Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: North Korea in the lead
• #RfC: Coronavirus 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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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, upheld by RfC July 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
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)

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)

User:Mandruss - Think #32 simply missed recording updates after October 2018, or is n/a re denuclearization. There were later NK events and discussions, and long-standing lead from 28 Oct 2018 per 92 included "triggering a trade war with China, and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:35, 6 April 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)

  User:Jack Upland Thanks for highlighting it was long-standing content. For reference, I added above a note above near the #32 remark noting this was discussed in archive 92. Other discussions are findable in archives. For reference, this remained in lead until 1 March edit summary "NK was a dud. Certificates of participation are not lead worthy.". As long-standing consensus it could have been simply reinstated, but ... well, now it's in RFC so see what comes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 6 April 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 (Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC))
• 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)
• Oppose. Current state of affairs: three photo ops for two egomaniacs and a negotiation that broke down or "resulted in good discussions to be continued" (they weren't [1]), depending on whose side you want to believe. Everything else the lead mentions on foreign policy had tangible results (In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. During increased tensions with Iran, he ordered the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. He imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.) I don't think the killing of Soleimani belongs in the lead, either, because it's pretty much forgotten by now but photo ops do not belong in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include – Did not come to fruition yet, but was a major departure from the stance of previous administrations, hence DUE. I have no issue with the current wording, but I'm open to discussing changes. — JFG ^talk 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Kohlrabi Pickle. Mgasparin (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. In response to your four questions:

  1. Yes. It is clearly significant enough to his overall presidency even if it is a brief mention. It is clearly WP:DUE.

  2. It should probably mention when Trump met him North Korea as he is the first president set foot in North Korea.

  3. Either "stalled"/"on-hold"/"inconclusive". It is too soon to say "failure", etc.

  4. It should probably replace the killing of Soleimani as that was not that significant to his overall handling of the Middle East unlike when he withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion: per User:Markbassett; User:Ergo Sum; and User talk:Kohlrabi Pickle and per DUE, LEDE. Also, the point made by User:Jack Upland above regarding the removal of long-standing content should be weighed in view of BRD.
  The meeting with Kim and negotiation attempts are what is historic (especially that he set foot in NK), and should be re-instated; however, the results are not - save them for article body. (I prefer the word "stalled" if results must be included, per Neutral.) The Jerusalem issue should stay as well, as it is also historic. I am neutral on the including the Soleimani event in the Lede. Comment: I am also surprised at what I consider partisan and vitriolic language I am seeing above. We are here to discuss the article, not the guy it's about, or other editors that are in disagreement with one's own views. This is not Wikipedia as I envision it, per CIVIL. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion: The NK diplomacy has been heavily covered in in the press, and should be in the lead. The intensity of the diplomacy (3 presidential visits, first visit every by a US president to NK) should be mentioned. Must mention that the NK diplomacy has been unsuccessful. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rough consensus?

I think the following reflects a rough consensus:

Trump met with Kim Jong-un three times, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean supreme leader; denuclearization talks broke down in 2019 without an agreement.

Thoughts? I don't think there's any consensus on whether to remove or keep the Soleimani item, so maybe that could be resolved in a separate standalone RfC. --Neutrality^talk 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest something shorter, in line with the part that was deleted a few weeks ago:

Trump initiated talks with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un towards denuclearization, but negotiations have remained so far inconclusive.

Despite the contemporary coverage, I don't think it's worth mentioning specifically that Trump was the first president to set foot in NK, or how many times he met Kim. Comments welcome. I think we can do without Soleimani, btw; less weight. — JFG ^talk 02:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose that. First, it's inaccurate, because Kim "initiated" the meetings, not Trump. (Pompeo in 2018: "Chairman Kim asked for this meeting, President Trump agreed to undertake it"). Second, "so far inconclusive" suggests that there will be a definitive "conclusion," but that isn't how international negotiations work; it is perfectly possible that negotiations will not resume. If a shorter line is desired, I would be fine with:

Trump met three times with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019.

