the civilized world is saying as reflected in reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well said MrX - very well said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Very well said indeed (and the "swan song" comment below). BTW, while the Bible waving may not be the main thing right now I believe that that photo of Trump waving that Bible will become a historical image because it so well illustrates the picture of what it looked like when our democracy, which was built on the very idea of a separation of church and state, failed. Think about how one may look at a photograph of the ayatollah waving a Quran while the government troops savagely attack their own people and what that means. It has made a lot of people glad to be from America. And now the same thing happened right here and there it is documented in that photo. Maybe I am just being starry-eyed but I believe that Misplaced Pages, through documenting what is happening here and around the world, is helping us to preserve our freedom. (sorry for the soap boxing which I know I should not be doing...) Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer - Excellent points! BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer In Foreign Policy retired Marine Corps 4-star General John Allen wrote, "One wonders, did Esper and Barr know that hundreds of peaceful U.S. citizens had been attacked by riot police just minutes before, their civil rights massively violated just to set the stage for their picture? Did it occur to them that in posing with the president and the Bible he held in front of a church, ostensibly calling down the authority of God on this cause, they were violating the spirit of one of the most important strictures in America, the separation of church and state? And if federal troops are indeed dispatched into the states to take action against American civilians, where does the Bible and the Christian God figure into the president’s deployment order? The framers of the Constitution intended the separation for a reason, and the commander in chief just trampled it." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MrX, can you please stop this "North Korea policy was a failure" argument. Misplaced Pages does not include or exclude content based on whether it is a success or failure. Please stop it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, your Korea remark raises an overriding issue which perhaps needs to be stated more starkly. Trump's North Korea policy, like many of his initiatives, was not a policy at all. It was a charade. It's been a constant battle to avoid article text here that reads like the script of Administration talking points and deflections. In the case of North Korea, RS tell us that Trump surrendered any chance of slowing or preventing Kim's development of deliverable nuclear weapons. That is the significant point, and it is not clearly articulated in the article. Trump's twitter posts, plane rides, hand shakes, Korean lunches etc. are not the central facts. Jack Upland, why don't you propose some article text on Korea that adequately conveys Trump's surrender to what the US intelligence and military establishment considered the most dangerous threat facing the US. That would be helpful, as would similar NPOV improvements to text on other governmental matters. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack, I wrote "comically failed attempts to contain North Korea", not "The North Korea policy". Trump was not operating from a policy as far as anyone can tell—not even cowboy diplomacy. I also didn't claim that the containment failure was a reason for relegating the material. - MrX 🖋 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote this is far more important than... Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea. That is a clear illustration of how much this incident is being blown out of proportion.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include It`s relevant...the way the way things are going it will probably be his swansong 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Title change: George Floyd's killing and the officers initially not getting charged was the trigger for the protests, but Trump's photo op wasn't about Floyd. As Bishop Bunne said, he didn't mention Floyd at all (or the fire-damaged church, for that matter). The cited sources say that he was furious about the administration "looking weak" and wanted to take control of the streets, resulting in Barr personally ordering the attack. Also, can someone explain to me why the main article has a "deletion" tag which leads to an AfD page for a page that doesn't exist? It looks as though the article for deletion was merged into the photo-op article. Does that automatically extend the deletion process to the article it was merged into? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Do you have a source for this currently unsourced edit? I vaguely remember someone (bishop, rector?) mentioning that the fire started in the nursery but the cited sources don't mention it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the current sources is Reuters, "Outside St. John’s, people distributed water bottles and squirts of hand sanitizer amid the coronavirus pandemic as the rector, Father Rob Fisher, watched the protest. Fisher said that a fire set the previous night in the church’s nursery did little damage before being extinguished by firefighters." Other sources have noted these church people were moved away by the 'tear gas' or police push. USA Today gives some more details – “As we know many of you have already heard, there was a small fire in the parish house basement,” Fisher wrote in a letter to parishioners. “Thankfully, it appears to have been contained to the nursery — though, as you might imagine there is smoke and water damage to other areas of the basement.” in "A look at damage inside historic St. John's Church, which burned during protests". Today. Retrieved 2020-06-02. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This one is not even remotely a close call: the WP:WEIGHT of the sourcing as relates both to both the secondary sourcing and the cascading public primary reactions separates this topic from a mere event in a daily news cycle being up-jumped by WP:CRYSTAL reasoning, even at just a handful of days out. All typical care for both the length of the content, its exact format, and appropriate attribution are of course required in rendering the event into the larger context of the article, but to the extent that the present protests must be to some degree covered in this article (and I take it for not particularly controversial that they will be), this is a significant point of focus within it. Snow 13:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Not a close call, given the sources. This event caused Trump's own former defense secretary to denounce him as a threat to the Constitution. "The police dispersal of protestors from the Lafayette Square and the surrounding areas was described by The New York Times as "a burst of violence unlike any seen in the shadow of the White House in generations" and possibly one of the defining moments of the Trump presidency." We can talk about where and how to include it, if necessary. Neutrality 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include in some form. Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church was a keep at AfD, and has 27kb prose, all reliably sourced. With that much to say about the incident, it can get a sentence or two here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie; Rogers, Katie; Kanno-Youngs, Zolan; Benner, Katie; Willis, Haley; Triebert, Christiaan; Botti, David (2020-06-02). "How Trump's Idea for a Photo Op Led to Havoc in a Park". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-06-03.

• Support inclusion - we got religious leaders and former military officers up in arms over this, which is not common at all. Furthermore, this incident totally features Trump himself. There's no shirking away from this. starship.paint (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Better in the Presidency of article if anywhere.--MONGO (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include I think it likely to pass the Misplaced Pages:10YT and be an important enough event for his bio. I mean the dude violently clear out protestors to hold up a bible across the street from the WH. Seems an important enough single event to be here.Casprings (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include but retitle and refocus somewhat. This one incident should not be a full section and should not be two paragraphs. Instead we should change the section title to something like "Response to George Floyd killing." We should expand the info about his comments and actions. Instead of him floating (but not using) the Insurrection Act, we should say that he ordered National Guard troops from several states, as well as personnel from a dozen federal law enforcement agencies, into Washington, D.C. "Combined, at least 5,800 troops, agents, and officers have taken to the streets of the District." And we should include a couple of sentences, no more, about the St. John’s Church incident. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is neither about the "Killing of George Floyd" nor the "Response to the George Floyd killing." This is about the Trump administration's questionable response to protests and riots over police misconduct since the police-custody death of George Floyd (), over systemic racism (). The protests are about systemic racism. The Trump administration's response, Act 1, was driving peaceful and lawful demonstrators out of Lafayette Square with rubber bullets and teargas so Trump could stage a photo op pawing a Bible. (That's not just some "incident.") Act 2 was Trump threatening to deploy the military, Act 3 is Barr patrolling the streets of D.C. with unidentifiable Bureau of Prisons personnel in riot gear (asked if they were from the Department of Corrections, they replied, "Maybe"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Space4. If this were merely about Trump's reaction to the killing, it would not be a significant fact in his 70+ year life story. As I said recently about the Korea show, we need to be careful not to adopt false narratives promulgated by interested parties (Trump administration and reelection figures) when we describe his actions. Just as the Korean lunch and handshakes with Kim were not about disarmament, these latest actions are not about police misconduct - or at least not Mineeapolis police. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion I’ve stated my reasons in the above section. I can’t imagine how people would try to obfuscate this or downplay its significance. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include This particular incident raises the level of absurdity regarding him to new heights..not even getting into separation of state and church and the constitutional issues..what does he think he was proving ? This was an insanely incoherent incident and my guess is he`ll probably top it soon..it doesn`t matter whether you include or not..eventually there will be no choice..it`s obvious 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Struck double vote by IP user. — JFG 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• IncludeThis one will probably end up in the history books so it doesn`t matter what we say here..trump holding a bible in front of political protesters 2600:1702:2340:9470:CCDD:9ABF:9B30:9D06 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Struck triple vote by IP user. — JFG 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Two weeks later, I stand by my initial assessment: As a main biography of the subject, this particular article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. Which other "egad" moment is top of the news now? — JFG 22:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude as part of this article - probably better for the "Presidency of" article. I have to agree with JFG. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I came here to close this, but decided I probably wasn't the best person. My thoughts are that it seems there is a rough consensus to include the information in some form. Those who support inclusion point to the exceptional response from James Mattis, our article Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church, and its keep result at AFD as examples to argue that while daily outrages are not new, this outrage is an important aspect in Trump's biography. The opposition largely argue that this is no more important than the other daily outrages, and it would be undue to discuss it at length. This is a compelling reason not to have an entire section or multiple paragraphs, but weighed against the arguments of those in favor of inclusion, it doesn't seem sufficient to justify complete exclusion of the information. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment — I agree with JFG. This story has already dropped out of the news.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - no lasting encyclopedic value...yesterday's whine. _Talk 📧 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. The extraordinary level of media coverage passes even the very high bar for DUE at this page. I see the normal cluster of editors here whose views about DUE just happen to line up precisely with what's favorable to Trump — it's pointless to try to tell them to stop, but they need to stop. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor ZiplineWhy has changed the title to "Killing of George Floyd" twice now (, ), both times without the courtesy of explaining their reasons in the edit summary or discussing in the lengthy discussion above. In two edits after the first change (, ), the editor stated that the section should be expanded to include Trump's condemnation of Floyd's passing, and more information. The editor also added a sentence to the lead ) which has since been deleted. I have reverted to last version prior to the change. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Iconic photo

