Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: North Korea in the lead

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

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)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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 [$x.x] 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)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

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)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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 14 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)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

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

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: 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. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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 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)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 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. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

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.
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

I really think the lead needs something like "Trump was also president during the coronavirus crisis." I made the change on Saturday but was reverted. pbp 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - lots of people are in power over the planet while the pandemic is ongoing. There's no reason to highlight this one instance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It should probably also be mentioned in Xi's article and the head of government in Italy's too, for starters. pbp 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. This is the top-level biography of Trump and the lead already includes too much detail about the presidency part of his life. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You consider ONE SENTENCE about a global pandemic that has shut down a country of 320 million "too much detail"? pbp 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for the lead of this article, which is about an entire life of a man who was widely known and widely written about for decades before he stumbled into the presidency less than four years ago. It's just amazing how many things about his presidency are just too monumentally important to omit from this lead.

By the way, lead summarizes body, so we couldn't add this to the lead until it's mentioned somewhere in the body. A browser search of the article for "virus" finds zero occurrences. But I would still oppose this in the lead, even after that's taken care of. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mandruss, what I'm getting from your comments is that you had a lot of gripes with the article before my proposal and you're taking it out on my proposal. And, yes, coronavirus is easily one of the 5-10 most important things of his presidency, and if you devote 1-2 sentences to each of the most important things, that's only 1-2 paragraphs. pbp 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention of coronavirus in the body

Shouldn't this article contain at least a paragraph about Trump and the coronavirus? pbp 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No. It's a global health crisis that implies nothing specific about Trump. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. That's why we don't mention WW2 in the Winston Churchill article. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Ha. The difficult bit is showing how this is any more or less inept than anything else he's done. Guy (help!) 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, how to avoid disruption of talk pages by fringe POV nonsense. We are going to need to address this. It's shutting down progress on many articles. To respond directly to your point, I have long said we should be looking for summary analysis of fundamental factors that come up over and over. Each instance may be WP:NOTNEWS but the larger context needs encyclopedic coverage. We're beginning to see respected analysts address this, for example in the recent book A Very Stable Genius. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Trump's response to the pandemic should obviously be covered briefly in this article. Otherwise, we need to remove Jerusalem, Wrestling, Cuba, Acting, Talk shows, Miss Universe, and a whole lot more. It doesn't belong in the lead now, but it may later depending on the impact of Trump's involvement. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My sense of the RS reporting and analysis is there are two significant points. First, his initial reaction to the virus' spread, which is roughly 60 days ago, was denial. He did not heed advice that this would become a global crisis, and he did not deploy or strengthen the capabilities of the US to prepare and to intervene overseas, as e.g. his nemesis Obama did in the Ebola incident. Second, as he became aware of the spread of the pandemic, he sought to suppress information and to minimize government response, for fear it would weaken the stock market or impair his reelection prospects in other ways. Consistent with these approaches, he appointed inexperienced and ignorant staff to handle it for him, and only in the past few days has appeared willing to take the lead of medical experts. In part this shift appears to be due to the spectacle of local governments upstaging him and providing leadership in the crisis. @JFG: FYI, the disease did reach the USA some time ago, so "global" no longer excludes Trump's domain. It would be great if you'd read up on the RS discussions of his leadership in this crisis and help us write some great article and lead text. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There is lots of Trump content in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. There should certainly be some coronavirus content here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"He appointed ignorant staff?" comments are laughable in the amount of speculation, with no facts to back them up. I encourage all reasonable editors to disregard above analyis if they add a corona virus section. With all due respect to SPECIFICO, it seems this user has been on wikipedia a long time with a noted history of one-sided political edits. This user should honestly be blocked by administrators from making edits on any page that has to do with Donald Trump. Amorals (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

This article certainly has to have Trump's declaration of a national emergency, and perhaps his claims that coronavirus was fake news. @JFG: Just because coronavirus involves a lot of people doesn't automatically discount it being mentioned here; what you're saying is less an argument for why coronavirus shouldn't be mentioned here and more one why Trump shouldn't be mentioned at the coronavirus article. pbp 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amorals: You were good for the first half of that comment. Comment on content, not contributors. There is a place for such remarks and this isn't it. If you feel an ArbCom enforcement request is warranted, follow this link and file one. Make further comments like that and you will risk being the subject of one. I have posted a discretionary sanctions alert on your talk page; please read it, understand it, and take it seriously. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the first half of Amorals' comment was not helpful. I prefaced my summary with saying that's my impression of RS narratives. I could instead have written article text with citations, but that would have been way premature. There are ample citations for encyclopedic text that reflects what I wrote, should there ultimately be consensus for article text along those lines. That would not itself be article text because it omits background facts and detail, but my approach has long been to moot rough sketches on article talk pages rather than jump to insert recent developments into the article text. That would have wasted editor time and attention, and it's not good for the workplace here. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the first half was "helpful" – I have no opinion on that – only that it didn't clearly violate expectations for behavior on article talk pages under DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Trump's response to COVID-19 will be regarded as the most consequential act of his entire presidency. We're going to be seeing thousands of deaths, many of which could've been avoided, and dramatic economic effects. With that said, we are still in the early stages and anything we put in the article will necessarily have to evolve more or less continuously. Perhaps we should start with something simple, with a sentence along these lines:

Trump's handling of the initial stages of the coronavirus pandemic drew criticism from EVERYONE! medical professionals and public officials.

I am not suggesting these specific words (which I pulled out of my ass, basically), but rather I am suggesting this is the sort of level of coverage we should be considering at this early stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Which section would you suggest? Presidency>Domestic policy>Economy and trade? A one-sentence section would seem strange, and unwarranted. (You've blown your British cover. The British word is arse.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what the actually words are. COVID-19 touches the economy, health, foreign policy, personnel, approval ratings, social media, and (of course) the 2020 campaign. There's currently no convenient place to put anything, so it probably warrants a subsection under "Presidency" all of its own. There's no rush though. I think we should take a little time to work something out before we even think about putting something in the article. And to be honest, this discussion should probably be happening at Presidency of Donald Trump (an article not on my watchlist) first, if it hasn't already. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

After living for almost 20 years in the USA, I have learned/learnt to use US spellings of things just to avoid the hassle I get if I do otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read through this entire discussion, but I support Scjessey's proposal above as a good simple starting point. No view on where it should go. Sdkb (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at this article for the first time and I was shocked that it did not contain any discussion of the president's handling of the Coronavirus outbreak. I believe it is a serious lack in the article. At this point, while we are in the early stages of the epidemic, it is already one of the most important issues of his administration. Without ignoring the potential horrors to come, we have already seen several border shutdowns initiated by the president, major national addresses by the president, the appointment of personnel to deal with them, enormous fluctuations in the markets coincident with these national addresses. And the presidents actions to prepare or not prepare for the infection have already had large impacts on the country. At a minimum, we could mention that Trump was president during the outbreak and link to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States David s graff (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic section

Based on this discussion, I've started a section to cover Trump's response to the pandemic. I think main story is how his attitude changed over a few weeks time, or pretty much what SPECIFICO wrote above. It's probably also worth noting that he refers to it as the China virus[1][2][3] and how proud he is of his own "tremendous" response. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This could be under "Domestic policy:Health care". I think many of the comments above are crystal ball-gazing. The news services might indulge in this, but we shouldn't. One thing this pandemic has shown is that current affairs can be very unpredictable. We simply don't know how things will pan out.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That didn't seem quite right to me. A lot of the decisions are being made on the fly in reaction to rapidly changing events in the economy and society. Policies tend to be longer term, and based on ideology and planning. I don't think we could rightfully say that Trump had a healthcare policy based on sending $1000 checks to Americans and bailing out the airline industry. - MrX 🖋 18:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

True, it's not just a healthcare issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The separate category is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Two significant themes related to President Trump and the pandemic that are starting to emerge in the media are: 1) that the partisan Democratic impeachment effort in January likely delayed the US government's response to the pandemic, costing lives, and 2) that the pandemic supports the increased border security and immigration controls promoted by the Trump administration. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I oppose AppliedCharisma's suggested changes; they reflect an ultra-right-wing narrative.pbp 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I would at least like to see sources. @AppliedCharisma: where are your sources? - MrX 🖋 20:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read AppliedCharisma's comment. It's always good to have a bit of satire on a Wikipedia talk page from time to time, just to break the monotony. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@AppliedCharisma:, how can you say the U.S. government response was delayed, in fact it was rated 10/10? The coronavirus was very much under control as late as February 24. starship.paint (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree re #2 that pandemic supports border controls and travel bans worldwide, but that’s not quite the same as border control for illegal immigration issues. There may be greater approval for President Trump on it now, but it would be said in citeable RS to support any such edit in article. For #1 - again there would have to be a look at RS, but here I think it really didn’t have “delay” at all. The response seems neither laggard nor prescient, a fairly normal progression of a democracy struggling with finding it’s way in a sudden disaster. A bit above-average response especially since Monday 9 March. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Pbp it is alarming to hear you refer to the entirety of AppliedCharisma statement's as far right and to read other users like Scjessey piggyback that. Only half the statement "partisan impeachment" is right winged. The other half, fact that the coronavirus plays into Trump's border policies is a reasonable fact, hell, shutting down the damn border is what he's been trying to do all along. It makes me concerned for the impartiality of articles like these when I read these dismissive comments.Amorals (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

Alternate proposal for pandemic section

I appreciate MrX's efforts in writing a pandemic section. We definitely need one and it's a good first effort. However, I think it is too focused on his misstatements and omissions, with not enough reporting on his actual actions. I propose to replace it with a version I have been working on - using some of MrX's reporting and sources but with more of a focus on actions and timeline, and a more economical use of references.