--Neutrality^talk 02:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see a consensus for inclusion above. It's roughly 50-50, and don't forget we're talking about overturning an existing consensus for exclusion. This seems premature at best. Including anything about Trump's meetings with Kim without acknowledging the spectacular failure of the talks and the elevating of Kim's profile on the world stage (what Kim was trying to achieve by playing Trump) would be ridiculous. Either the whole hot mess goes in, or none at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I don't think "we're talking about overturning an existing consensus for exclusion". As discussed above, the mention of North Korea in the lead was longstanding content until it was recently removed without consensus. As discussed before, I don't think we should refer to the "first" because this makes the lead look like a baseball card. It's also not that simple. Carter met Kim Il Sung, and Clinton met Kim Jong Il, but after their terms in office. Madeleine Albright, however, met Kim Jong Il when she was Secretary of State. We shouldn't make out that Trump's actions are more unprecedented than they are. I don't really understand Neutrality's comment that "it is perfectly possible that negotiations will not resume" etc. Yes, it is, but it is also perfectly possible that they will resume. I don't see what was wrong with the original wording, "and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization". I think words like "inconclusive" and "broke down" should only be used in retrospect. What we have seen is a series of events. Talks in Hanoi broke down. Talks in Sweden broke down. Have negotiations overall "broken down"? Not as far as we know. It's simply too early. The phrase "broke down" is too definitive. And "inconclusive" is unnecessary verbiage. It's like saying "as at April 2020, Trump was still alive". No, we report the amazing breakthrough when it happens. We don't report that the amazing breakthrough hasn't happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Broke down" is the language used by the reliable sources. For example: WSJ: "denuclearization talks with North Korea have broken down"; Fox News: "broke down when the U.S. side rejected North Korean demands for broad sanctions relief"; NYT: "U.S. Nuclear Talks With North Korea Break Down in Hours"; AP: "diplomacy broke down at a Trump-Kim summit last February." "Broke down" doesn't mean irrevocably broken down, so it is accurate language irrespective of what ultimately happens. I would oppose (and I think the consensus is against) any language (such as "so far" or "inconclusive" or both) that would give the reader the inaccurate impression that talks are ongoing. Neutrality^talk 22:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey. ???, Not 50-50 Support far outweighs Oppose as it is 13 out of 18, or 72%, with substantial reasons from Kholrabi and Spycicle. Two of the opposes are also suggesting what to say, so they are not fully against it, and two others were basing their thoughts on the false premise it wasn’t there before. Space4time BLP reasons seem good to me, but it’s obvious the bulk of people are in favor for having something, and for more than there was from before because more happened. Maybe if the example of Solemani and troop movements weren’t there people would be more restrained, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness it won't be you doing the closing, Mark, since you clearly aren't up to the task with that absurd summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's overstating things to refer to "negotiation". There were photo ops, mutual blustering, and lunches. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: How about "talks"? I made the change above. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I thinks talks would be an accurate description of the events; I'd support it. If people want to read further about what actually happened at those talks, the more specific articles should cover that. I think you also have to mention the denuclearization bit as the purpose of the talks; otherwise, the significance of the talks are unclear to the read. Ergo Sum 23:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we talk to this, we have to say that Trump said we have nothing to worry about any more, and that NK said they will not denuclearize. This is the problem with editors that want to add things out of context. NPOV basically means we report all or nothing. That is the choice. O3000 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, how about "meetings" -- at least we know there were meetings. I'm uneasy about a short reference to this, for the reasons we've all discussed. It's just not clear what happened and whether it's significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in others' mouths, so correct me if this is wrong. But, it seems that most here are open to the inclusion of: 1) the talks/meetings (meetings works just as well for me), 2) purpose (denuclearization or something along those lines), and 3) outcome (language TBD). Is that fair? It seems that we're getting pretty close to solid language on (1). Ergo Sum 00:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have sourcing to support that the purpose was arms reduction. The dominant RS reporting is that for Trump it was a charade and for Kim it was to distract from the acceleration of his arms program. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we think it was true or not, I think most RS reported that both Trump and Kim said the talks, especially the later ones, were had to discuss nuclear weapons/denuclearization. Ergo Sum 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Erm, is this how this is supposed to work? Are we voting on what we individually perceive that most RS says? I realize that nobody can link to "most RS", but we could link to considerably more than none. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly had meetings about denuclearization. (I'm not sure how SPECIFICO has information about top secret US and North Korean plans...) They also discussed other things, but we don't need to mention that in the lead. I think meetings is the right word. Yes, they were photo ops, particularly the meeting in the DMZ, but that was a radical departure from what any other American president has done. With regard to the phrase "broke down", the sources listed above used the phrase in relation to the talks in Hanoi or Sweden breaking down, not the whole diplomatic venture. North Korean expert Foster Klug wrote for AP in November that "North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump have signaled their affection for each other so regularly it might be easy to miss rising fears that the head-spinning diplomatic engagement of the past two years is falling apart". That doesn't sound like the whole venture has broken down. In any case, I don't think you can say the meetings all broke down. Only one did. How about inconclusive, preliminary, or tentative meetings?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources do not commonly use phrases like "preliminary" or "tentative." We follow the language and tenor of the sources, which is generally that the meetings either were unsuccessful, had no substantive result, or broke down. In any case, "broke down" means simply that the meetings broke down, which is absolutely correct; it does not imply that there will never be a resumption. Neutrality^talk 14:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I honestly can't think of a concise way to describe this that would be neutral. There are so many problems with it. After embarrassing America with a series of childish "Rocket Man" tweets, Trump decided to meet with Kim. The Trump administration boasts about how Trump was the first American president to meet with a North Korean leader in a generation (which everyone agrees was historic), but conveniently ignores the REASON behind that, which is that North Korea is at war with the United States and the DPRK's leaders are murderous dictators who America shouldn't be negotiating with. This is like when Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, basically, except Britain wasn't at war with Nazi Germany at the time. Moreover, reliable sources all agree the outcome of Trump's efforts has been disastrous. Previously an outcast on the world stage, Kim now has lots of lovely pictures of himself with the "leader of the free world", managed to win concessions from Trump (such as fleet movements), while himself conceding absolutely nothing. It's impossible to neatly encapsulate all that in a sentence or two. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I will remind you that our purpose here is to discuss the content, based on what reliable sources say. Our personal beliefs and analyses -- no matter how fervently we believe them -- are wholly irrelevant and not helpful to the discussion. Ergo Sum 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Agreed, and that's what I said yesterday. That comment was partly in response to your I think most RS reported immediately preceding. I'm not particularly interested in what editors think most RS reported (see confirmation bias). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This would argue against "no substantive result", if there was a result favorable to Kim. There is some discussion of the matter in this recent book, which gives a broader insight than WP editors' interpretation of daily news reports. The total number of pages in this link is limited, but several pages before and after each search result are accessible to individual users. Other recently published books offer similar discussions. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Scjessey, if that's really true, then we should have substantial coverage of this historic piece of incompetence (or is it treason?) in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Neutrality Suggest the long-standing language may be a more appropriate place to start, and caution you that SPECIFICO and Scjessey content wants were outside the mainstream consensus here. I suggest this start from simply adding the generally desired ‘met three times’ update to the previous long-standing “attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization." and also respecting #32 don’t go into ‘historic first’ meeting. Something more like this:

President Trump met with Kim Jong-un three times in attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization. After their third meeting, negotiations have been inconclusive.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, this language is far too long, misleading (as set forth above), and not supported by the consensus here. Neutrality^talk 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Stick with the longstanding language (but remove the link). "Attempted" implies it hasn't been successful yet, so that should keep people happy.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the proposals have been right. Trump's meeting with Kim was historic, and I think if we are going to include any language it would be fair to say that; however, words like "inconclusive" just don't work for me because they fail to adequately convey how much of a spectacular failure the talks were. Evans J.R. Revere of the Brookings Institution makes the scope of Trump's failure abundantly clear when he says this: "The North Korean nuclear threat has grown under Trump’s watch." -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"After their third meeting, negotiations have been inconclusive" sounds a little strange to my ear. Maybe it is the tense of the verb? "After three meetings" might be better. As for the "inconclusive" bit, I think mostly everyone here has either said they support it or have not objected to it; I think it is worth pointing out that that looks like a pretty decent consensus to me. Ergo Sum 18:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have objected to "inconclusive" above. I believe that @Neutrality and Jack Upland: have also objected to "inconclusive", though not for the same reason. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No mainstream RS referred to the North Korean meetings as a "huge failure" or any wording of that nature. Failure is sensational and hyperbolic and implies finality in that there is no chance for the talks to resume (which there are). Any way you slice it "failure" or "failed" means that's it, talks are completely dead in the water. "Broke down" or "inconclusive" remains the most fair wording. Amorals (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

President Trump's Ongoing Failure With North Korea Talks

North Korea Marks Year of Failed Trump Talks With Missiles

Former Defense secretaries shed light on why Trump talks with North Korea failed

Defector Thae Yong-ho: Trump's North Korea policy a failure

The ex-national security adviser John Bolton suggested the White House’s policy on North Korea is has “failed.”