@Starship.paint: The iconic photo isn't one of those the White House published, it's the one of Trump holding the Bible aloft like a foam finger. It's the image you see when you go to the C-SPAN footage, and from 00:36 to 00:51 when the video is playing. I looked at C-SPAN's Copyright & Licensing and it seems to me that—since the event was in the public domain and its use would not enhance the value of an organization or entity—a still image of 00:37, for example would be permissible. @MrX: You were/are involved in at least a couple of deletion discussions on Wikimedia. What do you think? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I agree that the screen cap from the C-SPAN video is the iconic image and that it can be used, but it should be uploaded to Misplaced Pages not Commons, and we can't crop out the C-SPAN logo. The White House photo is a not a free equivalent, because it's not equivalent. "Public domain" refers to the copyright status, not the venue. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - can you prove that this particular shot was iconic - e.g. have media organizations used this particular shot? starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A basic Google image search of "Trump holding bible" suggests the image is notable, although I don't know whether "iconic" is a valid label at this point. "Like a foam finger" made me laugh out loud. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I used the word iconic because that's what your edit summary called the other photo. I can't recall having seen or heard the word used for any of the photos from the outing. There are quite a few others (Trump pawing Bible, Trump looking at Bible—uh—pensively) but the one used most often on TV and as the only one or the first one in print is the one from those 15 looong seconds of Trump the Crusader defending the honor of Bible defiantly held aloft. The NY Times has the best photo IMO (Trump and lamppost framing church marquee sign) but unfortunately we can't use it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Forgot the sources (there are more): NY Times,, , ), , , , Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image. MrX: Could you take a look and let me know if you see something that might be a reason for deletion? The resolution is lower than the official WH photo but no worse than other pictures in the article (Trump examining the border wall, for example). You can see it in this diff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I recommend not leaving n.a. in any of the WP:NFCCP spaces, since every criteria must be met. - MrX 🖋 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

External videos
President Trump walks across Lafayette Park to St. John's Church on YouTube (C-SPAN) (7:46)

In place of any photo, consider an external video box like this one, which would be more informative. It would also appear more neutral, since it doesn't cherry-pick images. We've done things like this for years in current-event articles, with no copyright objections that I'm aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to figure out how. Took me quite a while to do the rationale for the image; I thought I had filled out everything but I seem to have overlooked a few items. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

In the current event articles, we always prefer raw, uncut video to edited, despite the former being longer. The rationale is that any editing can reflect bias, even unconscious bias. We let the reader (viewer) look at any or all of the video (nobody is forced to view the whole thing, and most internet users these days know how to skip around in a video) and make their own interpretations and judgments. Certainly that concept applies even more when you effectively "edit the video" down to a single frame. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - good work finding the sources using the picture. They have substantively bolstered your case. starship.paint (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't actually pick the image, RS did that. All I did was find a version of it we can use on WP (keeping my fingers crossed). I get the rationale for preferring raw, uncut video. But—there's raw footage, and then there's raw footage of an elaborately staged propaganda production. The White House used footage of the walk for a 30-second Twitter video, underlaid with bombastic music. The Washington Post pasted a "This is propaganda" label on it and showed law enforcement driving protesters from Lafayette Square on a split screen. I've come to the conclusion that raw footage of an elaborately staged propaganda production (even without the music) is still propaganda, and that Misplaced Pages shouldn't link to it (WP:NOTPROMOTION). The plot: "Get to da choppa." The Expendables move out, Ivanka in black suit, black face mask, carrying a large white bag at 0:16–0:18 in the video. "Where's my prop, Ivanka?" Ivanka walks from left to center in background with white tote at 4:46, hands Bible to Trump at 4:47, exits screen to the left at 4:51. Trump holds Bible aloft from 5:21 to 5:36, glowers into camera ("from my cold, dead hands"), then has his Mussolini moment on the way back to the White House, reviewing the Metropolitan Guard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

elaborately staged propaganda production is POV on its face. I don't think it's for us as Misplaced Pages editors to decide what's propaganda. I happen to agree with you personally, but I check my beliefs at the door. I didn't actually pick the image, RS did that. I understand. But you're choosing it over an alternative that RS also picked, so you can't pass the buck to RS. It would be an entirely different situation if the raw video weren't available. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How about "clumsily staged propaganda production"? Better? Actually I would say media event instead of propaganda production, because the Americans do not have propaganda. That is more a European and Asian thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You're word-quibbling and missing the point entirely. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well what is your point. The thread was about a photo but then you went to how you prefer them uncut, etc. which I didn't really understand. Anyway, please don't confuse Space4's talk page comment w. article content. I think it's clear that what Space4 and I tried to describe in various wordings is what RS tell us about the event. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

what RS tell us about the event Same song, verse 2,236, and again we see the weakness of this system. Editors can always claim that RS says this or that, and that's never provable or disprovable because nobody can assimilate the entire body of RS on any topic, let alone prove what they've assimilated. Confirmation bias. Which sources – which tiny subset of RS – have you personally read regarding this issue?This business is largely a numbers contest between editors of different POVs, under the guise of policy-based decision-making. I've cast my effectively-democratic vote and submitted my off-topic but highly relevant meta-rant, and I'll move on now. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll move on now Praise the Lord! Please don't disparage your well-read and open-minded colleagues here. It hurts our feelings and makes us sad. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I’m mostly noting how much of this is fantasised parody, kind of disreputable and not a credible or serious effort. Tsk. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Put it in..waving a bible in front of a bunch of pissed off students was a pretty stupid thing to do..not that it would ever happen but he could have come out and said something..anything would have been more effective than that..the worse part of all this is even his supporters know he`s crazy...It doesn`t matter what people say here..this photo op is another escalation of his lunacy and it will probably get worse..might as well put it in while it`s still relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• That was quick - image was deleted by a bot because an editor put it up for discussion stating that he didn’t see any difference between it and the WH picture and another editor voted "delete," erroneously claiming that it fails NFCC 1. (How is it even possible that a bot gets to close discussions? Maybe I should have added "Keep" to even the score?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can a brief sentence of six words be added to the lead?

My aim on Misplaced Pages articles is to always edit in a neutral way. I have no strong feelings of either liking or disliking Donald Trump.

In the third paragraph of the lead section at the end of the sentence: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist", I would like to add the following short sentence: Trump has denied accusations of racism.

These six words wouldn't make the lead section much longer, but in my view would aid neutrality, as per WP:BLP and WP:CRIT.

Two citations for "Trump has denied accusations of racism."

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Donald Trump denies being a racist after 'shithole' row". BBC News. January 15, 2018.
2. "Trump denies new accusations of racism after Elijah Cummings attack". BBC News. July 29, 2019.

No. Trump's racially charged and racist comments are notable, but his denial of them is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If Trump said "Yes, I am a racist", THAT would be notable. But I have never heard of anyone agreeing with allegations of racism mada against them. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLPPUBLIC it absolutely belongs If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. If the claim is in the lead, the denial is also required to be in the lead. If you want to change the policy, it will require a community RfC for consensus, not a local discussion. _Talk 📧 17:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would oppose this. Seems like WP:MANDY. Neutrality 17:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just curious...I quoted BLP policy, which prevails in this instance, and you oppose the inclusion by wikilinking to an essay in support of your oppose. Please explain how you perceive that to be a legitimate counter to BLP policy. _Talk 📧 17:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• BLP doesn't mandate that we include obvious, non-noteworthy responses to characterizations. As HiLo48 wrote, "I have never heard of anyone agreeing with allegations of racism made against them." The excerpt you quoted also refers to responses re "allegations or incidents" and gives as an example an alleged affair. It does not entitle every living person to include a response to each and every characterization made by the outside world about their public, well-reported statements and deeds. Let alone in the lead section of an article. Neutrality 18:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is no ambiguity about inclusion in BLP policy - denial(s) should also be reported - should is defined as obligation, a duty - the policy does not say "may be reported" or "could be reported". To not include it is noncompliant with policy. _Talk 📧 00:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

True in the body. Could you show me where this is required in the lead? I may have missed it. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADBIO - When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. His denial is absolutely relevant and we do not suppress a denial of a controversy per my statement above. _Talk 📧 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should debate on that TP to add language to your liking. I don't see it. He denies everything. Perhaps we could add something to the end of the lead that says that. OK, that was snarky. But, it's on point. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Welp, it *is* the policy... Though I’d be happy for the dignity of the article to not have either in lead at all, it does seem big enough in article and remarkable enough to be there, so policy says have both.