In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China; it spread worldwide and was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. Beginning January 22 and for the next two months, Trump played down the threat, stating repeatedly that "we have it under control" and "it will all work out well". On January 30 he admitted that the U.S. had five cases but claimed they were all "recuperating successfully". On January 31 he announced restrictions on travel from China, effective February 2. On February 25 Trump said, "I think that whole situation will start working out. We're very close to a vaccine." He continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and CDC officials repeatedly said it would take a year to a year and a half to develop a vaccine. In a March 4 interview with Sean Hannity he claimed that the 3.4 percent death rate published by the World Health Organization is false, saying he had a "hunch" that the figure was less than 1 percent. Trump also over-promised on the availability of testing for the virus, claiming on March 6 that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test." In fact, the United States got off to a very slow start in such testing; fewer than 4,000 tests were administered between mid-January and the end of February. The number of test kits was very limited, and there were stringent requirements for who was eligible to be tested.

On February 26 he appointed Vice President Mike Pence to take charge of the nation's response to the virus. On March 6, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law, providing $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies to respond to the outbreak. On March 11 Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office and acknowledged for the first time that the virus was a serious threat. In the speech he announced the suspension of most travel from Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) for 30 days, beginning on March 13, and later amended it to include the United Kingdom and Ireland. On March 13 he proclaimed a national emergency, freeing up additional federal resources to combat the coronavirus.

Sources

What do people think? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have added a bit about the availability of testing. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement, but I think we should reference the origin of the pandemic because it provides important context and grounds the timeline. Per WP:GLOBAL. Perhaps, we could start with this:

The first confirmed case of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020, after the initial outbreak of the disease in December 2019, in Wuhan, China. ...

- MrX 🖋 20:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good, I'd be OK with something like that. Although the Chinese didn't reveal the existence of the coronavirus outbreak until January 7; maybe we should use that date, as it's when we first became aware of it? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've already added it. In that case I am fine with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Since you think this version is an improvement, shall I go ahead and put it in the article? I was tempted to do that directly but wanted to get a little feedback first. I've added your improved first sentence to my proposal. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

With my blessing. - MrX 🖋 21:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's already too wordy and this is only the beginning.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect is the enemy of better. The above is an acceptable start. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it again from the standpoint of "wordiness", I have removed the sentence about his "hunch" that the death rate figure was wrong. It was a passing thing, and it didn't affect any actions. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is an unprecedented amount of dissembling, irrelevant posturing, rumination, and self-congratulation coming from POTUS, even after he's been instructed to pivot from his outright denials and recriminations against the press and scientific consensus. We should develop a couple of summary sentences that adequately conveys the scope of this remarkable phenomenon. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There are several sentences that don't even mention Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That is true, just like the rest of the article. For example, at least five sentences in the North Korea section don't even mention Trump. - MrX 🖋 19:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Re "don't even mention Trump": I see four sentences here that do not mention Trump: the first two sentences in the section, which are necessary background; and the last two sentences in the first paragraph, which are in direct response to something he said and are needed to show that what he said was untrue. I think all four sentences are directly relevant to the section. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - you can pick and choose summary sentences from below. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping of rest of section's participants: @MrX, Jack Upland, and MelanieN:. starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

From January 2020 to mid-March 2020, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, giving many optimistic public statements, which were mainly aimed at calming stock markets. He initially said that he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic. He went to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control". He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax".

Trump has, in February and March, frequently promoted misinformation during his response to the outbreak. Without scientific basis, he suggested that the outbreak would be over by April, or that the virus would vanish "like a miracle". He underestimated the projected time for a coronavirus vaccine to be released, and inaccurately stated in early March that coronavirus tests were available for all who needed them.

sources

• Version 1 preferred. Better narrative and not too long. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: - I didn't mean that the entire 2 paragraphs were needed in this article. I did say you can pick and choose sentences. starship.paint (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, SPECIFICO and Starship, but I don't think any additional material from the above is needed to be added. Most of the main points are already covered in what we have, and additional quotes of things that he said only once ("vanish like a miracle") are probably TMI for a biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN - "miracle" was once, but 'disappear' was not. he has regularly promoted the idea that it could suddenly disappear. WaPo starship.paint (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Starship, Let me understand what you are proposing here. Most of what is in your paragraph here is already in the article. Are you suggesting we replace what is in the article with this paragraph, or add this paragraph to the article (creating a fair amount of redundancy), or pick out a sentence or two to add to the article, or what? If a sentence or two, can you single out what you propose to add that is not already in the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: - From January 22 to March 15, Trump played down the threat, stating repeatedly that "we have it under control" and "it will all work out well"; he also gave multiple suggestions were that the outbreak would suddenly subside. starship.paint (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible, but do you have better sources for that than the three you gave in your proposal above? They are retrospective and they just recite the whole litany of his falsehoods, mention the 'miracle' comment, and I think one of them mentioned it going away by April. But "multiple suggestions that the outbreak would suddenly subside"? Can you find a source that says that? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Actually the WaPo source that you linked to a couple of comments ago makes that point explicitly. I am willing to add it, with that source. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Shortened version of option 1

Replying to @Starship.paint:, something like

President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus, making optimistic statements that were unfounded or false. He repeatedly contradicted government experts from the CDC, NIH and other departments, stating that the situation was "under control", that a vaccine would soon be available, and that the virus would vanish "like a miracle". He accused Democrats and the news media of exaggerating the gravity of the situation, describing public criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax" and publicly attacking individual news reporters.

SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• There’s a TONE issue there that contradicts with source cites. For example ‘admitted there were 5 cases but claimed they were all recuperating’ is not a good paraphrase of the RS ‘President Trump said we have very little problem at this moment - just 5 cases and they are all recuperating’. There is no sense an “admission” in the source, as if he was caught doing wrong by someone, and a “but claimed” portrays recuperating as showing a falsehood about there being 5 cases when it wasn’t. The source isn’t about a ‘stating falsehoods’ narrative, the source is portraying this incident as an instance of President Trump’s voicing optimism or reassurance on 30 January was (in his opinion) part of downplaying the threat. I disagree with that POV as it is applying a late March POV and in January folks simply had only a weeks news from China — it wasn’t serious in people’s minds until mid-March. But if you’re citing to a ‘downplayed the pandemic’ article I’d suggest a hard wording scrub, much this doesn’t follow the cite. Markbassett (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - where are exactly you reading admitted there were 5 cases but claimed they were all recuperating from ...? The specific sources on falsehoods I found are NYT, Vox, CNN. I probably could find more. starship.paint (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  My bad, I found what you were referring to. I do not think that sentence is significant. I will remove it. starship.paint (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  But why remove it? Markbassett is just one suggestion. "Conceded" might be better than "admitted" but the source makes clear what he stated and why. Giving further context would be better than removal. There is now sourcing that relates POTUS' denials to the thousands of cases currently identified. That would be a better way to present the "nothing to see here" statements of January and February and early March. Also that "next 2 months" language is much better than giving two specific and otherwise insignificant dates. It is two months as of today, so I suggest you restore the more straightforward language. It's the 2 month span, not which numerical dates, that is important to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO Because the article cited just isn’t a narrative of President Trump being forced to concede that there are 5 cases, it is that the author cherry picks him stating this as him ‘downplaying’ the severity. And there was no “but” clause, the (his view) downplaying is in Trump choosing to give factually correct small number 5 “and” that they were recuperating. I happen to disagree with the portrayal of ‘downplaying’, this hindsight sniping of 14 March didn’t exist at the time and even now is not the WEIGHT of coverage. Fact is that 30 January there were just 5 cases of people who’d come from China and recuperating. With airport screenings, travel bans, and the forming of the Coronavirus Task Force, most people felt it *was* handled as far as the United States goes. Being before Italy or Iran or Diamond Princess playing out, even experts were not sure if pandemic was avoidable or not. Most were very surprised by his 11 March travel bans, and it wasn’t until mid-March you see general awareness, stockpiling, and broad measures. On 30 January, nobody knew what was coming - we were all going to find out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's a blog-worthy narrative. Unfortunately it is not consistent with near-universal RS reporting. Not really helpful for this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—we don't hold Trump to standards applicable at a later period of time for the unfolding of events and the utterances of Trump at an earlier period of time. Let me try saying that another way: we don't write as though Trump should have known something at an earlier period of time that became blatantly obvious at a later period in time. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why are you including vanish "like a miracle"? It is a manner of speaking. It is not to be taken literally. You are elevating it to a position of importance that is unwarranted. Are the explicit words vanish "like a miracle" called for? Which type of a "miracle" would this be a reference to? We don't know—so why quote "like a miracle"? Do you just like the way it sounds? Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You're going to need to read the RS reports. However we could give a (wordier, lengthier) summary of his insistent denials of the incipient pandemic instead of using that widely reported and video-broadcasted quote. I was working off the longer proposal. If you have language to summarize his denials, please propose it and we can all discuss. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus to update the lede's content on immigration?

Current part of lede, last consensus in September 2018:

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.

Proposed update,

During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in multiple versions of travel bans on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, along with migrant detentions, family separations, and the ongoing expansion of fencing at the Mexico border.

Reason: to update other aspects of his immigration policy, and also note that in 2020, we have had further extensions of the travel ban. starship.paint (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea to fold several notable consequences of Trump's immigration policy, which can link to the dedicated article Immigration policy of Donald Trump. Other actions include the attempted repeal of DACA and the visa lottery program. Travel ban is no longer focused on Muslim-majority countries, and it was found unbiased towards religion by the Supreme Court, so the Muslim qualifier should be removed. We have an overview article on various Trump travel bans. My proposed text:

Trump's strict immigration policy resulted in travel bans on citizens from several countries and increased policing of the Mexican border, including migrant detentions, family separations, and expansion of "the wall". Trump intends to repeal DACA and the green card lottery.