These were just the first few mainstream sources detailing Trump's North Korea FAILURE I could find with 2 minutes of googling. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an instance of sampling bias. General media does not write headlines like "talks are inconclusive" because that conveys no sense of presentism. Therefore, general media articles that convey the inclusivity of talks rather than "failure" are naturally far more subtle. This is beside the fact that if one consults academic sources with more foreign policy expertise than e.g. Vanity Fair (I have listed some above), one finds much more nuanced language like "talks are on hold" etc. We need not rely on the most sensational and coincidentally least intellectually rigorous analyses. That is beside the separate matter of not needing to conclude all neutral descriptions with a negative analysis, contrary to the disposition of the above editor. Ergo Sum 02:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, if we say negotiations "failed" or have "broken down", we might well need to revisit this in a couple of months if a new meeting takes place or if there is some other development. This seems to be impractical and a waste of time. With regard to above comments such as, "The North Korean nuclear threat has grown under Trump’s watch", the North Korean nuclear threat has been growing since the 1980s. There were four nuclear tests in Obama's time. North Korea's conflict with the USA has been ongoing since 1945. I don't see how this really amounts to a failure by Trump. In addition, I think there is a bit of naivety about the "art of the deal" here. As noted above, these meetings have been theatrical. The North Korean walkout from the Swedish talks after one day was theatrical. It was a stunt. It was a negotiating tactic. If the North Koreans weren't interested, they wouldn't have bothered turning up. To say that negotiations have "broken down" because North Korea used that old tactic is totally naive.[2]--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that your personal opinion is that negotiations have not "broken down," but we go by reliable sources, not editors' opinions. The RS do use the "broke down" language: WSJ: "denuclearization talks with North Korea have broken down"; Fox News: "broke down when the U.S. side rejected North Korean demands for broad sanctions relief"; NYT: "U.S. Nuclear Talks With North Korea Break Down in Hours"; AP: "diplomacy broke down at a Trump-Kim summit last February." And here's Bloomberg News two days ago: "Russia’s Vladimir Putin similarly feted Kim last year after his talks with the U.S. president broke down." If you think that the NYT, WSJ, AP, etc., are all "naive," you're entitled to your opinion, but you can't override the RS. Neutrality^talk 17:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That is just cherry-picking, largely based on the talks in Sweden, which most people have forgotten about. It's not over. See [3][4][5][6].--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Coronavirus in the lead

How should the coronavirus pandemic be mentioned in the lead of Trump's biography? — JFG ^talk 00:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

From the general gist of the discussion in the above thread, several suggestions are being workshopped by participants. I'd like to gauge support for the various angles that are candidates for inclusion in the lead. Hopefully this will help reach consensus. Proposed texts can be tweaked after editors agree on the most appropriate approach to the pandemic for this particular article's lead section.

Proposal 1: say nothing

• Rationale: All world leaders were faced with this same pandemic, and took more or less strong health protection and economic relief measures when their country was affected. There is nothing specific to say about Trump's response.
• Potential text: empty

Proposal 2: pandemic happened while Trump was president

• Rationale: We can't ignore the pandemic, but it's too complicated or too early to craft a correct summary of Trump's response in the lead of this biography.
• Potential text (courtesy Purplebackpack89):

  Trump was also president during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak.

Proposal 3: pandemic kept Trump busy in 2020

• Rationale: We should at least mention that the pandemic has kept Trump and his administration fully occupied during early 2020.
• Potential text (courtesy MelanieN):

  The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, and its spread in the United States became the major focus of his attention during that year.

Proposal 4: how Trump reacted to the pandemic

• Rationale: State a few dry facts about the Trump administration's response, similar in style to other brief statements in the presidency paragraph of the lead.
• Potential text (courtesy JFG):

  In response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and signed a $2-trillion stimulus package.

Trump admin has failed at every turn: preparedness: Fail. Acknowledgement: Failed. Physical Response: Failed. Public (speaking) response: Absolute Fail. Find me a single positive thing this admin has done. I can't find one. FAILURE....AT ALL LEVELS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.124.2 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Trump botched his reaction to the pandemic

• Rationale: Plenty of people have criticized Trump for downplaying the threat and reacting too slowly.
• Potential text (courtesy SPECIFICO):

  Trump consistently downplayed the threat of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic until it was impossible to control.