User:Kind Tennis Fan - the call-him-racist phenomenon seems mostly to have been just a DNC tactic per mentions like Donna Brazile, just a talking point like Michael Moore pushing everyone to mention the popular vote on the morning after election. It is also in an era when that WP:LABEL is thrown a lot. The line is “characterized” after all, not a descriptive that he declares himself as such. But you’re right - while the name-calling is perhaps WP:LEAD material, the policy definitely is to include the denial. A vague denial line is same prominence in article as the vague mention, so both get same prominence. Both in lead seems best choice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I`ve never met a racist who didn`t deny being one..however trump is president..noteworthy 2600:1702:2340:9470:E15A:2C5D:2047:A608 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump denies absolutely everything, and in any case it is irrelevant. Trump says "I am not a racist," but the article does not describe him as such. So arguments in favor of his denial are flawed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• In the lead? No. It's WP:MANDY level stuff. We're not a newspaper, we don't give the subject the last word. And let me be clear here: I do not think Trump is a racist, he just doesn't care enough to put racial justice above transactional benefit to himself, from rental decisions to choice of immigration adviser to his response to the George Floyd protests (ten year jail sentences for pulling down statues of traitors erected by 20th Century racists). But we should cover as a simple statement of fact that he has been widely accused of racism, and we can explore his denials later in the article. BLP says we report it, but does not require that we give false balance between credible accusations and implausible denials. Guy (help!) 22:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "Person that is openly and unashamedly a perpetual liar claims he has never lied in his life" is neither surprising nor worthy of note, and neither is this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It goes without saying. - MrX 🖋 10:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Being neutral doesn't mean that we have to balance every comment with an opposing comment, it just means that we report what has been commented in a non-sensationalist way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Trump's racist words and deeds are noteworthy and have been reported by RS since 1973 when the U.S. Department of Justice sued Donald Trump, Fred Trump, and Trump Management for racial discrimination. Washington Post reporter Michael Kranish said that the Justice Department considered the case "one of the most significant race bias cases" at the time. Trump denied he was a racist then too, but the court's disagreed and Trump lost that case. Trump denies a lot of things that we know are true. Like I said, Trump's racists words and deeds are very noteworthy, Trump denying them are not noteworthy -- BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:BLP - "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." I mean, it's the policy. What else is there to say? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: - we do report it in the article. It's in the body: He has repeatedly denied he is racist, asserting: "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world". WP:BLP does not say the denial needs to be in the lead. It only mandates that the denial has to be in the article - which it is. starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Also, the article doesn't even say he is a racist, so we don't even need to include the denial that he is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, The clear intention of BLPPUBLIC is to state the allegation while also stating the denial out of fairness to the subject of the BLP. It can't be gamed by placing the allegations in the lede and then burying the denial later in the text. I'm sure you would object if we placed the denial in the lede and then the allegations later in the article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Also, it doesn't have to be a whole new sentence -- something like "..., though he has denied this." would also be appropriate and not interfere with the intro's flow. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Automatic, routine, unremarkable, and assumed by readers, therefore undue for the lead. It might be different if his denials were responsive to the specifics of the allegations; instead, he has sidestepped them with careless, lazy, and objectively false comments like "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." People are usually the worst possible judges of their own character, and one's subjective self-opinion (assuming he's being honest about that) is not the same as a matter of fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support From what I can tell it is a BLP vio to not have it. While I can appreciate user essays and people feeling we do not need to comply with policy, fact of the matter is we obviously do need to comply with BLP policy. Arguments like of course he denies it or that he denies everything are completely irrelevant and hold no weight what so ever. PackMecEng (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral I guess there's no real reason to register a !vote if I don't care either way, but since I happen to be on this page anyway I will. I'm strongly swayed by the WP:BLPPUBLIC argument of PackMecEng. On the other hand, the assertion is constructed in such a way ("characterized as" instead of the more absolutist "are") that Mandruss' note that it would be "assumed by readers" is compelling. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MANDY. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  So a user essay overrides BLP policy and our MOS? Also argument that lead is not subject to that policy has no foundation in policy and appears to be an attempt at gaming the system. PackMecEng (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, Agreed. A good rule of thumb is that if you have to twist the verbiage of our BLP policy to get what you want, your actions probably not following the intention of that policy. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:MANDY is explaining an application of WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a policy. Nice try. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb, The BLP policy states that "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." It does not state that "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, unless an editor thinks otherwise." The idea that a user essay which explains a policy clearly geared toward historical/scientific claims somehow overrides BLP doesn't hold water. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How many times does this need to be said? At no point does this article label Trump as a racist. Therefore, his denial that he is a racist is completely irrelevant. He has not denied that he has made "racially charged or racist" comments, at least, I can find no reliable source that says as much. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Scjessey, You're splitting hairs pretty thin here. The distinction between "he's racist" vs "he's said racist things" is really no distinction at all. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: I disagree. In fact, I would only support adding a denial if we also added that he is a racist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Scjessey, So when the BLP policy says "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported", you think it only refers to allegations made in Misplaced Pages's voice? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Nowhere in this article does it say "Trump is a racist" or "Trump has been described as a racist" in Misplaced Pages's voice or any other voice, so his denial of same is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with policy. Surely this is an easy concept to understand? I've now explained this several times, and I don't believe it will be necessary to explain it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mandruss and Scjessey. Proponents should note that WP:BLPPUBLIC makes zero mention of leads. It only says that denial(s) should be reported in articles, so by reporting the denial in the body of the article, WP:BLPPUBLIC is already satisfied. starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources do not really support the statement as such. A wide perception of Trump's actions is far from undermined by two statements from 2018 and 2019 where he denies very specific instances of racial controversy. The first citation has to do with the "shithole" controversy, and the second with the Elijah Cummings attack. Are these the only racial controversies of his entire term? Far from it, if I remember correctly. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support- As per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Some of the same people who want to hide allegations made about Joe Biden want to not only highlight them here, but omit Trump's response to them. There is always a double-standard on wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new lead immigration text to replace consensus

Here is the text I propose to replace the enumerated consensus text on immigration in the lead:

1 Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president. He reduced the legally permitted number of asylum-seeker immigrants by nearly 90% and attempted to institute a "Muslim ban" that was modified and renamed after being struck down several times in the courts. Trump's policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back after sparking widespread outrage. His campaign vow to "build a wall" on the Mexican border has resulted only in the renovation a few sections of pre-existing fencing.

• Responding to editor comments and criticisms below Here is a shortened version of version 1. Needless to say, it would have been helpful to have some of this constructive participation earlier in the five weeks since the lead revision was first proposed. When evaluating these options, please compare them to the article text and sourcing, which is our guide. Here is option one short version:

  1 short version Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president. His policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back after sparking widespread outrage. His campaign vow to "build a wall" on the Mexican border resulted only in the renovation of a fraction of the preexisting wall.

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Atsme, Scjessey, Onetwothreeip, 1990'sguy, Chetsford, Mandruss, Sdkb, Markbassett, Starship.paint, and MrX:

For comparison, here is the consensus text:

2 During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.

Here is the text JFG's replacement, for which no new consensus was established:

3 Trump has advocated a stricter immigration policy: he imposed travel bans on various countries, tightened enforcement of immigration law, and increased migrant detentions and family separations. He also vowed to "build the wall" on the Mexican border but has managed only to renovate mostly renovated pre-existing fencing.

Note: The above proposal was made by User:SPECIFICO. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 2600:1702:2340:9470:2874:EE79:5E55:D671 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - More concise and direct. But as a point of clarity, is the statement that "Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president" actually true? There was once a time in American history when only a free white person of "good moral character" could be a citizen - which is definitely harsher than anything Trump did. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• The wording reflects article text and cited sourcing. Also, please note that asylum is not citizenship. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, The actual article is a little clearer: "harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president before him." That makes sense, and is sourced. The blanket statement that his immigration policies as a whole are harsher than any other US President is dubious. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Need to see the sources first. Did I overlook them? - _Talk 📧 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just trying to summarize article text and the sources cited there. None of these cite additional sources not in the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - I see no reason at all to change the existing text, which has been stable for ages and seems to do the job adequately and concisely. If it ain't broke... -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Update - I am persuaded by the arguments for option 3 or 3.1 enough that I don't object to them. But I stridently oppose option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, unless we're Breitpedia now? Guy (help!) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.1 as option three is the best out of these. The first option is so shamelessly biased that I am surprised anybody would seriously suggest an encyclopaedia publish this. The second option is reasonably neutral but does too much to sanitise the actions of Trump. The third option covers all the important events but is still written to make Trump sound like some sort of clown, rather than have that as a natural implication from the content. It also inadvertently makes some points that are too charitable to Trump, such as that his policies are a matter of enforcing existing laws. I would amend the third option as follows:

  Trump has advocated for and implemented stricter immigration policies such as banning travel from various countries, increased deportations, and increased migrant detentions and family separations. He also vowed to construct a wall along the US-Mexican border.