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 08:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• expansion of "the wall" does not make sense, (1) it implies that "the wall" existed prior to Trump, which it didn't, (2) "the wall" is basically a misnomer, it's a fence, [4], we should not leave that unexplained. What would work is an ongoing expansion of border fencing ("the wall") - because it is not fully built. Regarding DACA and the green card, we should wait until it actually happens. starship.paint (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Starship's update is OK. The JFG proposal fails on several accounts. The "Trump intends to " reads like a campaign tweet, even aside from the misleading statement that the president has the authority to repeal legislation. The Travel Ban was indeed a Muslim Ban and it was only broadened after various revisions in response to being struck down in court. So Starship's text is accurate and readers will wee the details of the subsequent revisions in the linked articles. Finally, the statements that Trump has a "strict immigration policy", or even that he has increased policing of the border are dubious. They read like more campaign slogans. Possibly Starship's version can be further improved, but the JFG text is worse in every respect. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not worth expanding this sentence in the lede otherwise to would likely be WP:UNDUE. We already have a lot to say about Trump besides his presidency. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump's immigration stance and the resulting controversies have generated plenty of coverage over the last three years. A short summary sentence looks DUE to me in the lead section. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair points from starship.paint. Update, keeping it short:

Trump's strict immigration policy resulted in travel bans on citizens from several countries and increased policing of the Mexican border, including migrant detentions, family separations, and expansion of border fencing ("the wall").

I have removed the DACA and visa lottery repeals until they are enacted, if ever. Not a fan of adding the "ongoing" qualifier to the fencing expansion, because it begs the question whether other things in the sentence are also ongoing or have stopped. For all I know, they are all ongoing. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Work on the body first. The header *is* dated info, but this is just muddling it into disagrees with body and internally mismatches. For example, the words *did* update travel ban to “bans”, as there were three ... but the text and links are still just the first one, and there is no body content beyond the first one of 2017. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese virus"

Resolved

. (Maybe not yet .... Markbassett (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

I would like to add the following to the article:

Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe the 2019 coronavirus disease drew criticism from the media, health experts and the Chinese government.

Sources

Since it is clearly an example of Trump's racism, my inclination is to put it in the "Racial views" section; however, it could also fit into the new section on the coronavirus. Which section do my fellow editors think is the best fit? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree that it is clearly an example of Trump's racism. Trump has reasons to point the finger at China that have nothing to do with racism, including nationalism, Second Cold War, and every problem is somebody else's fault since he's doing an incredible job. "Chink virus" would be different. I'd have to see a lot more sources calling it racist in their own voices. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought we're not allowed to refer to "racism" around here? Anyway, it's kind of incidental. I'm sure he uses lots of cuss words and stuff. I think we could have a much stronger presentation of his overall "racial views", but it's less clear whether each instance gets a mention. This is why we need secondary and tertiary source summaries regarding his racist speech and pandering. We cannot, as editors, pick and choose. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's attracted a TON of press, and scorn from lawmakers on boths sides of the aisle, experts, political commentators and others who have specifically called it "racist" (for which I provided sources). It has incensed the Chinese government, harming US-China relations. With all that being said, if the prevailing view is that it's not passing the WP:WEIGHT test I am happy to let it go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It may well pass WEIGHT but that doesn't mean it won't bog us down in footlong talkpage threads from a few Fox News fans here. I think we must conserve our strength. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that WHO has told him not to say that [5] - and he has doubled down - it may have developed enough WEIGHT for the Presidency article, if not for this one. I don't think it should be added to this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's in Racial views of Donald Trump. This article is too long. Perhaps the presidency article also -- but it would be a battle as SPECIFICO says. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support it in this article, per my previous comments. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on the sources presented by Scjessey and MelanieN, I think it's fair to go even further:

Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe the 2019 coronavirus disease was criticized and described as potentially racist by the media, health experts and the Chinese government.

Since "coronavirus" has rightly dominated the international news cycle for weeks I think we can also argue this is WP:DUE, even for the president of the United States. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That's rather a SYNTHy argument to include it. The World Series dominates the American media every fall, but an president's statement about the Fall Classic is not automatically WP:DUE. More significantly, perhaps, is that this is occurring in the context of a) Trump's having gratuitously pitched his tariff battles against China, and b) The recent expulsion of U.S. journalists from China. But we would need a source that discusses the connection among these events. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no realistic comparison between the annual world series and the current coronavirus pandemic. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. I was pointing out a fallacy that's logically identical to the one in your argument. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is correct. When you've shown that talk about the racism of those terms has dominated the international news cycle for weeks, you'll have a DUE argument for your proposed sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support this version as well. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Scjessey—you might consider that there might be a distinction between the carping of Trump's detractors and anything that is "clearly an example of Trump's racism". Have you not been here long enough to know to keep section headers neutral? "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." What kind of a heading is "Trump's racist terms for the coronavirus"? You've been here since 2005. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Bus Stop, I hope you don't think anyone here is denying that he's a racist. Just that we don't have any basis to craft our own narrative about this and that. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither denying nor affirming that he's a racist, because that is not a proper question to ask on this page. It's our job to be agnostic about such things while we have our editor hats on. A few comments in this thread are completely out of line. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I refuse to normalize racism, especially when there are hundreds of reliable sources that outright state Trump is a racist. Almost everyone refers to COVID-19 as "the coronavirus", but Trump and his ilk insist on using the openly racist term that refers to China or the Chinese people. In my view, "Trump is a racist" would be a perfectly neutral section heading, in that it is a well-supported fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey—do you have a source supporting that Trump refers to "the Chinese people"? Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do I need one? I have no intention of arguing against a straw man. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that someone "crossed out the word “Corona” in coronavirus and replaced it with the word “Chinese.”".[6] - MrX 🖋 21:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Someone" who likes fat, black magic marker. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be more interested in noting it in the context of an attempt to deflect blame from himself, as he and his media supporters have now pivoted to rewrite the history of what they've been hollering for weeks. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a centuries old tool of politicians around the world, particularly those with a conservative bent, to pander to the innate fears and racism of their supporters and potential supporters by repeatedly reminding them that their are nasty foreigners out there would would do them serious harm if they could, and then convince them that these said politicians will protect the masses from this evil. I find it hard to tell how racist Trump really is, but he certainly plays the race card in an expert way. How we reflect this fact in the article, while his supporters will no doubt argue against everything I've just written, even the general comments about people who are not Trump, I'm not sure. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, is pandering to racists not racist in and of itself? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not quite the same. Politicians are always playing priority games. Votes usually feel more important to many of them than ethics. A politician who doesn't necessarily hate China might see it as so remote and irrelevant that encouraging voters to hate it is more important. (And again, I don't just mean Trump.) In my view, pandering to racists is worse than racism, because it encourages them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

For some weird reason, editors have been unwilling to use the straightforward description "racist" -- and that does not need to imply judgment or condemnation. But when it describes words and deeds, it's not helpful to construct elaborate euphemidsms and contorted article narratives merely to avoid simple NPOV description. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is alleged that the wet markets such as the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market sold an exceptionally wide variety of species of animals and that cages were sometimes stacked vertically allowing bodily fluids to fall on species at a lower level in a stack. It has been suggested that such an arrangement made it more likely that a virus would jump from one species to another and eventually to humans. Wet markets are found around the world but the wide variety of types of species plus the vertical stacking of cages may have contributed to the outbreak of this virus where it did. These are just theories but if they are found to be true I think there might be some justification for the terminology that Trump and others are using—linking the identity of the virus to its country of origin. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Truly bizarre OR. What does stacked cages have to do with "Chinese"? SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I will try to find a source. But I am just weighing in to the disregard of WP:FORUM that prevails in several of the posts above. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider this YouTube video. I do not allege this is sound science. I just don't know. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Since people are using the WHO as a source here, you should consider this, and since it's from CNN, it's not some right wing source. The coronavirus crisis is raising questions over China's relationship with the World Health Organization and note (and I found it ironic) how the article discusses past issues with the "Ebola" virus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Beijing is successfully dodging culpability for its role in spreading the coronavirus" per The Atlantic. Oppose adding a Chinese Communist Party propaganda spin to the article. --Pudeo (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That opinion article has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Nowhere does it mention that Trump renamed the virus "Chinese virus" or "China virus". The article also doesn't say anything about "Chinese Communist Party propaganda spin". I know you wouldn't just make stuff up, so would it be safe to say that you are consuming information from sources like Chanel Rion?[7][8] Just be aware that COVID-19 is under community discretionary sanctions and there is very low tolerance in general for the willful spreading of bullshit on Wikipedia while we deal with misinformation in the middle of a pandemic. - MrX 🖋 11:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Pudeo. China's inability to maintain proper food standards at wet markets has created an unprecedented global crisis. It is entirely appropriate to call China out on what they've done, and not buy into their propaganda. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

See my reply to Pudeo, and WP:NOTAFORUM. - MrX 🖋 11:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop is absolutely correct about the origin of the virus. It is more or less certain to have come from a wet market that mixed wildlife in the cage stacks. But unfortunately, it entirely misses the point that referring to the virus by its country or origin is RACIST. If the virus had originated in the US, there's no way Trump would be referring to it as the "American virus". Trump is very deliberately saying "Chinese virus" instead of "coronavirus" or "COVID-19" because, as he has shown throughout his political career, he wants to demonize anything "foreign". This example is just but one act in a series of racist acts Trump has taken. At what point do Wikipedia editors overcome their squeamishness to speak as plainly as Trump does, and call him what we all know he is? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that race and nationality are the same thing. If it had originated in France, would Trump be RACIST to call it the French virus? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My short answer is YES; however, in truth we are actually talking about xenophobia. What's peculiar is that sources (and there are scads of them) all use the term "racist" instead. This inaccuracy is why I did not use the term in my original suggested text. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Now we're making progress. I propose that we use the correct terms for things, even in article talk, even if supposed scads don't. You don't have to use the term in the text if you put it in the "Racial views" section, which was your original proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I feel like we've had an awful lot of discussion to get back to where we started. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We started with the section heading "Trump's racist terms for the coronavirus" and a proposal to add your text to the "Racial views" section. We are not back to that. It looks like the text will end up in the virus section, not the "Racial views" section, and there's a significant chance that some folks will stop saying racism/racist on this page when they mean xenophobia/xenophobe. That's worth this amount of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG and WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are for discussing edit proposals. - MrX 🖋 20:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey—if I were advising Trump I would suggest he say "the virus that originated in China" instead of "the China virus". But of course Trump hasn't asked me for my advice. Thank you for pinging me. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) @Bus stop: What's wrong with using "coronavirus" or "COVID19" like everyone else? Your "advice" would still unnecessarily demonize China and its people, for no reason whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC) I didn't say there was anything wrong with using "coronavirus" or "COVID19". Bus stop (talk) You are deliberately misreading my comment and presenting a straw man argument. You said I would suggest he say "the virus that originated in China" instead of "the China virus" - which means you are saying the origin of the virus is at least as important as its existence, which it obviously isn't. It only matters to people who like to demonize foreigners and close borders. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Many countries have closed their borders because of the virus. I don’t think they’re doing it because they dislike Chinese people. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC) What has that got to do with anything? As far as I'm aware, nobody else calls it the "Chinese virus" or the "China virus" except Trump and his cohorts and apologists. Why is that, do you imagine? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Scjessey—you say "you are saying the origin of the virus is at least as important as its existence, which it obviously isn't". How do you figure? "China virus"/"Chinese virus" also acknowledges its existence. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC) I give up. If you aren't able to see how xenophobic it is to say "Chinese virus" (imagine if people had called the "Spanish flu" the "American virus") then there is no hope for you. There are some in Trump's administration using the term "Kung-Flu". Such is the culture Trump has created in the White House. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC) The reporter needs to name who said that and they should be fired. If that is true it is nasty. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Even if the reporter named them, they wouldn't be fired and you know it. QED. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Back on track