Survey

Briefly state your support for one or several of the proposed approaches. Exact text can be further debated and tweaked later.

• Proposal 1 for now. In an effort to prevent recentism, it might be best to wait until after the pandemic has cooled off to begin assessing whether or not to place it in the lead. While I do agree that this will likely become a defining chapter in his presidency, waiting a few months might be best to get a better picture of how Trump's response (or lack of) affected the pandemic in the US. Mgasparin (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4. Other articles of what Presidents have done relative to a crisis simply state their actions in the lead and reserve analysis and critiques for the body. For example, the bio on George W. Bush states that he launched the War on Terror in response to 9/11. It doesn't mention how the war was perceived as a failure and all the shortcomings. Relative to Mgasparin's point of recentism, we can always add further actions Trump has taken if in fact he does take more action as the pandemic evolves. Amorals (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 for now (rejecting the suggested rationale, which seems a bit presumptuous). My sense is that it will be impossible to fairly characterize Trump's handling of the crisis (more accurately, RS reporting of Trump's handling of the crisis) in one sentence, which about all the space we have to devote to this in the lead. Two sentences would be better, but not enough better. I could be swayed by links to a wide range of high-quality, non-opinion RS. Opinion RS is admissible with attribution, but doesn't belong in the lead. Finally (I'm too lazy to check), do all of these proposals summarize content already present in the body? Any that do not should be removed from consideration. As always, attend to body first, then lead, per WP:LEAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC) (Strike after creating the table at Discussion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4 This is the most important event of Trump's presidency and therefore should be given prominence. While he may have responded poorly to the crisis, it's too early to fully assess. TFD (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4, second choice 3 and as this unfolds and the cloud of immediacy dissipates then that may allow a more nuanced review and we can then determine if we add a secondary detail.--MONGO (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4. Wording suggested by JFG is fine: "In response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and signed a $2 trillion stimulus package." If I remember correctly other perfectly acceptable wording was suggested by MelanieN and Amorals. The lede is the place for noting the existence of this event in relation to the Trump presidency. This is his biography but the events of his presidency are inseparable from his personal life. Mention of this event in the lede should scrupulously avoid partisan carping. With that in mind mention of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, suggested by JFG, fits the bill. Our challenge here is really just to write a sentence. It's not supposed to accomplish much more than to make a note (in the lede) of the Covid 19 epidemic in the Trump presidency, which is part and parcel of Trump's personal life. (Proposal 3 would be my second choice, and it is the wording suggested by MelanieN.) "Neutral facts" is the key here. Let me borrow that phrasing from Markbassett: "neutral facts". Also, I have to grudgingly agree with SPECIFICO and Scjessey that this RfC was hastily put together with insufficient input as to the form it should take. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  What sources are you relying on that cause you to conclude that the signing of a veto proof bill and declaring a national emergency are the significant points that should be summarized in the lead? Also, can we agree that none of the proposals contain "partisan carping"? Final, what the heck is a "neutral fact"? I don't find any such concept in the WP:Neutral point of view policy. - MrX 🖋 15:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  The "national emergency" bit is, in itself, of no significance. There are something like 34 "national emergencies" currently in effect in the USA. These typically are invoked to modify some existing regulation or legal framework to facilitate executive action. However, in this case Trump has taken no action, explicitly stating he prefers the bully pulpit of his daily TV appearances and that the US Constitution precludes such Federal authority. Yes, it all makes no sense, but RS tell us that aside from the optics and audio of "National Emergency!" the proclamation was without signficant substantive effect. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal 3: This neutrally and accurately covers what has happened so far. It does not involve any prediction or recentism.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• To the contrary, Proposal 3 is not supported by the body of the article or by the sources, and thus fail WP:V. For example, "major focus of his attention during that year" is not supported by sources because (1) we are only in the fourth month of the year, (2) Trump was discounting the virus as a major problem mere weeks ago, and (3) the sources indicate a continuing focus on other things (WaPo: "Trump forges ahead with broader agenda even as coronavirus upends the country"; Guardian: "In shadow of pandemic, Trump seizes opportunity to push through his agenda"). Neutrality^talk 16:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I overlooked the way the sentence ended, which is indeed a prediction. I would leave off "during that year". I don't think Trump making comments about the virus proves that it wasn't a major focus of his attention.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• But it's not just "during the year" that's the problem. The weight of RS narratives actually tell us that the major focus of his attention is his reelection prospects, then secondarily various hot-buttons like the stock market, red state employment, corporate bailouts, etc. This narrative is everywhere, up to the Fox-controlled Wall Street Journal editorial page. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal 2, second choice 4 - In general think shorter is better, so proposal 2 by pbp (or the first half of MelanieN proposal 3) looks OK. I can also see proposal 4 as acceptably short and sticks to neutral facts, so it's a close second. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