  I'm not fixed on this particular wording so I'm more than happy for others to modify this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: This version is both concise, NPOV, and still is able to give satisfactory detail on Trump's immigration policies. Option 1 is too biased -- for example, it says that "only ... a few sections of pre-existing fencing" were "renovat". "Only" and "a few" is editorializing, and the claim is debatable, since 200 miles have been built, and there's a big difference between the original fencing and the new structures. Other parts, such as "policy of caging children" is clearly POV (the policy was to stop "catch-and-release" and because of the Flores Settlement, separating families was a consequence of the policy), and the travel ban clearly wasn't a Muslim ban by the time the original order was signed, as the text implies (the ban was obviously inspired by the campaign promise, but the text implies that the implemented policy actually was a ban of Muslim people). Lastly, Option 2 only mentions one specific aspect of Trump's immigration policy, so that's why I also don't think it's an appropriate version. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to strongly oppose the shortened version of Option 1. The first sentence is patently false -- just compare Trump to the restrictionist presidents of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Also, the word "harsher" isn't encyclopedic and words like "stricter" or "restrictionist" are more descriptive. Also, once again, "caging children" is too emotionalistic (and not purely a Trump Administration policy). The POV word "only" remains in the border wall sentence, and it's inappropriate to word it in the past tense since the wall construction is still ongoing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2; (Option 3 is my second choice). Option 1 is just too wordy for a lead that already unnecessarily eclipses the guidance provided us by WP:LEADLENGTH. Chetsford (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose option 1, far too long for the lead of this account of an entire very public life. That's if we have to say anything at all about this in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.1 as proposed by Onetwothreeip. Trump's immigration policies go far beyond the Muslim ban, and this option captures that best while remaining concise. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - keep consensus, (Option 2). Lack good reason(s) to be playing around. Really nothing new to add or improvement here so not good. Longer is actually a bad thing. Playing around during election time just smells fishy, though article already has pings as biased. Giving some respect to established #consensus is desirable. Stability in general is desirable to move closer to a Good Article Criteria, and though article is a long way from GA it should try to move closer not further.

I’ll also note Option 1 is false - I don’t know where such a blithe ‘harsher than any previous American President’ comes from, but obviously contrary to history and blatently vague posturing there, and not part of article body. There’s a long history of harsh immigration treatment, Operation Wetback, Immigration Act of 1924, treatment of the Japanese and before them the German and Irish and Chinese ... and that was to those doing *legal* immigrantion. Try googling and read some, e.g. Salon Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Verification not truth, Mr. Bassett. Please read our article text. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This false posturing is not something emerging from the body, let alone in an amount to justify WP:LEAD or putting in such inflammatory blurbism. There is a line for the two whiffy advocacy sources saying more in immigration *enforcement policies* against than any *modern* U.S. president ... but #1 is clearly a false vague posturing. I am only slightly curious where this junk came from, but do not really need to know. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Playing around during election time just smells fishy ... Stability in general is desirable to move closer to a Good Article ... oh come on, shall we lock down the article until the election is over? starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s a thought, but no — and neither should we foolishly ignore that election-year rewrites without reasons is fishy. That is just asking for wasting time on junk. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ll also note Option 3 has a false bit there is barriers where there was none before, and replacement or upgrades of different design to prior obstacles, so “only to renovate pre-existing fencing” is false. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - fixed Option 3 per WP:IAR. Now follows the body. Thank you for catching that. starship.paint (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 is no longer sufficient, it focuses on only one aspect of Trump's immigration policies, possibly not the most important aspect. Option 1's first sentence ... is it really supported by the body? (harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president before him). policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back seems a bit misleading, I don't believe every child was caged, as there were different types of facilities. What was supposedly rolled back was the separations, although as our article writes, separations did continue. Not sure whether the caging did continue. Perhaps it did. Option 3 or 3.1 aren't perfect, but right now they are the better choices. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Yes, the article says that.. Maybe you can suggest a tweak to the language regarding kids in cages, since I know you've worked on this content in other articles. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Starship.paint: The processing enclosures that are from Obama would still be there and still used during initial processing. Calling the enclosures “cages” is a bit inflammatory and partisan labelling, and they’re not “kept” in the sense as long-term housing. Just saw some more news about fake news about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Between Option 1 and 2 - Strong oppose to Option 3 and its variants - Option 1 is too detailed, and phrasing like "policy of caging children" may sound good at the dinner table, but not in an encyclopedia. Option 3 omits the significant aspect of the de facto Muslim ban. If we are to expand this material, there should be a mention of the substantial opposition to his policies. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  @MrX: Would you support option 3 if it described those banned countries as some variant of "Muslim majority"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: No, I'm afraid not. - MrX 🖋 22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• MrX, how would you propose rephrasing the language that describes caging? It's surely been one of the Trump proudest and most widely-covered actions during his time in office and a key part of his attempts at reducing immigration. Let's all review the straightforward language used to describe the separations and kids in cages in our Misplaced Pages articles on the details . If we are not going to be clear about Trump's immigration policies, we may as well leave the minimal status quo, option 2. But because immigration and American national identity and America First are key to Trump's political posture success, I think more than a minimal sentence is OK for the lead. WP generally reflect mainstream description of all sorts of atrocities, disasters, tragedies, crimes, perversions, and horrible mistakes. Here we're talking about one of the most enduring parts of Trump's public record, not even something about which Trump has expressed any regret or misgivings. So if there's better wording that still conveys the sourcing and article content, that's always welcome. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trump's policy of separating children from their families was rolled back..." I'm not in favor of expanding this material at all. But we should have at least a couple of sentences about how famously he has botched the pandemic response, and how he has doubled down on racism. We should dump N. Korea and Jerusalem from the lead, as I have said in the past. They are insignificant. - MrX 🖋 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose Version 1, both the original and short versions, as POV and not neutral. Language like “harsher” and “caging” may find its way into the article text, if sufficiently sourced, but absolutely does not belong in the lead. I have upheld version 2, the consensus version, in the past, and still support it, but I now prefer version 3 or 3.1, as being more current and inclusive of his immigration policies in general instead of just focusing on just the travel ban. (Nitpick: I would prefer “multiple countries” instead of the vague-sounding “various countries”.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Another, stronger reason why versions 1 and 1A are completely unacceptable: the sentence “Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president” is false. It grossly misstates and exaggerates the sourced material in the text. As May His Shadow pointed out, the article actually quotes a scholarly source as saying “harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president before him.” In fact, many previous administrations have imposed much harsher and even frankly racist limitations on immigration. Ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? For that matter, immigration quotas based on nationality have been common well into modern times. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 – This new text was workshopped by several editors following a recent peer review of the whole article. The previous text (option 2) is obsolete, as it fails to note two years of developments since the July 2018 consensus wording, and puts too much emphasis on the travel ban's legal history. Trump's stance on immigration, and the policies that he pushed, are arguably the most prominent and consistent features of his presidency. Accordingly they must have representative weight in the lead section paragraph dedicated to policy. Option 1 is not neutral, and uses inflammatory language. — JFG 05:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3- The others are very disingenuous for the fact that neither North Korea nor Venezuela are muslim-majority countries. Option 1 is far worse that Option 2 though. and has severe NPOV violations.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

.

Fair use photo for popular culture section?

At Donald Trump in popular culture#Television, I notice that we used File:Three Donalds.jpg under fair use. Would it be acceptable to do the same thing here for the popular culture section? (the section currently has no visual element) {{u|Sdkb}}  09:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. (And how did this still escape the notice of the Fair Use Police?). It's a still from an SNL show Trump hosted in 2015, and celebrities hosting the show get paid. It's related to Media career, I'd think, but it wouldn't serve to illustrate anything in there right now. Maybe 2016 campaign, if that mentioned the billions of free publicity Trump got. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweet visual element