If anyone has sources that say that Trump renamed COVID-19 to China virus because of stacked cages, let's see them, otherwise I have to insist that this forum chat needs to take place somewhere else. The subject of this discussion is should we mention that Trump refers to the disease/virus disease as "Chinese virus" or "China virus". I don't much care about the speculation of why he does that, but it is noteworthy that virtually every other respected person and institution on the planet doesn't. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes we should say what he calls it but attribute it as racist to those sharing that opinion, and not in Wiki voice. There are just as many people who say it is not racist. One of the loudest voices supporting that the language is racist is the CCP, who are trying to promote division and take the spotlight off of them. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess that's fair. We could just briefly mention how he refers to the disease/virus in the pandemic section and let readers draw their own conclusions. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That's basically the approach I started with, so yeah. Looking back at my original suggested text, it seems incredibly restrained after the discussion we've been having. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There are just as many people... Ernie, you make what appears to be a factual quantitative statement with no evidence whatsoever. Please do not do that on the article talk page. It obstructs rational discussion. I don't see any basis for anything more than the description of his renaming. As a practical matter, it's clear that this page is burdened by editors who believe that less developed areas of the world should follow FDA food processing standards or maybe American fast-food manufacturing protocols. That's none of our business and I hope never to see that kind of garbage on an article talk page again. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. To clarify, my thumbs up was to MrX, not Mr Ernie, and, despite MrX's I guess that's fair, their proposals are quite different. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say "As a practical matter, it's clear that this page is burdened by editors who believe that less developed areas of the world should follow FDA food processing standards or maybe American fast-food manufacturing protocols. That's none of our business and I hope never to see that kind of garbage on an article talk page again." What does that mean? No one, to my knowledge, said anything about "less developed areas of the world ... follow[ing] FDA food processing standards". I didn't say anything like that. Nor, I don't think, did anyone else say anything like that. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s not appropriate for you to do that right now, SPECIFICO. The world is suffering, tremendously, because of what China did. It’s entirely my business when my family is at risk because of China’s food processing standards. We have nearly 1,000 cases in the city I live in, including a positive case in a child in the nearby public school. Nobody caught the corona virus from MacDonald’s protocols. Would be great to put aside the partisanship right now and get this right. I haven’t been able to get through to my doctor yet to get medicine I need on a daily basis. Is that Trump being “racist?” I don’t even live in the USA! This bickering isn’t helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Where did the virus start? Who silenced early whistleblowers trying to get the news out? Who tried to cover it up? Who is promoting disinformation about it? The answer of course is China. There’s nothing racist in saying that. Do not use this event to score points on Trump’s Wikipedia page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it isn't the fault of the Chinese government. The problem is with calling it the "Chinese virus", because it demonizes the people of China. There are Chinese-Americans who are scared about what Trump's xenophobic words could mean for them. How is this not obvious? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Calling it the China virus is clearly an appeal to xenophobia. While blame can be placed on the neoliberal policies adopted by China that promoted sales of wild animals for human consumption, equally one could blame Western governments for allowing trade with China to continue after this practice was reintroduced following the SARS epidemic. TFD (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG and WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are for discussing edit proposals. - MrX 🖋 20:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, you are clearly a partisan right winger pushing your world view as you did similarly on Kelly Loeffler, which brought me here for the confirmation of that fact that you supplied in your comment here. The specific wording is typical of Trump's bilious demagoguery which plays to a low level of intellect and a high degree of excitability. Note the difference between "Wuhan virus" which would be a justifiable pushback on PC excess and "Chinese virus" which is a blatant appeal to bigotry. Lycurgus (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) We can discuss Loeffler on the Loeffler talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Lycurgus—this would not be true. Other areas of China have seen viral outbreaks over the past decade or so. These outbreaks seem to be tied to wet markets in China. You are saying "Note the difference between Wuhan virus which would be a justifiable pushback on PC excess and Chinese virus which is a blatant appeal to bigotry". If reliable sources are saying Trump is racist for calling it the "China virus"/"Chinese virus" then—space permitting—we can justifiably include that in our article—with attribution to the journalist making that claim. The language doesn't become racist because some journalists say it is racist. I for one don't find "China virus"/"Chinese virus" to be racist and I find the claim that it is racist to be an instance of partisan politics. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC) If you don't find "Chinese virus" to be offensive, you have no business editing this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC) I just don’t find that label offensive. We say Swedish Meatballs, Russian interference, Canadian bacon, french Fries, etc etc. it’s a descriptive term. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It's not a descriptive term. It's a term of BLAME. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a descriptive term, because it describes what the fuck it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Yes, it "describes what the fuck it is" but it fails to indicate its country of origin. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC) We should not give space to President Trump said ‘China virus’. Just not BLP significant, arguing over nits of phrasing here. It *did* come from China so it’s just not that odd a way to refer to it. I can observe that grammatically it should be “Chinese” virus, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It's like you didn't even bother to read any of the objections above. Viruses are almost never named after their country of origin. "Spanish flu" originated from KANSAS, "West Nile" is a REGION, "Zika" is a FOREST, "Ebola" is a RIVER, etc. Trump deliberately changed "coronavirus" to "Chinese virus" (nomenclature used by NOBODY ELSE, least of all the experts) for a reason. What could that reason be? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Incorrect to say that every respected person/institution does not say that. (Again, we should not give space to a wording tiff though, just a story-du-jour not BLP significant.) It has been used elsewhere for months now. Even a quick check of BBC showed it had been saying “new China virus” or grammatically better “Chinese virus” for a couple months — see January here and here for example. Or “China coronavirus”. It’s just an unremarkable phrasing item similar to the calling it COVID-19 vs Coronavirus, unless one makes a point of declaring something racist. And then it’s a minor wording story about the evolution of a PC framing. Not a big story nor BLP significant effect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  The nature of the virus was not known back then, so its origin was the only way to refer to it. As soon as the nature was figured out, everyone except xenophobes, deplorables, and people hellbent on putting up border walls stopped using "Chinese virus" and variants thereof because it is abhorrent. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey Don’t be silly. Demonstrably false to claim that, as already shown. Try googling BBC in February or March, note “China virus” is the lead *tag*, and see occasional use in text or of “Chinese virus”. It’s also a phrasing seen occasionally in other places Bloomberg, in Reuters, in Nature. I have also seen a mention of this as part of Chinese government press manuvering in Quartz at 5 March. Look, this is just a RECENTISM, two or three days ago ‘Trump grilled on use of’ story went a bit viral and here we are with a flap over trivia that has shown no enduring note and no impact. At least it’s past a 48-hour waiting period. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fine, Mark. You go ahead and be on the side of xenophobia. I'm content to not hate foreigners, especially as I am one. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(User:SPECIFICO you forgot to sign this image you just stuck in the middle)

(inserting remark and white space so that does not appear as if part of my edits.

(‘cute’, but altering or having as my sig is a TALKNO/TALKO issue. Markbassett (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: It is widely accepted to add an image alongside a different editor's comment, provided the image is signed in its caption. I added that signature per WP:UNSIGNED and you removed it. There is no "TALKNO/TALKO" (WP:TPO) issue if the authorship of the image is clear. Your comment was not altered. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: My Talk re the other editor was deleted, and my prior text left indented right. I feel that my reverting you was ignorant and I should also thank you for the try. But let it be please, and take any further to personal talk. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—I don't know if it is "widely accepted to add an image alongside a different editor's comment". But if an editor objects, the image should be dealt with in some way, even by removal. I feel this way because there is no reasoning contained in an image. By way of contrast there is the potential for a huge amount of reasoning in typed words. And that is our priority. On a Talk page we aim for rational dialogue. In my opinion images are OK if no one objects to them. But they are distinctly of secondary importance. They are far less important than the dialogue we are engaging in. And especially in a contentious environment, it is hard to accept a blanket assertion like it is "widely accepted to add an image alongside a different editor's comment", because while images lack reasoning, they have the capacity to belittle or minimize another editor's serious reasoning by the image's inherent frivolousness. SPECIFICO is inserting an image of a protractor for what reason? It doesn't matter what the reason is—if someone objects, that image is distinctly unimportant. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Look, just don’t spout hyperbolic narratives “everyone except xenophobes” and you won’t be open to being shown silly. Due diligence of checking Google first is a good idea, especially for such EXCEPTIONAL claims. And again, this is all just a trivial flap about wording. Reasonable of Chinese government to pursue, open for President Trump to do or not. Not something to presume a whole lot from, and simply not a big story with BLP significance. We shouldn’t put in a line for every time a reporter checks his phrasing, the Internet isn’t big enough for that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Scjessey: I must remind you to remain civil during talk page discussions. As you know, personal attacks are a form of disruptive editing and are a violation of policy that, when protracted, can result in a block. Ergo Sum 17:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• ehh, for this article it’s only a sideshow. Mentions of external use are only relevant as showing it’s just not that unusual for non-racist use. The phrasing occurred with SARS in 2003 also. There is now discussion of deleting the long-standing articles Chinese virus and China flu if people want to take it there, or to the Racial views article if the have more re President Trump. Just not a big enough story for here though. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Still Unresolved ?

Seems a couple days have passed in this Bold-revert-revert-discuss a lot, and time to summarise. For the line proposed, here is what seems stated above. (Addition of anything re “racist” or “xenophobic” seems deferred unless that is still said in press circa 1 April).

Objections:

  UNDUE question and/or not for this BLP :   MelanieN, O3000, Markbassett
  Factual origin / not remarkable phrasing : Busstop, Markbassett, supportive Pudeo, supportive MrErnie

Markbassett (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Supporting: (n/include supports re “racist”)

  No reason given:  Scjessey as proposer, MrX, MrErnie
  Similar, different context: soibangla, 

So... for the line proposed the magic 8 ball says “situation unclear, ask again”. I’ll ask again - for the line proposed (in the COVID section, without mention of racism) does anyone have something more of WP policy or facts to offer? Or are there any new voices ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means. Forgive me, Mark, but your peculiar choice of words and the order in which you write them often confuses me. Perhaps summarizing the views of other editors is not the best thing for you (or anyone) to be doing. Editors can speak for themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS - you were a bit quick (edit conflict), but not seeing how that’s hard to understand.

• Four clear no voices, with WP items and other reasons given. Said UNDUE and sort of said OFFTOPIC, with side notes it’s not unusual and has some factual basis.
• Three clear yes voices, with no WP items or reasons. (And unvoiced but think SPECIFICO also)
• Two voiced some support to excluding side and one to including side.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reset

I don't even know what the hell is being discussed in the previous section, so I am just going to ignore it. Let me reset the discussion. Should we put something like this into the pandemic section (rather than the "racial views" section I initially proposed? It is exactly the same text I first suggested. It doesn't mention "racism" or "xenophobia" or anything like that. It just points out that Trump has been criticized for saying "Chinese virus" instead of "coronavirus" or COVID-19:

Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe the 2019 coronavirus disease drew criticism from the media, health experts and the Chinese government.

Sources

The only real objection anyone can have to this is WP:WEIGHT, which I would argue is counteracted by massive media coverage, but it is still a legitimate objection anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think we editors should be picking and choosing which statements of Trump's are featured in this article. The article is too small a vessel for the thousands of controversial statements, and I think there are increasing numbers of Reliable Source summaries in secondary and tertiary sources that characterize his speech, his thinking, and his executive actions. In particular, I presume this mention is intended to imply that Trump is pandering to racism or xenophobia. But it does not state that. We shouldn't be baiting our readers to jump to such conclusions. If they are facts, we should source and state them. Otherwise not. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - UNDUE. Just not BLP significant, arguing over nits of wording here for something not that unusual a phrasing. Should not give article space to a recentism flap over wording. Come back in a week or so and see if it’s grown or gone away. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You said the same thing last week. It’s notable, and passes the muster of WP:NOTNEWS. The weight given this item might change over time, but it’s been the subject of extensive coverage and analysis, worldwide. Most recently the published picture of Trump’s speech with Coronavirus crossed out and “Chinese virus” written instead shows this is a deliberate choice of wording. So your previous argument about Trump using this as a descriptor in passing is pretty much shot. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with the premise that this is far more suitable and due for the Presidency and second-tier articles, though, and it should receive a slightly more thorough treatment there. This short mention is due for the pandemic section though, certainly. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as of now: As a previous commenter noted, as of now this seems like it is just passing controversy for a passing comment that has in fairness generated much media coverage. However, if Trump continues to use this term over the course of the outbreak and generates sustained controversy throughout most of the outbreak this should be included, but the decision to include shouldn't be made until then. Zoozaz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The president used the term "China virus" and this is of minor importance in their biography as the term "China virus" reflects the virus's country of origin. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• But this is highly unusual. Trump deliberately says "Chinese virus" or "China virus" instead of "coronavirus" or "COVID-19". Previous well-known viruses do NOT use the country of origin in their name. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment in lead

@Starship.paint:. This edit of yours adds new language to lead text that was extensively discussed on talk. Please undo your addition. It's rather SYNTHy (as if the trial was not legitimate) and at any rate should be agreed before such an addition, given the recent discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: - done and sorry, I've been out of the loop. I didn't know there was a discussion. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that, for the lead, it's safer to give advance notice on talk. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Time to revisit North Korea

The fourth paragraph of the lede discusses Trump's foreign policy. Undoubtedly, one of his most significant (maybe the most significant) foreign policy actions was opening up relations with North Korea/meeting with Kim Jong Un. The paragraph mentions the killing of Soleimani and recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. In my estimation, meeting with Kim and the apparent détente is more significant than both of those, since it was an overt act to deviate from 70 years of US foreign policy on Korea. I think it certainly deserves a mention in the lede. Ergo Sum 17:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I sort of agree, while noting that the impact of Trump's actions with respect to DPRK were modest at best. How about we remove Jerusalem and Soleimani, and replace it with a brief mention of North Korea and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic? - MrX 🖋 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on WEIGHT of coverage and amount in article, I agree a few words would be appropriate. It seems bigger than Solemani and similar to the Obama normalisation with Cuba. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we can all agree Trump achieved very little with North Korea, except to raise that country's profile and make it seem "equal" with the United States. If we include it in the lead, we should also include how it was a total failure by any metric. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

All countries are equal in the family of nations. TFD (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Hence the quotes around "equal" (see this article for my meaning. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've added two sentences about North Korea to the lede, phrased in as concise a way as possible, since the lede is already long. I also removed mention of the killing of Soleimani. I will update the settled consensus regarding North Korea at the top of this page accordingly. Ergo Sum 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to this addition, based on hardly any discussion and certainly no consensus. It is almost a carbon copy of what was removed previously. It gives woeful, one-sided coverage to a spectacular foreign policy failure. I further object to the false claim of consensus made in these edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's preposterous. Good faith requires you don't ram nonsense through on a one day drive-by "discussion" here. Please self revert the addition to the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've already reversed these edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

How a propos - that is the kind of revert that should be exempt from your daily dose. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the text inserted by Ergo Sum. While some mention of North Korea probably needs to go in the lead, that particular formulation was just bad, since it omitted the key outcome: Trump's efforts to get North Korea to denuclearize were unsuccessful. Neutrality^talk 22:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Include both. The lede is not too long. Many readers only peruse the lede. Include mention of both Qasem Soleimani and Kim Jong-un. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable, please. Drive by? Hardly. 28 hours is not a "drive by" for a talk page of a high-profile article that is watched by 3,000 people and generated discussion; we had three editors supporting and one opposing. I see no alternative proposals to the one I inserted, so please consider this a call for proposed language. I would remind those interested that proposals should neither attempt to glorify or cast in the worst light the subject. I especially emphasize the latter because there are editors (who I need not name) who have a manifest agenda. Ergo Sum 22:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

For convenience, I include my proposal here: Following escalating tensions, he met with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, in a historic summit in Singapore to discuss denuclearization. The next year, he became the first U.S. president to set foot in North Korea. Ergo Sum 22:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the math 4/3000 editors commented. What distribution would the opinions of the 3000 require in order to make that a 95% estimator of the population? Cogita. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO The correct Latin is cogito. Ergo Sum 22:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, actually I meant "cogita" -- look it up. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would probably be OK with something like the following:

"He became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader, meeting Kim Jong-un three times as part of a failed attempt to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

I dislike the language "to discuss denuclearization" because it glosses over the fact that the negotiations failed; as the sources reflect, it has been almost a year since the last U.S.-North Korea nuclear talk and Kim has resumed weapons testing following a self-imposed moratorium. --Neutrality^talk 23:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right that we should include some mention of the present status of discussions. I don't know if "failed" is the right word since I think it's premature. That seems like a judgment for historians of the future to make. It's probably accurate to describe them as "stalled". What do you think? Ergo Sum 23:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe wording along the lines of "talks broke down"? Neutrality^talk 00:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd support that. Seems accurate and neutral. Ergo Sum 00:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think "inconclusive" is the correct term. Thus far North Korea has not given up its nuclear weapons. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose "inconclusive" because that is not the term that reliable sources generally use to discuss the talks breaking down. Neutrality^talk 14:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would this go in the lead as if it were a policy initiative. RS describe it as an ignorant stunt -- perhaps dangerous or perhaps not -- after the intelligence professionals and Obama personally had warned Trump that Kim was his gravest policy challenge. If it's to go in his bio article, it should reflect the personal aspect of Trump's having dealt with it in this way, not as if he were pursuing a policy and following up on it in a way that had any prospect of success. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead should summarize body, but body does not say anything to the effect of He became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. Otherwise no opinion, except to support removal of a roughly equal amount of less important content if Korea is added. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• I will only support if (1) "inconclusive" OR "talks broke down" is mentioned, AND (2) we remove Jerusalem. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

These quotes are from this excellent article in The Atlantic, that provides a comprehensive overview of all of the US/DPRK relations under the Trump regime. It paints a picture of initial success, missed opportunities, and ultimately failure:

North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons that can threaten the whole world, including the United States and its allies—has not dissipated one bit despite all the diplomacy, and has in fact become more grave.

The story of how Trump’s North Korea policy collapsed is in part one of Pyongyang’s intransigence, obfuscation, and bad faith in talks about its nuclear program, as well as one in which U.S. and North Korean officials misread one another and at times placed too much stock in the rosy messages of the South Korean government, a key intermediary. But it’s also a tale about the American president undercutting his own success. Trump prioritized the North Korean threat, amassed unmatched leverage against Pyongyang, and boldly shook up America’s approach to its decades-old adversary. Yet he squandered many of these gains during his first summit with Kim, in Singapore, and set several precedents there that have hobbled nuclear talks ever since. He shifted the paradigm with North Korea in style but not in substance.