For a while, we've had Trump's tweets embedded via {{Tweet}} at Donald Trump on social media. A few days ago, Harsh 2580 added the mail-in ballot tweet as a visual element for the social media section here, and last night I added a caption to better provide context. Space4Time3Continuum2x removed the tweet earlier today. Do others feel it is a helpful addition or not? For reference, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE may be a pertinent guideline. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I really liked your addition of a caption and I added {{tweet}} because I felt this was quite significant to explain the context of the last para. It was the first tweet fact checked by twitter. In my opinion, editors are overcorrecting compliance with NPOV, leading to a false balance. - Harsh (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem helpful - Sorry, but it doesn’t seem related to the items in section text so does not have MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I don’t think just showing a tweet and just one tweet is good at conveying the situation as the section text describing the second-party views of tweets. So I don’t see that any image that would be helpful for the section. To image this one in particular just seems an WP:UNDUE prominence given to a specific tweet of no great note sand it overwhelms the section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that my edit summary was unclear. "NPOV" didn't refer to the removal of the tweet, it referred to began tagging Trump's more egregious misstatements which is kind of WP op-ed - I don't see that in the sources. The big story is the big shift in how Twitter deals with the president (NYT cite), and Twitter followed up the fact-checking warning with the ones about glorifying violence. The RS cites all contain the tweet plus more context than we can provide in a caption and in a short encyclopedia entry, and IMO the tweet did overwhelm the section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As the author of "more egregious", I comment on the question of why Twitter began tagging Trump's tweets. The previous and present text struggle with the questions of why Twitter began such tagging and how it decides to tag or not. My phrasing attempted to indicate why, the new phrasing resorts to weasel wording, perhaps raising more questions in a reader's mind - "some tweets"...chosen at random? why some not others? why now? etc. To back up, having reviewed the cited sources again, the issue was brought to a head by two incidents: (1) Trump's recent horrible tweets regarding the death of Klausutis, and (2) the sensitive issue of Twitter's response to Russian use of its services to interfere with the 2016 election. The first made it imperative for Twitter to do something, the second made Twitter hypersensitive about election interference, and here was Trump doing the same. As one reference discusses, the change in policy was two years in the making...brought to a head by these recent egregious tweets. There is perhaps an opportunity for indicating specifically how this came about in the article. More broadly, I reiterate my earlier opinions that the Tweeting topic is underrepresented in the article; Trump seems to tweet 50-100 times a day (ironically using Twitter and hyperbole to criticize Twitter). (I am a veteran of a hot-topic political article...and won't get too involved!) Bdushaw (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The tags are portrayed as new Twitter rules then, not about President Trump or targeted to him as “tagging Trump” portrays. Just that a tweet of his got tagged was reported, ok, and I see also complaints reported for they didn’t tag him on Gugino NYT. The introduction of more tags seems wrapped around lots of things, and so does the mechanism or success of what is/isn’t tagged and whether it actually was corrupt partisan action NYPost NBC, This looks more like something for the Twitter article than for the Trump BLP, where President Trump among others Fox The Hill are just noted as instances, and the controversy is a Twitter one. The credibility (or not) of statements is already addressed elsewhere, tied to fact-checkers... that already seems a bit UNDUE and an image saying ‘we mean tweets too’ seems redundant to the text. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Mafia Ties

Is there a section in the article about trump`s ties to organized crime ? As a real estate developer in New York City it is naïve to believe there is no connection..it is common knowledge in the city you can`t pour a yard of concrete without a payoff..perhaps more to the point as Rodney Dangerfield so elegantly put it in Back to School with regard to long-term costs such as garbage 'Municipal solid waste ' removal .."I got news for you, it aint run by the Boy Scouts " 2600:1702:2340:9470:1444:DE4:6A2D:E1A5 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources backing this up? "common knowledge in the city" is not enough to add something to Misplaced Pages. Denvercoder9 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Contact Sammy the Bull and get back to us: Gravano said in 1998, "I literally controlled Manhattan, literally. You want concrete poured in Manhattan? That was me. Tishman, Donald Trump, all these guys—they couldn't build a building without me." soibangla (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead section at "working to overturn Obamacare", please replace colloquial "Obamacare" with "the Affordable Care Act" 0x004d (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing it to its formal name as we have done in the body of the article (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)), but I would first like to see what other editors think about it. - MrX 🖋 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in question:

Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially ignoring health recommendations from officials in his administration, and then passing false information to the public about treatments, blaming China, and working to overturn Obamacare putting millions of newly unemployed Americans at risk of losing health coverage.

I really don't like the way this sentence is worded. It would be better like this:

Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially ignoring health recommendations from officials in his administration, and then passing false information to the public about treatments, blaming China, and putting millions of newly unemployed Americans at risk of losing health coverage by working to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me 2600:1702:2340:9470:AC44:28A1:B377:F8E6 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that change. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me too. - MrX 🖋 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support and changed. With a link to Affordable Care Act. starship.paint (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not ok. Pure SYNTH of cobbled together items. Its should always be written neutrally if possible so...

Critics have claimed that Trump did not react rapidly enough to reduce the spread of the virus and that he ignored some of the health advisor's warnings. Critics have also claimed that Trump passed along false information about the virus, overemphasizing Chinese culpability.

I would leave out the last item entirely as he is by far not the only proponent of efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act. I know they exist so can we see the references to back up all this? MrX added (maybe this was in earlier?) here with zero supporting references.--MONGO (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: - there's no need to say "critics" when the reliable sources themselves are saying so. starship.paint (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Starship.paint. Attribution to an imaginary group is not justifiable. It is an objective fact that Trump has lied and bumbled his way through this crisis. If I'm wrong, the case will have to be made by showing that a preponderance of current sources make these same attributions. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Thank you for collapsing that, but nope this cherry-picking google only shows that gives situation is unclear result - it included (a) “government slow”, as in Congress etc not “Trump”, and (b) demonstrated “critics” claim this, plus (c) did not consider the RS saying otherwise. Such as it being a mix of good and bad - e.g. Politifact saying “slow” is incorrect or BBC descriptions of things gotten right and wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledging the debate over the inclusion of COVID-19 info in the lead section, I believe that "blaming China" lacks specificity and formality. Should the section be reinstated, something like "criticizing the Chinese government's response to the outbreak" or "blaming the Chinese government for their response to the outbreak" would be more appropriate -- 0x004d (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are fair points, but Trump has been blaming China from the beginning. I agree it lacks formality. As for specificity, it's not just that he blamed them for their response, but also that he blamed them for the virus and that he signaled white supremacists in his base by referring to it as the China virus. If there is a succinct way of saying while also being specific, it eludes me. I guess we could leave it out of the lead since it really only has moderate impact compared to everything else (except Jerusalem and DPRK). - MrX 🖋 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX Factual false bits there. Trump has praised, then criticised, and then praised China’s response. And “blame” ... well that’s only some of the later comments but generally considered true, yes? And naming “China virus” initially was common until it was worldwide and Beijing objected — and later can be tied to politically blaming China as much as this theory of him being racist (like his granddaughter doesn’t have a Chinese nanny and speaks Chinese) or it being some supremacist secret handshake. Just stick to the article for LEAD discussions, and skip outside partisan stuff, OK? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Yes, generally Trump has oscillated between adoration and condemnation of China, but I'm not aware he has ever really praised their handling of the pandemic. The virus was originally referred to as the Wuhan virus, as far as I remember. It seems so long ago... - MrX 🖋 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX ??? Not hard to find - googling for ‘coronavirus trump initially praised china’ got me Politico 15 times Trump praised China, CNN The many times Trump praised Bejing, Chicago Tribune Praise, criticism, praise again, Trump praises Xi, Trump hopes you forget he praised China, ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the recently-added COVID-19 reaction in lead section, per two recent RfCs that both reached no consensus. Please do not restore until another discussion reaches a positive consensus. — JFG 04:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Within the next hour User:SPECIFICO restored this new text, in violation of two RfC outcomes, while citing the irrelevant WP:SKYBLUE essay. I can't revert because of 1RR, but I request that admins evaluate the situation. Pinging closers TonyBallioni and S Marshall, and admin regulars on this article Awilley, MelanieN and Muboshgu. — JFG 05:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm stunned that you would still oppose this JFG, but both RfCs from 6 weeks ago resulted in no consensus. You can't "violate" a no consensus outcome. Trump has been the subject of continuous worldwide coverage for his handing of the pandemic for months. The GOP has tied themselves in knots over it. His re-election prospects are declining as a direct result of it. 135,000 American have died on Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Trump's watch! Trump owns this because he has ignored the crisis, promoted false cures, blamed the Chinese, blamed Obama, lied, made jokes, held maskless rallies, refused to follow his own health agency's advice, tried to overturn Obamacare, roused his base with glorious visions of confederate flags, and failed to invoke life saving policies. Is this "Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump."? Are you standing by your claim that "Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes..."? Are you not aware that the U.S. has 5% of the world population and about 25% of the cases and deaths? As I said, I'm stunned, and a bit appalled that I even have to explain this. - MrX 🖋 10:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

in violation of two RfC outcomes. Umm, how can you violate a no consensus rfc? - Harsh (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Very simply: in a "no consensus" situation affirmed by RfC, the status quo ante prevails. Quoting from our WP:NOCON policy:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

In this particular instance, that means not mentioning the pandemic in the lead section. The first RfC about this topic reached a "no consensus" outcome on 22 May 2020. A few days later, the situation was debated again in an attempt to establish consensus, and a second RfC was closed with this assessment:

This RfC doesn't reach a consensus about whether to mention coronavirus in the lead of Trump's article. It also doesn't reach a consensus about what to say if we did mention it.