Over the past two years, he has gone from threatening war to boasting that he averted it, from preparing for conflict to canceling military exercises, from being laser-focused on North Korea’s nuclear development to ignoring it, from pressing the North Koreans to enter negotiations by all means to clinging to collapsing talks under North Korean pressure, from denouncing North Korea’s dictator to praising him. Where he once recruited an extensive international coalition to apply maximum pressure on North Korea, he has now reduced his maximum-engagement bid to just two people: himself and Kim.

Any language we consider putting into the article must reflect the harsh reality of Trump's failure in North Korea. His meetings with Kim have achieved nothing, except to elevate the status of Kim on the world stage to an equal footing with the US president. In fact, Kim has played Trump like a cheap fiddle. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are saying that "[a]ny language we consider putting into the article must reflect the harsh reality". Actually, it need not. We're not talking about the article in general; we're taking about the lede. It is sufficient for the lede that we remind the reader that Trump had involvements in relations with North Korea, the killing of Soleimani, and the moving of the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. We only have to touch on these things in the lede. A glancing mention of proper nouns relating to issues with which Trump has had involvement and a little bit of surrounding language is sufficient in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If you exclude the "failure" part, you are effectively excluding the only substantive part of the whole debacle. In that case, it fails to pass WP:WEIGHT, which is why the language was removed in the first place. Please understand there is a long standing consensus that North Korea be excluded from the lead, so we need a compelling reason to overturn that consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

BS. that's incorrect. And remember this article is Trump's personal biography. The relevance of North Korea to Trump's personal story is as Scjessey has said, and confirmed by the Atlantic source, that Trump dove into the most complex and dangerous issue with disregard for the factors that would determine the outcome, treating it instead as an opportunity for airtime on TV news. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't much care about the multitudinous personal opinions of the successes or failures of the North Korea overture, nor do our readers. They care about what reliable sources, and preferably expert sources, have to say. The Atlantic is a good source, but like most large, contemporary English-language news outlets, it has a perceptible slant. An even better source would be an academic or professional foreign policy source, like Foreign Affairs (quick example) or The Economist (example). Ergo Sum 15:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It is evident what you do not care about. Frankly, you got off to a bad start cramming a false narrative contrary to RS WEIGHT, into the lead. You were called out. Now the ONUS is on you. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I reject that narrative as inaccurate. Onus for what exactly? I do not know, but I'm going to continue working here to hash out a consensus, notwithstanding unhelpful adjuncts. Ergo Sum 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised to see I need to quote you the link to WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: The suggestion that The Atlantic has a "perceptible slant" is laughable and has no basis in fact whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Bases in fact: 1 2 3. This does not mean The Atlantic is unreliable, it means that it's slant should be thoughtfully taken into account. Moreover, please understand that I will refrain from responding to your future pings, as I have already laid out my position below, and your comments strike me as far more polemical than designed to build an encyclopedia. Ergo Sum 21:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

None of those citations you provided are reliable sources, and they are all subjective anyway. "A" for effort though. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey Yes and no. Factually, there is “32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)”. But there is no limitation on reconsidering Consensus. That was from late 2018, when the first events were recentism and only about the first event. Since then the article added mention of a second summit, visit to DMZ, Stockholm talks, travel ban and sanctions, and... 18 months have passed. So someone asking again is OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: North Korea in the lead

1. Should the lede paragraph about foreign policy mention the president's dealings with North Korea?
2. Which aspects should it mention, e.g. meeting Kim in Singapore or setting foot in North Korea?
3. How should we describe the current state of affairs? Suggestions have included: "failure", "stalled", "on-hold", or "broken down"
4. Should this be added in place of or in addition to the killing of Soleimani, recognizing Jerusalem, or both?

I think this fairly articulates the debate. Ergo Sum 16:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Process note: This seeks to replace/amend #Current consensus #32. See that item for links to its supporting discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comments above, if the lead does mention Trump's dealings with North Korea, I think it should (i) say that Trump met Kim three times (I would not mention the specific summits or setting foot in North Korea); (ii) that Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to hold a summit with a North Korean supreme leader; and (iii) that talks on denculearization/restricting North Korea's nuclear arsenal were a "failure" or "unsuccessful" or "broke down." (I would oppose "on-hold" or "stalled" because it implies that talks will be resumed, which is by no means guaranteed). Neutrality^talk 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  We do not imply anything when we say that the talks were inconclusive with no agreement reached on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  "Inconclusive" language is not really the predominant language used by the reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  But it is plain English. There was a conclusion that was aimed for—the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It has not come to fruition. Therefore it is inconclusive. We are paraphrasing all the time. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  No it is not. "inconclusive" does not mean "not completed". Was U.S. President John F. Kennedy's term inconclusive? SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose NK in lead, Unless all the following 3 points are included: 1) The meetings were scripted for theatrics, but Trump failed to achieve any gains for the US, 2) NK advanced and expanded its weapons program throughout Trump's presidency, and 3) Trump took no other actions to repair the damage from the failed meetings. Indifferent about the other points. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include North Korea in lead. Just a few words part of sentence listing foreign policy actions. (Similar to level of lead note Obama gets for Cuba.). Current state say just facts of simply “sought” or “attempted” so far, e.g. “sought improved relations” or “attempted denuclearisation”. Add to current lead, as edits for Solemani etc. are a different topic. (Although reflecting that current judgement WEIGHT vs. amount DUE has Solemani get 9 words and troop movement gets 15 words seems excessive but does support that the bigger NK story should be here.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose NK in the lead - nothing substantive has changed since the last consensus just over a year ago, so I see no reason to overturn that solid consensus now; however, if we are even going to consider expanding the article needlessly to include Trump's ineffective photo ops with Kim, we must also include the fact that Trump's contacts with North Korea have been a foreign policy failure and an embarrassment to the United States, while elevating Kim's status on the world stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Including North Korea in the lead. Even if Trump was the first U.S. president to meet Kim Jung Yong it shouldn't be included in his biography article because it is recent in this article. There is an article called presidency of Trump, it could be mentioned there. News don't mention Kim Jong-un visit when they talk about Trump's biography and there are no reliable sources that prove that this is significant enough to be in the lead of this biographical article. Regarding the fourth question, I don't have an opinion but I lean towards not including the killing of Soleimani or the recognition.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose including North Korea in the lead. The case has not been made that it is significant in a biographical context. As failures go, it roughly ranks with Trump University and the Trump Foundation in terms of weight. - MrX 🖋 00:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Except that Trump University didn't risk blowing you Americans to Kingdom Come? The NK charade has been called a monumental dereliction of duty. Might be bio-significant for that. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• As stated above, I will only support if (1) "inconclusive" OR "talks broke down" is mentioned, AND (2) we remove Jerusalem. Just mention Trump and Kim met thrice, do not mention Singapore or stepping foot. starship.paint (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support mentioning the fact that Trump met Kim three times.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support so long as clear that the talks did not result in nuclear disarmament by NK. Wording would be similar to Neutrality's suggestion.--MONGO (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per WP:LEAD, oppose any lead content that does not summarize body content. Attend to body first, then lead. To combat further lead creep, oppose any addition to lead without removal of a roughly equal amount of less important content. (Commend the OP's attempt to define the questions and set parameters, but Wikipedia editors are cats that refuse to be herded. Pity the editor who undertakes to divine a coherent consensus from this RfC.) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Strike per Jack Upland's comment following.) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note: As far as I can make out, North Korea was added to the lead in October 2018 and was removed on 1 March 2020 (this month). Therefore, I don't think the issue is adding North Korea to the lead; it is keeping North Korea in the lead. The consensus relates to Trump meeting Kim, not including North Korea in the lead. We have discussed this several times. The assessment that the negotiations were a "failure" or "inconclusive" is not a reason to exclude them. Critics have damned Trump for his approach to North Korea, and supporters have praised him. He has suggested that he deserves a Nobel Prize. This is clearly significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  You say The assessment that the negotiations were a "failure" or "inconclusive" is not a reason to exclude them. I agree. And I have suggested that "inconclusive" would be the best term to describe Trump's overtures to North Korea. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  You're right, at the beginning of the month the lead included ...and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization. I expect we're talking about significantly more than nine words here, but I won't quibble about that difference and I'll strike the applicable part of my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion It’s a key aspect of his Presidency. On the other proposals, I lean towards the word stall as it is more neutral and don’t think those other two points should be removed. ~ HAL333 04:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion Foreign visits to countries are one of the most important parts of being a head of state, and usually the part that a US president has sole domain in. As such, they should get inclusion in the lead based on that alone, especially as this visit was a high profile event. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion: a sitting president stepping foot for the first time in a country long considered a dangerous rival is objectively significant. Can mention the denuclearization did not come to fruition, but with neutral wording like “talks stalled.” Failed or unsuccessful is too speculativeBsubprime7 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
• Support inclusion.

(1) I think Trump's meeting with KJU marked a significant turning point in US-DPRK policy: the choice of engagement. Whether or not it has been successful should not be included. In my opinion, it is irrelevant that it was unsuccessful (if it really was unsuccessful - talks may yet resume, and this will only be possible because of the engagement that is now in place) as long as the Singapore Summit was significant, and too little time has since elapsed in the broader picture of US-DPRK relations to say that it was insignificant.

(2) The decision to engage may still be relevant, even if the specific objectives of the Singapore Summit have not been achieved. I think the stepping into DPRK is less significant; it was a symbolic gesture, for sure, but it was a later marker of the same choice to engage. It is not much more important in my opinion than the Vietnam Summit. I would support choosing one or the other, but not both. My preference is for the Summit, which was not merely symbolic.

(3) "Talks have broken down" is a fair characterisation in my opinion. "Failure" places too much of a judgment on the Summit. In foreign policy, the objectives of a course of action are not always or exclusively its stated objectives, and this is probably especially true for the US-DPRK relationship.

(4) My preference would be for this line to replace the killing of Soleimani in the lead, which was more short-term and largely insignificant in altering the long-term dynamics of the Middle East. The recognition of Jerusalem may yet have a long-term effect. In order of preference: (1) Singapore Summit + recognition of Jerusalem, (2) all three. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It is too soon to call the Trump overtures a failure, as suggested by others. I endorse certain sentiments expressed by Kohlrabi Pickle such as Whether or not it has been successful should not be included and that "talks have broken down" is a fair characterization. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of high school in the lead

User:Scribatorian added the name of Trump’s high school to the second paragraph of the lead.[9] I reverted it saying Reverting good faith edit. Any change to the lead section needs to be discussed at the talk page first.[10] But I have since been told that is not actually a rule or consensus here. Is it?

In any case, because I reverted, I should start a discussion per BRD. In my opinion the name of his high school is not important enough to be in the lead, and we traditionally don’t include it. I don’t find it in the leads of articles about other recent presidents - we only name their colleges and universities. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two completely separate questions here, one content and one process. For the sake of organization, I hope you don't mind if I separate them, splitting the process question into the following new thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For a lead that is chronically too large, we need a high bar for inclusion. I don't think this clears it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

An exception should be made as this is not an ordinary high school. It is a military academy. The subject of this article being the commander in chief, that early background experience may be relevant for noting in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Although it is called New York Military Academy, it is not a "military academy". It is a boarding school with a military theme, which grants a high school diploma like any other high school. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I found this clarification at List of United States military schools and academies: "Most military schools in the United States are high schools that place a high emphasis on military preparation, academic rigor, and physical fitness. Most military schools are private and have high tuition, with financial aid available."

The school attended by most BLP subjects would be entirely irrelevant to their respective lede paragraphs. This article is no exception. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can be omitted. I changed my mind. It is best left as only included in the "Early life and education" section. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s not really relevant to the lede, just trivia. ~ HAL333 04:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus-first in the lead

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.

---

Should prior consensus be required for any change to the lead? Presumably this would include the infobox as part of the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it would be contrary to core Wikipedia principles like WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, WP:5P5, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:AIM. However, if a particular editor repeatedly adds content to the lead that clearly doesn't belong there, then they should be further restricted. - MrX 🖋 23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, as long as it is not against something that had consensus in the first place. For example if someone wanted to change something that is on the current consensus list, they would need consensus to do that. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No. I see little need and significant downside. "Any change" would have to mean exactly that, including addition of a serial comma. Maybe a clear spelling correction would be exempt, I don't know. But experience tells us that it would not be useful or effective to limit this to "significant" changes, since opinions too often differ about what's significant (witness the recent protracted debate about the word "but"). In my opinion we should allow BOLD changes to the lead except where content already has explicit consensus. If a different editor objects for a content-related reason, they can revert per normal BRD process, stating that reason in their edit summary. Often "excessive detail for the lead" is appropriate and sufficient. But "this has not been discussed" is not a content-related objection, and not everything necessarily needs discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Although this is a highly contested article, that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Ergo Sum 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think prior consensus should be required for any substantive change, or any change of meaning, but we will have to rely on the good sense of the regular editors here to "patrol" such things. Otherwise, I have no objection to minor and/or corrective edits being done without consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, prior consensus should not be required. "Consensus" is not something that ever preexists. It has to be arrived at. And this sometimes involves the WP:BRD process. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting that consensus cannot change. The point is that, in cases where consensus has been established by previous talk page discussion, it is unlikely to change without another lengthy discussion. In light of this factor, we should not change the meaning of article text during the new talk page discussion about changing the consensus. This provides our readers the current, best available version and it's a reasonable working procedure that makes the best use of editors' time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You say "we should not change the meaning of article text during the new talk page discussion about changing the consensus" but consensus has to be arrived at; it doesn't preexist. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a disappointingly unresponsive statement. Yes, where there was a previous talk page consensus, then that consensus does "exist" and it exists until it's changed. Capiche? SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, per Mr.X and Mandruss. It's not how WP works. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This pre-existing/prior consensus argument is missing the point, I think. We already have a consensus established on certain elements of the lead and listed under #Current consensus, which I guess could be characterized as "prior consensus" for the purposes of this discussion. But I feel strongly that if an editor wishes to make a significant, substantive change to the lead (something new added, something well established removed, or a change of meaning), they should first propose such a change on this talk page and seek a consensus for it. This is an approach that worked very well when editing the Barack Obama BLP during his presidency. With that being said, we shouldn't jump on new editors who are unfamiliar with any sort of editing convention we establish here. To be clear, I am not insisting we do things this way. I am just saying this is my preference. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

BS is not a new editor however. There seems to be consensus among the rest of the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion that sprung out of an edit by User:Scribatorian? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the reference is to User:Scribatorian, a relatively new editor. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mine was a reference to you. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My sense of the consensus is that a change to the lead should be treated like a change to an item on the "consensus list" -- It's not a crime to make a change to the article text, but such a change may be reverted by anyone who challenges it. Such a revert would not count as the daily revert and either the change would be abandoned or the editor who initiated it could start a discussion on talk to form consensus for the change. Did I get that wrong? SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scribatorian was adding that "He was educated at New York Military Academy". But that is not something addressed at #Current consensus so even if Scribatorian were not a "new editor" they would not be prohibited from adding that assertion. The quintessential question here is "What constitutes a substantial change?" I tend to agree with Mandruss that it would not be useful or effective to limit this to "significant" changes, since opinions too often differ about what's significant. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My sense of the consensus is that a change to the lead should be treated like a change to an item on the "consensus list" Well, no. If you want to change something that's covered by a list item (or any other sufficiently clear talk page consensus, and the list doesn't include all of them), you have to first get talk page consensus to amend/replace/cancel the earlier consensus. If an editor fails to follow that rule, they should be reverted, and that revert does not count against 1RR. (This is affirmed by "Remedy instructions and exemptions" in this page's prologue, which was written by admins per DS.) For content not covered by existing consensus, that prior consensus is not required, normal BRD process applies, and a revert counts against 1RR. The consensus so far in this thread is that that holds true whether said content is in the lead or below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your honor, that's exactly what I said they should be reverted, and that revert does not count against 1RR.. Nobody needs to bother getting prior talk page consensus when correcting punctuation, formatting, or other innocuous edits on the consensus list, and they would not be challenged. The remedy if anyone feels meaning is changed is a quick, exempt revert. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your holiness, I responded to the part of your comment that I highlighted in my response, which was incorrect. If you meant something other than what you said, my response was equally incorrect. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My child, I was referring to how the consensus list works in practice. Although it may say not to change that stuff w.o. prior consensus, the fact is that one is free to do so and the only penalty is that the offense will be remedied by quick reversion. So we are on the same page. One day, I will get around to reading the consensus list. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(Can't think of a way to top "child" without violating NPA/CIVIL, so I concede that part of this exchange.) But that isn't how the list works in practice (if you disagree, show me article content, covered by a list item, that differs from the supporting discussion(s) in some innocuous way). It isn't a patently bad idea, although it isn't without its downside either. It's a trivial matter to get prior consensus for a truly innocuous change (corollary: If that isn't a trivial matter, the change isn't truly innocuous). At minimum the list item would have to be altered to reflect the innocuous change, so that it continues to match the content. And a note should be added to the list item to explain that that's what happened, that's why the list item differs from the supporting discussion(s). If someone disagreed that the change was innocuous, they would need to revert both the article and the list. It is not clear to me that that's better than the alternative over all; in any case, it's false to say that it's been the practice. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss - you could have gone with "My God", hmm? starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are saying "The remedy if anyone feels meaning is changed is a quick, exempt revert." In my opinion, SPECIFICO, if a revert does not pertain to material that is addressed on the #Current consensus list—that revert should not be deemed an "exempt revert". Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who raised this issue with my edit summary when I reverted. I now see that I had misinterpreted some comments I have seen at this talk page, and that we do not require prior consensus for every edit to the lead, only for those that violate previously established consensus. I should have treated this as a simple BRD revert and not invoked a rule that I now understand does not exist. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus first in the lead was my understanding, yes. I believe now it would better be put as ‘recommended’ to TALK first because it is a contentious page, to respect the many pre-existing discussions, and to give a chance for encouraging people to make body edits first. (vs. So, so, soooooo many jump to lead edit w/o any body content.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you expand the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" section in the sanctions template at the top of this page there are 3 exemptions for the 1RR rule: restoring clearly established consensus, reverting vandalism, and reverting IPs (not applicable here). There is no exemption for reverting edits to the Lead. Although with a local consensus here you could conceivably add an item to the #Current consensus list to that effect. (I'm definitely not recommending that.) ~Awilley (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I’d say it’s more a wise practice recommendation and commonly done local convention to TALK about lead edits first. The other long-standing practice is to inject or propose something at lead with no body content, from whatever breaking newsfeed. This article does have many many lead edits reverted, or accidentally stepping on numbered consensus, or igniting an edit storm. (And seems like all of that happens every month.). TALK first at least shifts much of it to pre-article, instead of edit wars. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You are welcome to use the talk-first practice in your own editing. I hope it's clear now that you cannot enforce it by reversion, or suggest in any way that it is "common practice" or "local convention". Some do it – some don't do it – some do it or not, depending on the circumstances, and that's their choice – and that's as far as it goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Oh but I can and do suggest it *is* common here to discuss before editing the lead, and factually it *is* “common” to revert such unexpected lead edits, one may even say “the norm”. Seems like almost all lead proposals just die, and ones that go straight to edit also almost always die by, revert or by minor edit storm. Surely you don’t deny those happened quite often, do you ? There is no explicit guideline above to do so, it’s just de facto a norm. Might be the same on any contentious page, I suppose. RECOMMENDED. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I'm not going to continue debating you about exactly how common it has been in the past. The only salient point is that there is a clear enough consensus against requiring it in the future. I retract or suggest in any way that it is "common practice" or "local convention". As far as I'm concerned you're free to pointlessly claim whatever you want as long as you don't revert with a reason of "not discussed". Considering the consensus here I think most admins would consider that disruptive, and remember the article is under DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I don’t think we are debating. We seem to be in violent agreement that it is done and is allowable, and not an explicit rule. I said I believe it would better be put as ‘recommended’ to TALK first, more a wise practice recommendation and commonly done local convention and not part of the sanctions template. This, along with just going for lead edits without body content are both factually items seen many times. “De facto”, meaning what is done, as contrasted to “de jure” what the rules say. And I don’t think you say reverts are blocked or “needs TALK first” as an edit summary, or that I am not allowed to believe or suggest it as a wise step — that would be opposing TALK — just that you emphasize it isn’t explicitly a stated item and would be opposing BOLD to make it a constraint. So ‘talk first’ seems likely to continue a good idea, and we seem in violent agreement on different aspects. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You are entitled to your viewpoint that telk-first should be "recommended". Please don't represent it as anything more than your viewpoint without a consensus to that effect. You are free to seek one in a separate thread, and I would oppose. I'll save my arguments for that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