Ignoring this outcome, User:MrX boldly added COVID-19 content to the lead section just four days after the RfC close. Then User:SPECIFICO re-instated the content after I had reverted it. Irrespective of any dispute about the content itself, those are in my opinion serious violations of Misplaced Pages process, unbecoming of those experienced editors. — JFG 05:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping, in my opinion two no-consensus RfCs doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in the Lead, but suggests that the best path forward will be trying to find a compromise. That's best done, in my opinion, through a combination of editing and discussion, and is rarely helped along by straight up reverts (removals and reinstatements). Partial reverts are good, smaller refinements are better. It looks like this may be resolved by vote in the next section below, but I disagree with the premise that you must have agreement on an exact wording before it goes in. You just have to have something palatable enough to both sides so it will stick long enough to be tweaked and refined further. The original "version 1" was too POV and a bit SYNTHy. MelanieN's version seems like enough of a compromise that it gives people a good starting point for further tweaks. ~Awilley (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We have to agree and specify the wording before this can go in the lead

I have removed that sentence, pending discussion here and agreement on the wording before it gets readded. Here is the sentence that was recently added and I just removed:

Version 1 Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially ignoring health recommendations from officials in his administration, and then passing false information to the public about treatments, blaming China, and putting millions of newly unemployed Americans at risk of losing health coverage by working to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Personally I don't think we should mention Obamacare - that is a longstanding position of his unrelated to the pandemic. (Yes, I know I agreed to it above, but I didn't really give it any thought at the time.) So I propose the following modified version:

Version 2 Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he issued partial travel bans for China and Europe, but otherwise minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many health recommendations from officials in his administration, and passed false information to the public about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

Others can propose other versions; please number them and blockquote them. References are not used in the lead but the material must be present and sourced in the article text. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support version 2 as proposed. I think any references to the ACA and the administration's attempts to dismantle it aren't really germane to the pandemic response for now. If that were to change and there were reliable sources to support it, I'm sure that it's something that we can revisit. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support MelanieN's proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN and Scjessey, I strongly oppose version 2 on the grounds that the mention in the lead of "issued travel bans for China and Europe" as undue weight and potentially misleading to the reader, especially insofar as the proposed text implies that this was some sort of counterpoint to the minimization of the threat. Indirect flights were never banned; Trump imposed the China travel restrictions only after 12 nations had already done so, and from January 1 to April, at least 430,000 people traveled directly from China, including nearly 40,000 people who made the trip after the travel restrictions were imposed, "many with spotty screening." I would instead support a version 3 that deletes this clause but is otherwise the same as Option 2:

Version 3: Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many health recommendations from officials in his administration, and passed false information to the public about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

Neutrality 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. I mainly included the travel bans because that's the one thing he DID do, and he constantly points it out to show he did something. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC) (P.S. I remember a comment at the time: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a wall, everything looks like an invasion." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC) )

@OhKayeSierra and Scjessey: Would you also be OK with Neutrality’s version 3? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: @MelanieN:, a thought on the travel bans: From what I've seen the travel bans seem to be a central part of the arguments of people defending Trump's response. A well-written Lead section should be balanced and fair, something that even people with strong political leanings can read and say, "Meh, I suppose that's fair." We don't want half our readers to smile and pat themselves on the back for being right while the other half gets angry about how biased Misplaced Pages is. MONGO's generally a reasonable person. Look as his response below, try to understand his point of view, and then try to meet him half way. There's probably an aspect of WP:DUE to it as well. I suspect that most sources analyzing Trump's response would mention the travel ban, even if only to point out that it wasn't a full ban and that the virus had already arrived anyway. I do understand the concern about calling it a "travel ban" but it could conceivably be called something else like a "partial travel ban" or a "restriction on foreigners entering the U.S." or something like that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I still think that (even putting aside the factual accuracy issues I raised above) it's not lead-worthy. Most countries in the world had some sort of travel restrictions; that is typical and expected in a global pandemic. And, as a matter of being an encyclopedia, our job is to accurately reflect the noteworthy facts and circumstances with reasonable, appropriate context; it is not to write articles with the intent of making our readers smile or frown (cf. bothsidesism). The correct way to "go halfway" is to explain what occurred in the body of the article, where we have the space to explain matters accurately in two or three sentences, rather than placing inaccurate or misleading text in the lead section. On a highly trafficked article, we should be scrupulous about this. Neutrality 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV is not about giving "equal time" to the false claims about travel bans that Trump and his supporters made in the face of near-universal criticism from notable experts and RS analysis. That would be false balance. The travel ban thing was nonsense, debunked and rejected far and wide in the context of the six month U.S. experience. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually considered "partial travel ban" as more accurate. I will add it to my Version 2. And Awilley, I hear you about making it balanced. Even though the travel limitations were limited and largely ineffective (since the virus was already here and spreading, we just didn't know it), they are something he did - as opposed to the implication that he did nothing at all. And Neutrality, I disagree that it would be "inaccurate or misleading" to point out that he limited incoming travel from the hotspots. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: The statement "issued travel bans for China and Europe" is misleading because incoming travel by U.S. nationals and their families from those locations was never restricted. If we wanted to say "imposed partial travel restrictions on foreigners traveling from China and Europe" that would be more accurate (but still inappropriate for the lead section, as this is not one of the most important aspects of Trump's coronavirus activities or of Trump's presidency, let alone Trump's entire life). And even that wording would be imprecise because Hong Kong and Macau were exempt from the ban, and I believe the restrictions on incoming travel from "Europe" applied only to the Schengen Area initially, then also the UK and Ireland, which is not the entirety of Europe. The complexity of the details (and the facts that the travel restrictions were very ineffective) is all the more reason why this ought not to be in the lead section. Neutrality 00:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

All of that is covered by the word "partial". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support version 3. Also I have some affinity for the modified version 3 below (although I would edit it slightly). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I support version 1 as it is more comprehensive..therefore more accurate..there is nothing in it that isn`t true 107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all Not sure why we are only emphasizing the negative, always. Trump restricted travel from China before South Korea did and at the same time as 36 other countries did, but after other countries already had a few days to a week prior and the WHO did not even state this was a world health emergency until 1/30. The timing of the travel restrictions is midway between all. Trump used the War Powers Act (perhaps not as fast as he should have) to force manufacturers to produce more PPE. While slower than one would have liked, the US has now tested many more citizens than any other country per million residents except a few. Its important to note that many countries leadership did not do all they could have in retrospect.. No doubt the Trump adminstration could have done more and sooner. Each of the above choices are playing pin the tail on the donkey without an analysis of whether the Trump administration was worse, better or about the same as other world leaders.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not emphasizing the negative; we are emphasizing reality. The U.S. is in 23rd place for testing. Trump used the war powers act only after significant hesitation and public pressure to do so, and he used in a very limited way. Hospitals and nursing homes are still getting inadequate PPE supplies, and some are even receiving garbage bag-like PPE without the arm holes! Trump could have done better? How the hell could he have done worse? - MrX 🖋 01:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. is in 23rd place for testing Sure about that? The US actually ranks 7th in daily tests per million. The only countries with significantly higher testing rates have very small populations. --Rusf10 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about that. This source that we have been using throughout our articles covering the pandemic shows the U.S. in 23rd place for tests per 100k people. I'm not certain which part of https://ourworldindata.org/ you are looking at, but the table under the heading 'World map: total tests performed relative to the size of population' shows the U.S. in 15th place for testing, and the source disclaims that it is for "all countries in our dataset" which is different than all countries. The claim "the US has now tested many more citizens than any other country per million residents except a few." is wrong, unless you accept that "few" means "many". - MrX 🖋 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My source actually gives you the source they used for every single country. Yours it does for some but others its less clear. And yes I'm looking at the same exact map as you, click on table below the map and you can sort it. Even if we go with your source, almost all of the countries with higher testing are incredibly small. In fact, the total number of tests done by the United States is greater than the total population of all but two of these countries. It not hard to test everyone when your country's total population is roughly 35,000 people.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked into this further and it seems that this has already been discussed and the consensus is that your source Worldometers.info is Not Reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A consensus of two is not a consensus, but it doesn't matter anyway. Even according the source you cited, the U.S. is not #1 in testing. Not even close. - MrX 🖋 17:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussion I linked to??? More than two people participated and it was previously discussed here and here. CNN even reported on how unreliable the website is . It is undeniable that it is a flawed website. Also, I never said the US was #1 in testing, so don't put words in my mouth. But no matter how you look at it, its pretty damn close. In fact, if we were to look at total tests rather than tests per capita, one could argue (and again I'm not making that claim) it is #1 with over 41 million tests, unless we include China's likely false claim of over 90 million tests .--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not even a little bit close. Your source doesn't support your claim that China is falsifying their numbers. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does Still, experts have questioned the accuracy of China’s COVID-19 data. It is widely believed that any numbers released by the Chinese government are false. . And will you acknowledge that worldometer.com is not a reliable source? If I see it appear in article space, I will not hesitate to remove it.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX you left out the context of 23rd (now 22nd) “among 214 countries and territories” - so can be said as “roughly top 10%”, or said ‘above average for Western nations’ or ‘somewhere between the U.K. and Canada’... The Covid-19 testing also shows the U.S. as #2 in total tests — all of these are just stating a measure or POV on the data. I don’t mind worldometer per se, as I disagree with excluding reality of POVs exist, but it’s only one POV among many. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support version 3 for the WP:DUEWEIGHT reasons cited by Neutrality. My second choice would version 1. Several sources have taken note of Trump's efforts to overturn Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis, but I also understand that it may overemphasize the importance of this piece of information. Awilley, how have you determined that the travel ban is one of Trump's more noteworthy actions in his handling of the pandemic? We should not be trying to achieve a balance for the sake of placating readers. Our task is to represent material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @MrX: I haven't determined anything. I just have a hard time imagining a high level secondary source discussing Trump's general pandemic response that goes into enough detail to discuss the downplaying, the contradiction of experts, and the misinformation about drugs and tests, but that fails to mention the travel restriction. I can imagine opinion pieces doing that, or secondary sources focusing specifically on more narrow aspects, but those aren't as useful for determ beining weight as broad secondary or tertiary sources. If you know differently that's fine. I've been wrong before. ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you could cite some RS to support you evaluation of WEIGHT wrt the travel bans. I have not seen any mainstream narrative that they were significant, let alone personally bio-noteworthy like e.g. hydroxychloroquine or declining to invoke the emergency production powers or the botched reopening that now sets the US apart from other nations. Could you share sources? SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem all options at this point...blaming this on China..the travel bans as well as the issue of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act all need to be in...however overall the withdraw from the WHO is much more important 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E0:56B7:F967:14AB (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the WHO withdrawal is significant, but it's difficult to cram everything into one sentence, and if we break it up into multiple sentences the lead starts to get unwieldy. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the IP address makes a decent point. Virtually every country in the world adopted some sort of travel restriction, but only one country has taken steps to withdraw from the WHO. If we are going to mention either one in the lead section, the latter seems far more significant than the former, especially given that WHO withdrawal would affect public health far beyond COVID-19. Neutrality 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support all options, 3 first, then 3-Harsh, then 2, then 1. This is the national crisis of his presidency, with many notable aspects. It is WP:DUE for the lead, and we are way past due not having COVID in. Trump has done much to screw it up, diverging from his own public health officials. starship.paint (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all- The continued attempt to brand Trump a liar by editorializing the lead is unacceptable. The word "false" is used 54 times in this article, but zero times in Obama's article. In Biden's article is is only used twice and one of those times is in reference to something Trump said. This proves that wikipedia selectively "fact checks" since every politician ever has made at least some false statements.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• False equivalency, Rusf10. - "'We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here,' said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian." Note that we do not brand Trump a liar in the proposed sentences - we merely state that he passed false information. Now, if you're disputing that he has passed false information, there is a list: . starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a policy based argument, nor is it based on what the preponderance of sources have written about the subject. I'm confident that it will be rightfully discounted in any evaluation of consensus. - MrX 🖋 12:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not the way things work, my vote doesn't just get ignored because MrX doesn't like it. There is a policy and it's called NPOV, excessive weight has been given to negativity in this article. You're preferred version doesn't even mention the travel bans and asserts Trump "passed false information to the public about unproven treatments" when the effectiveness of hydroxychlroquine is still disputed --Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if you demonstrate that you are unable to correctly apply NPOV, your view will certainly be discounted. Please review WP:NPOV and consider the discussion of it in this thread above and below. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