p.s. see, another lead/revert just happened to Lorromorro 25 March circa 22:00. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem confused. That revert was for content under existing consensus, which is NOT what we are discussing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: and you seem forgetful... I gave exactly such stepping on numbered items as one reason that talk before edit the lead is RECOMMENDED. “This article does have many many lead edits reverted, or accidentally stepping on numbered consensus, or igniting an edit storm.”. Again, we don’t seem debating fact or OK that many reverts saying ‘discuss first’ have been OK. I say de facto you say dejure, seems in violent agreement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You're suggesting that an editor should talk first – spending their valuable time composing the opening comment in a new thread – which would then be answered with a single line See #Current consensus #xx., thereby ending the "discussion" – to avoid making a mistake that is easily corrected with two clicks of the mouse and never subject to sanction. That's an absurd argument, frankly, and I've carried this about as far as I care to with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: So reverts saying ‘please discuss first’ will continue, and I will continue to recommend it. And yes, Lorromorro is a demonstration of editors who would be helped by opening a thread so someone can point them at the consensus list, and a step towards a better article rating. I don’t mind that you feel it absurd, so long as you don’t deny reality it exists or request I not represent it as anything more than my viewpoint. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: So reverts saying ‘please discuss first’ will continue Sigh. I hope not.

• Reverts of non-consensus content should indicate a content-related reason – not "please discuss first", which is a process-related reason. To revert that kind of edit with "please discuss first" is to require prior consensus. Since the consensus in this thread is not to require prior consensus for that kind of edit, that would likely be seen as disruptive by admins. Maybe admin Awilley would care to comment on that point.
• Nobody has brought a proposal to change how we do reverts that restore consensus content. All we need is to point to the consensus, as has been suggested at the top of #Current consensus for years and has been seen several times in the past two days alone. The issues related to changes to existing consensus are too complicated to be expressed adequately in edit summaries, and are understood by editors with a modicum of experience, which is one of the reasons we don't try to explain them in edit summaries. We certainly don't need to encourage revisitation of existing consensuses, since in a large majority of cases revisitation is not warranted.
• Thus, there is no need or place for reverts with "please discuss first". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I was the one who started all this, because I was under the misimpression that all edits to the lead have to discuss and seek consensus first. It is clear from this discussion that I was wrong about that. Clear consensus at this discussion is that there is no such rule. You and I are free to revert any edit to the lead that seems to us to be wrong or improper, but we do it via BRD, and we have to give a reason for our reversion - not just "discuss first". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Up until a similar discussion maybe a month ago, Consensus first in the lead was my understanding. It is perhaps a natural impression from seeing it defacto in use and reverts I suppose. I believe now it would better be put as ‘recommended’ to TALK first. “Please discuss first” has been mentioned so perhaps that’s also done. Nothing I know of says they “have to” give more. Though I would recommend instead something specific and *not* calling for discussion, that is CIVIL and indicates being open to talk. If you want more, there’s plenty of examples and discussions about consensus or talk first in the article edit history and TALK archives - one good example is here. This article just seems one of those BRD says BRD isn’t much good for. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care to research this, but it seems to me that "please discuss first" has been seen in reversion edit summaries (including by one or two of the editors opposing this restriction in this thread). As I read this consensus, that practice should be deprecated. Requesting prior discussion by reversion is no different from requiring it by reversion, and it should always be possible to state a reason for reversion beyond a vague feeling that discussion is needed. Stating that reason is all that's necessary, and the discussion part is implied and understood by all editors with any experience, per BRD. Is there any disagreement on this point? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added #Current consensus #43 per this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, Mandruss. I think what we need to be concerned with is the new editor. A new editor is easily misled. A new editor is trying to understand how the process works. There are implications in different responses. If we revert an edit to the lede with the summary "Please discuss first" we are telling them this is the way things work around here, when it is not. Thus our edit summary is misleading. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, actually you are just telling them that you challenge their edit (normal editing process) and that they'll need to get consensus for it on talk. Same as everywhere else. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is the basis for the revert. Is their edit being reverted because we have a policy of discussing first on a Talk page? "Please discuss first" implies this. We should avoid misleading new editors. It is preferable that we simply convey disagreement. The "Please discuss first" edit summary is mealymouthed and misleading to someone unfamiliar with the policies of the project. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

New editors should not be jumping to the lead for their first contributions here. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Even new editors can make improvements, and even to the lede. Sometimes "fresh eyes" see things a little differently than those that have been entrenched in previous concerns and arguments. New editors don't bring with them any of this "baggage". So we certainly do want to encourage new editors and get them up to speed on editing practices as soon as possible. Thus a revert to an edit to the lede should not contain the derelict wording "please discuss first". A preferable edit summary might be "I disagree. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." If the edit is unmistakably a good faith edit, then it might be a good idea to initiate a section on the Talk page to discuss their concern. And of course summon the new editor to the discussion. But even if you don't initiate that section on the Talk page, you have not communicated to them that discussion is a prerequisite to edits to the lede—because it is not. I think edit summaries are sometimes important, as in the instance being addressed in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If it is a truly wonderful edit, nobody's going to revert it. So it's unlikely further discussion of this point is going to produce valuable insights. Everything (and more) has already been said, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from one being arguably noob-friendlier, there is no difference between "please discuss first" and "I disagree. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." Neither gives the reason you disagree, which is at the crux of this issue. The preferable edit summary might be "I disagree because I feel this is excessive detail for the lead. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." – or the terser but perfectly acceptable "excessive detail for the lead". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am using this comparison for illustration purposes only. You don't have to say "I disagree. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page". Your suggestion is fine: "I disagree because I feel this is excessive detail for the lead. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." And an infinite (approximate) number of other edit summaries would be fine also. Yes, "excessive detail for the lead" is fine also. All that we are discussing is whether prior discussion on the Talk page is prerequisite to edits to the lede. You have correctly indicated 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. All that is left to discuss is the problem of misleading edit summaries—I think we should avoid them. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're well afield of the topic of this discussion, which is not "anything related to editing best practices at this article". Unless someone has something more to say on that topic, I think we're done in this particular thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are "done in this particular thread". Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SARS-2 response appropriate mentality, add?

• Dan Diamond, Short-term thinking plagues Trump’s coronavirus response; Officials have yet to grapple with the long-term supply demands needed to fight months-long pandemic. Politico.com March 21, 2020

X1\ (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Who? Ignore any single-writer Opinion, Thanks. This is BLP for President Trump, and to consider inclusion it should be a major WEIGHT item that has real impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

narrative of Trump's history in the face of pandemic, add?

It was a building crisis unlike Trump had previously faced.

Above was deleted. X1\ (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Single-writer opinion, not DUE. (Also sort of a vague blurb.) It generally needs be a fairly big item to rate inclusion into the BLP. Say some actual event with diverse coverage and some impact. It would also help to cite somewhere not behind a paywall. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, first of all, if you read the article, you see that it's not a single writer. I also disagree on its vagueness, as the article discusses Trump's response to the crisis, mentions his increase in approval ratings, the spat between the NBC reporter and Trump over his message to Americans. This article just looks at the overall response instead of focussing on one aspect. All things mentioned in the article have been covered by RS in other articles. If you don't like that article, here are two more. ABC News NYT. As you can see, his narrative has changed throughout the crisis, AND has been quite well covered by the media, making it DUE. This crisis will likely end up being one of the major defining moments of his presidency with his at times vague response to the growing crisis a memorable section of his time in office. (I was going to add one more from WaPo, but it was behind a paywall and I don't have a subscription to them.) Mgasparin (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a single voice, though yes a two person byline and I do not know who wrote which part. The line proposed is unclear and ungrammatical -- "it was a building crisis unlike Trump had"? what does that mean ??? It seems a mangle of the article title, but does not convey any sense of the article. But again -- a single-article trying to do telepathy of his mental processes and knowledge just isn't a major coverage or BLP event, just UNDUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the phrasing. It could be expressed as "it was the most serious crisis of the Trump presidency" (so far anyway). I don't think any sources would question that. TFD (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Russian interference

Change updated 2017 split, a rename, and add segments from two splits:

1a)

Further information: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (transition, January–June 2017, July–December 2017, January–June 2018, July–December 2018 and 2019–2020)

1b)

Main articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day)

Deletion:

2a) None

2b)

Main article: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)

Long-standing version:

3a Investigations)

Further information: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017, January–June 2018, July–December 2018 and 2019)

3b Russian interference)

Main articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

X1\ (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Basically should the Donald_Trump#Investigations section have

Further information: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (transition, January–June 2017, July–December 2017, January–June 2018, July–December 2018 and 2019–2020)

and

Main articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day)

Or should it just have

Main article: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)

This was also dicussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American politics#Timeline spam in see also sections. PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed. No need to be basic, as it is a disservice to the wp:Reader. X1\ (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Investigations hatnote sprawl

User:PackMecEng Thank you for spotting the sprawl of hatnotes re investigations.

User:X1\ your revert summary falsely said “Restore long-standing, take to Talk”. You restored your revision of 26 March which had altered the long-standing and expanded it to six hatnotes.

I have restored the long-standing content. Please discusser BRD. And see WP:HATNOTE “Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section.”. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)