if you demonstrate that you are unable to correctly apply NPOV Is that a personal attack? I hope not. And who is the arbiter of whether I correctly applied NPOV, you and MrX? I am applying NPOV correctly, those supporting the three options above are not. As per NPOV A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. That is what is being ignored here.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That quote is about using neutral wording, not NPOV content. Please read the entire page. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• User:Rusf10 Good points, that the word ‘false’ is presented an UNDUE number of times. That WP is giving unequal treatment would need to refer to some standard though for any correction - to determine if it should be less white-washing there or less tar-and-feathers here. Also —- perhaps you would want to present article content about the external view of ‘false’, of it being a POV narrative and unprecedented posturing over nits. WP doesn’t need to say the ‘false’ claims as if that is factual or at all important to BLP - it is also a context of being under partisan attack and biased media coverage. To some extent, having it seems just a partisan talking point - something pushed vaguely in every opportunity, regardless of relevance. To some extent it seems just media infotainment selling to a niche - something done by deeply adversarial New York Times and Washington Post and Toronto Sun. Finer discussion of ‘false’ seems more something for the Presidency article, but the frequency here and wording here deserves extra scrutiny and context if it’s going to be said so, so often. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all - The way this text is currently written violates WP:NPOV, like Misplaced Pages is rendering some kind of judgement of his handling of the pandemic, which is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Obviously COVID should be mentioned in the lead, but written more in a way which summarizes what sources have written about Trump's handling of the pandemic, not passing judgement as it currently is. Just one example, instead of "Trump minimized the threat" write it as "Trump has been accused by health professionals of minimizing the threat" etc. Even just re-wording the sentence like this would help a lot. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Basil the Bat Lord: - there is no WP:NPOV violation if Misplaced Pages follows the judgment reliable sources. If reliable sources say: “Health professionals accuse Trump of minimising the threat”, it would be a violation if we wrote: “Trump minimised the threat.” But if the reliable sources wrote “Trump minimised the threat”, then there is no WP:NPOV violation. starship.paint (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Basil the Bat Lord: If we are "rendering judgement" that would seem to imply that we are writing things that not found in sources. We do not give attribution when something is widely reported and not seriously contested in other reliable sources, per WP:YESPOV. If there are sources that we should consider that say that Trump has not minimized the threat of COVID-19, would you please point them out? Obviously they should be news sources, not opinion columns. - MrX 🖋 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: - the onus would first be on supporters of the content to provide the sources, as I do so below. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those proposing content, and in this case where RS are saying various things - some say slow on this, some say fast on that, some talk about size and not speed... The policy of NPOV is to present all significant POVs in proportion to their WEIGHT in publications, including the right wing ones and the left wing ones. To just pick one POV or message violates NPOV, and is a false representation of events and dialogue. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support for option 3, with modification Version 3 (modified) : Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he frequently downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many health recommendations from experts and officials in his administration including epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Fauci , and passed false information to the public about unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine, and the availability of testing. - Harsh (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support that. Dr. Fauci is a highly respected medical expert. - MrX 🖋 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also be OK with Version 3 (modified), if others prefer it to the original Version 3. Neutrality 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Leave out Fauci. This is Trump's biography; there is no reason to name-drop one expert. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1-3 (Harsh's version)-3 (original version)-2 in that order, but any of them would work. The only completely unacceptable options would be omitting it entirely or trying to hedge it. At this point coverage of COVID-19 has come to completely dominate nearly half a year of his presidency, and these versions broadly reflect its tone and content. With regards to people objecting, above, that this summary makes Trump look unduly bad, that's not our call to make - but outside of a relatively tiny bubble of low-quality Trump-loyalist media this is what the vast majority of sources are saying about his pandemic response, and we have to reflect that. Proposed framings like "critics say" are not appropriate when all reliable media is more or less unanimous; it is an WP:NPOV violation to represent facts as opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - see ABC timeline. _Talk 📧 18:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you would base your argument on a single news article from April 3(!). April 4-30; all of May; all of June; and July 1-11 also happened. Everything that is in each proposed version is readily supported by numerous sources. - MrX 🖋 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, the ABC timeline itself states that it is a comparison of how New York and the Trump administration responded to the pandemic during the month of March. So we don't have anything from January or February either. starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all - The current wording in the lead section is (in my humble opinion) negative in tone. I accept reliable sources have said Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic and that many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, but the lead doesn't counter-balance any of that with Trump's view of these accusations. I'd prefer either a more concise form of wording in the lead to simply say that Trump has been accused of being slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic or alternatively a brief response from Trump to the accusations. I neither like nor dislike Trump. My concern is that the current wording for the lead in Wiki-voice seems overly negative in tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please review how we define neutrality at WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I've re-read again the WP:NPOV guidelines and in my humble opinion the current wording for the lead section in Wiki-voice seems overly negative in tone. The only edits in the last three years I've actually made to the Trump article itself have been to provide consistent mdy dates. I know that if I make any edit to provide more balance or to give Trump's response to an accusation it will likely be reverted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things Kind Tennis Fan. Trump is not reliable source. I should have to even point that out since we an entire article about it. I'm not hearing any "tone" in the proposed text, but would you please point out something specific that is not found in multiple reliable sources? Vague characterization based on your humble opinion are not useful substitutes for our content policies. Let's see your sources. - MrX 🖋 13:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Coronavirus Task Force consisting of medical experts and nonmedical personnel was set up on 1/29. I have seen numerous references that Trump did not act swiftly enough with a travel ban and that had he done so he could have saved many lives. However, the Trump Administration issued the partial travel ban with China on 1/31 even though WHO stated on 1/30 that while this was an international health emergency, that they did not believe there was any need to restrict international travel and trade and Dr. Fauci stated that he believed at that time that the virus was a low risk in the US. I have seen many sources stating that the Trump Administration did not enforce a lockdown as early as it should have, however the Trump Administration was partly reliant on an October 2019 Johns Hopkins study that analyzed 195 countries and the determination by them was the US was the best prepared country in the world to deal with such a situation, and Trump cited this on February 26th., though this was pandemic response ability, and predates COVID19. The WHO did not even declare the coronavirus a global pandemic until 3/11 and the Trump Administration stressed a stay at home mandate on 3/16 and recommended visiting bars, restaurants and gatherings of over 10 persons be eliminated and to work from home if possible. By March 16 there had been only 88 deaths, and while of course tragic, this was still far lower than annual flu fatalities., . On March 16 it was reported that, "While more than 181,000 people have caught the virus around the world, almost half have already recovered, and the vast majority of cases remain mild." Yet the Trump Administration was moving to stress a lockdown not long after the pandemic was declared., .--MONGO (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  @MONGO: - What you did was interpret information from the sources to argue that Trump wasn't slow. However, your personal opinion of whether Trump acted quickly does not trump the sources themselves. The sources say he was slow, on aspects you did not address. (a) Slow to ramp up testing. (b) Slow to quarantine travelers. (c) Slow to implement travel restrictions on countries other than China. (d) Slow on acquiring or making medical supplies. (e) Slow to acknowledge the threat of COVID-19. (f) Slow to wear a mask in public. To defeat sources saying he was slow, you need to provide sources saying he wasn't slow, instead of making your own arguments. starship.paint (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly right. WP:OR does not trump WP:V. - MrX 🖋 18:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Nobody cares whether he was fast or slow or whatever. The mainstream sources, including reports of numerous opinion polls, medical experts, and government officials say he was and for that matter still is slow. Let's wrap this up, MONGO. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy IRL. Will address these issues asap. I gave the dates above to show that those two slow issues mentioned are erroneously reported, as Trump was timely with the known details at those dates.--MONGO (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: - it is not up to you to prove erroneous reporting. It's up to other reliable sources to prove it, and then you simply provide those other reliable sources which have the proof. starship.paint (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• All this talk about the Trump adminstration being slow to distribute testing fails to acknowledge that the CDC wanted to develop its own testing for nationwide distribution and as late as 4/18 the WaPo reported that "Contamination at CDC lab delayed rollout of coronavirus tests". I'm sorry but I do not understand why there is this persistance to ignore other details and assign all blame for the testing kit delays on Donald Trump. Our articles should not be a collection of sticky notes to advocate for a "side". According to the WaPO piece "The troubled segment of the test was not critical to detecting the novel coronavirus, experts said. But after the difficulty emerged, CDC officials took more than a month to remove the unnecessary step from the kits, exacerbating nationwide delays in testing,"--MONGO (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

CDC reports to Trump, Mongo. So that is on him. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all. I'm no fan of Trump, my personal views are quite the opposite. But the sort of opinionated editorializing proposed has no place in a neutral Misplaced Pages article. Saying he was "slow to react" implies that there was some objective path that he should have taken and that it is a proven fact that he didn't take that optimal path. Really though, the choice of what to do in the early days of the pandemic was far from clear - locking down citizens and businesses and closing borders may seem obvious in retrospect, but it was and is highly damaging to the economy and people's livelihoods, so there was always a trade-off involved. The best way to present this sort of information is to attribute the slowness of the response to the reliable sources that have said that rather than stating it in Misplaced Pages voice, while also mentioning counterarguments given by Trump and anyone else, obviously using the typical WP:Due weight to balance the two sides and if there are more sources saying he was slow than that he wasn't then we simply include more of those. Let's stick to reporting verified 3rd party information and leave our private opinions at the door please.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You seem to be suggesting that we should ignore WP:YESPOV and attribute facts that are not seriously contested in other reliable sources. You refer to "opinionated editorializing", but by whom? Please explain what the other side to injecting disinfectants is and back that up with some sources like Starship.paint has done. What specifically in the any of the proposed versions is "our private opinions"? - MrX 🖋 12:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Version 4: Trump blamed foreign adversaries and domestic rivals for the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and said that the virus would disappear as if by magic. He publicly undermined scientists, public health experts, and international institutions, adding to the chaos the pandemic was causing. (Did I leave something out?) And then - off to Walter Reed for a photo op wearing a mask, surrounded by men in full dress uniform. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all - factually short when it’s saying as if always against when factually he did change; and as if everything slow when some items were fast, and perhaps more importantly some responses have been yuuuuge! Also just not looking to be good summary of article per LEAD, but instead showing wow I could google 10 sites that say X as if that’s impressive. Plus this everything negative negative is just not informative... Say what WAS done, say what WAS opposed say what RESULTED, not just what critics said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I'm afraid I don't understand most of that. Do you have an argument that is based on Misplaced Pages policy rather than your own analysis, and would you please back it up with source like Starship.paint did? I'm especially interested in you came up with "critics said". Thank you. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – As the renewed debate above demonstrates, there is obviously still no consensus among editors about, in the words of the RfC closer S Marshall, "whether to mention coronavirus in the lead", and "what to say if we did mention it". Accordingly, I will remove the disputed content on process grounds. No prejudice to later re-instatement if/when a positive consensus for inclusion is reached. — JFG 06:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone is free to restore the material. We don't count votes, and the "Oppose all" votes lack any real basis in our content policies, and they are not supported by references. They are almost entirely WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all we ought to all know by now how Trump is usually reported in the news. It's almost always negative, even from where we stand now looking back to some of the things he did that were the right call. Take a look how it's handled in the Andrew Cuomo lead "Cuomo received national attention for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic in New York" and in the body there - 3 very short paragraphs. The order directing nursing homes to take Covid patients is the direct cause of death for many thousands. New York City alone has more deaths than CA, FL, TX, LA, MI, and GA COMBINED, but barely a peep about any of that on Cuomo's page. It is not always Trump's fault, and Misplaced Pages doesn't need to be on some mission to say it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: But do you have an argument that is based on Misplaced Pages policy rather than your own analysis, and would you please back it up with source like Starship.paint did? Thank you. - MrX 🖋 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah let's try some NPOV on for size and see how it fits. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing against your own position. NPOV is exactly why we have to cover this. It's not a magical incantation that make logic, evidence, reason disappear at will. - MrX 🖋 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the arguments favoring Trump's COVID-19 response here are just astonishing. Mainstream media overwhelmingly describes the administration's response as being nine kinds of crap. Just look at the charts showing new cases and deaths and compare them with literally any other "first world" country, and it is clear the US response has SUCKED. Now the good name of Fauci is being dragged through the mud because some of the things he said earlier in the crisis were not accurate, despite the fact that it is a GOOD THING for scientists to revise their recommendations as new data comes in. It is almost impossible to overstate how badly the Trump administration has handled COVID-19, and blanket "oppose all" statements not accompanied by reasonable alternatives are absolutely useless to this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I'm not sure I follow you with the statistics. If I compare the deaths per million citizens, Belgium, UK, Italy, Sweden, France, and Spain (countries I would consider "first world") all have worse numbers than the USA. Sure raw numbers are higher in the US, but relative to the population it isn't as drastic. The specifically call out the UK, they have ~1/5 the population of the US but ~1/3 of the amount of deaths. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: That's because you are looking at the totally of the numbers. Look at the 7-day rolling averages over the last 2 months and note how the number of cases and deaths in the US are increasing (rather alarmingly, in fact), but that is not the case in most other developed countries. Here's a good source: Our World In Data, but there are many others. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, pictures: charts here. Click on the US and click on Germany, France, Italy and other similar nations. Every day you can find graphs and analysis in the mainstream US media that show that the rest of the "first world" countries have suppressed the surge, while the US is setting new highs daily. Have you read the mainstream coverage of the coronavirus? That is what we are using to write this article and Starship.paint has provided many RS references on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If people want to read mainstream coverage of the crisis, they can do it on sites that deliver mainstream coverage. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be different from that. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WRONG. Misplaced Pages articles rely entirely on reliable sources, and when it comes to politics that means most sources are from the mainstream media. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream sources for content in dispute

These sources prove that it is perfectly fine for Misplaced Pages to take a negative view of Trump's handling of the pandemic, because that is the same view of the reliable sources. Amakuru - I refer you to the above, there are far more aspects than just locking down citizens and businesses and closing borders. Would you suggest we incorporate all of these sources given that the article's large size has been flagged as an issue? starship.paint (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work and thank you Starship.paint. This certain undermines all of the "Oppose all" arguments I've seen which can be best summed up as "I don't like it because Trump disagrees, and I'm not taking any questions." - MrX 🖋 12:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for folding those, but again - that one can google up ‘some cites say’ for one POV has been done and disproven before. Just google without the filters and the perfect picture falls apart — other views and more facts get in. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - it's remarkably easy for you to merely claim that I have cherrypicked sources. What's harder is for you to prove that I have indeed cherrypicked. If the POV of my sources is in fact the minority POV, then you should be able to simply match what I did. I provided 15 articles from 11 reliable organizations, covering 6 aspects of Trump's lack of speed during this crisis, you can do the same for Trump's speed - 15 articles, 11 organizations, 6 aspects. This shouldn't be difficult if I actually did cherrypicked sources, you can Just google without the filters, and other views and more facts get in. So, prove it. starship.paint (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• C-Class political party articles
• High-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English