p.s. After later look, I’m also OK with 1 (nothing) per LEAD, because it’s just not a major part of his BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Abort this RfC The prior discussion has barely begun to parse the article content and cited sources. A valid RfC would offer choices each of which reflect the article text and sourcing. We're not there yet. Choice 5, at which I was pinged, takes a single talk page remark I posted and misrepresents it verbatim as proposed lead text -- a misappropriation that undermines that NPOV option, leaving 4 others that have already been deprecated in the prior talk page discussion. An RfC is a tool for an advanced stage of a content disagreement where the alternatives are each in some way valid and well-defined. To post this RfC at this time is going to invite typically chaotic yards of talkpage, possibly with an army of IPs and SPAs, and delay any resolution -- let alone a good resolution -- of this issue. @JFG: please hat this until a better formed RfC can be formed -- if needed -- at a later time. Meanwhile, I again ask all participants to re-read the article text, the text of the related WP articles, and the sources cited on those pages and in this talk thread. That way we're much more likely to find consensus on the lead wording. Just as one example, this source alone, cited for article text, contradicts several of JFG's proposed lead candidates SPECIFICO talk 11:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 2, Second choice Proposal 5, Third choice: Proposal 3 This is a difficult one. The coronavirus pandemic is clearly a major event and might even be the defining event of his Presidency. It definitely warrants inclusion in the lede. There are good arguments for all of the proposals which is why I picked 3 in order of preference. By the way, there is an article specifically for the US, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. If the result of the RfC is to mention the coronavirus in the lede, we should WikiLink to the US-specific article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 for now/ABORT - I think all the alternatives are terrible and we have jumped prematurely into an RfC. My sense is that we should have something more along the lines of this:

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

This shouldn't be considered a final text, but more an example of where we should be heading. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This suggestion is in the spirit of proposal 4: "state a few dry facts about the Trump administration's response"; I'd support something along these lines; exact text can be further debated once spirit of the lead insertion is settled. — JFG ^talk 21:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly support something along the lines of what Scjessey just proposed; it does an excellent job of summarizing the whole situation in a single sentence. I also support #3; it’s neutral, and makes clear that this is a major issue in his presidency and his life without evaluating his actions either positively or negatively. I could accept #4; neutral and lists a couple of his specific actions. I don’t see the point of #2; it says nothing. I oppose #1; IMO we need to say something, because this is a far bigger part of his presidency that most of the actions we already list in the lead. I strongly oppose #5, which I gather was never intended to be an actual proposal for lead language. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort - This is not a proper way to conduct an RfC. Polling like this may be fine for choosing a lead image, but it's not the proper way to write content for the lead. I am certain that there are better options than any proposed here, so the discussion above should continue until sources reveal wording that actually reflects the entirety of Trump's actions with respect to the pandemic. - MrX 🖋 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Open discussion is essential for complex and nuanced issues like this, but experience has shown us that at some point we have to pin down and clarify editors' positions if we hope to reach (and document) a consensus, and survey is the only method yet devised to accomplish that (and works pretty well for that purpose). The only question is how much open discussion is needed before we start the survey. JFG judged that there had been enough, others disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but in this case none of proposals capture a complete or faithful summary. Based on the previous discussion and this RfC, I don't see this leading to a consensus. Proposal 4 is particularly bad because it elevates two points that are not significant: signing a veto proof bill and declaring a national emergency obviated by the circumstances. That is simply not what the sources have been emphasizing for the past six weeks. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• There has never been a successful lasting RfC outcome with 5 imperfect choices and there was no indication that we'd sorted out the issues and pared the alternatives down to a workable small number that could result in a valid consensus. There will be no consensus. There will only be wasted time and misdirected attention. Let's all chill and wait for JFG's return, at which time I hope he'll hat this, possibly opening a better-formed RfC if it's necessary at a later date. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 as stopgap/abort RfC as improper and premature - Per MrX, Bus stop, etc. this is not a satisfactory or proper way to select text for the lead or to conduct an RfC. I would be OK with "proposal 1 for now" as a noncontroversial stopgap measure but any elaboration needs better options (the ones presented are frankly terrible). As a long-term fix, I would like the sentence or two in the lead to indicate three key facts: (1) the U.S. had more confirmed confirmed cases than any other nation; (2) Trump downplayed/denied the crisis in its first weeks/months; and (3) the pandemic caused an economic downturn that caused the Congress to pass, and Trump to sign, a huge economic stimulus package (the largest in U.S. history). Neutrality^talk 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 for now/ABORT - I also think all alternatives aren't good. Maybe after the dust has cleared on this crisis, there may be something worth including, but not at this time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4 It gives you the significant facts. I think it’s too early to know whether Trump handled it well, so a hard oppose of Proposal 5. ~ HAL333 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 = should not be mentioned in the lead this is not very significant in Trump's biography to be included in the lead. All of the world is facing this pandemic yet no other leader has mention of coronavirus in their lead section. I can agree with inclusion in "presidency of Trump" article. This article should focus on the topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 should not be mentioned in the lede Personally, I wouldn't mention it here in his biography at allGovindaharihari (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• The suggestion further down by user scjessey reads quite well, and I would prefer that one. ValarianB (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort. We need better options. Option 1 (nothing) is not viable. starship.paint (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 2 Obviously pbp 02:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 too early as it's still going on and will just spark a pointless edit war. Info could become out of date within days or even hours. Remember WP:10YT. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4 – The lead section should remain factual, and focus on actions that Trump and his administration actually took. Details and evaluations belong in the body. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort and restart -- per MrX and others. None of the above options properly summarize the content as required by WP:LEDE. This choice is a false dilemma: None of them mention that Trump's advice was frequently at odds with medical experts or that he was heavily criticized for it. An RfC is fine, but we need better options reflecting the WP:RS. Let editors propose options they think represent the best summary. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort - per all the aborts above, and also because this is happening right now. Wikipedia is not a news site; we're not obligated to keep up with current events. I think it's too soon to try to pin down a lead sentence on a presently evolving and highly political issue. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 - at least certainly for now. See Woodrow Wilson, where there is (surprisingly or not) no mention of Spanish flu in the body of the article (only a single external link/further reading). This tells me - historically, even a major pandemic is not fit for inclusion on the -biographical- article of a president. We are understandably concerned with COVID right now, but that is recentivism. If in retrospect we find that it is fit for inclusion, we can try again in a year or so - but including it right now just because EVERY single thing in the news relates to COVID isn't good practice. This is probably all over the place, but I think including anything now (at least in the lead) is a bad idea. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do you think sources reported controversy about Wilson's actions relating to the Spanish Flu similar to what has occurred with the Trump virus? If so, it should be added to that article. If not, the comparison does not seem useful. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If this were 1918, I think you'd have a different view of the situation. Spanish Flu is no longer a current or political issue like COVID is - that is why we should wait for COVID to become less political and less current. That's all I have to say on the issue. Thanks. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly familiar with the Spanish Flu epidemic in the US. RS descriptions of Trump's negligence and culpability have no parallel whatsoever with the actions of Pres. Wilson. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Abort this premature dud of an RfC with its weird selection of "options". I've read the previous discussions or tried to until my eyes glazed over and I don't see how these presumptuous rationales reflect them or what's currently reported by RS. So what's the point of this RfC?

Proposal 1: No. I'd prefer nothing in the lead for now but not as an item in the current consensus and definitely not if it ends up in the current consensus with this obvious whitewash. "There is nothing specific to say about Trump's response?" Except (add summation of what umpteen RS have said about it)

Proposal 2: No. The correct summary would be "The lights are on but nobody is home" or maybe "The lights are on but he's watching Fox & Friends"

Proposal 3: No. It's called the COVID 2019 pandemic, not the 2019-2020 pandemic, and current expert opinion is that 2020 and maybe not even 2021 will be the end of it. As for the major focus of Trump's attention, it's going to be a loooong year and he has the attention span of a three-year old. it's still his ratings and reelection, and deflecting blame from himself (attention span of the average three-year old without the three-year old's empathy).

Proposal 4: No - cherry-picked "dry facts", and eff his signing ceremonies.

Proposal 5: No. This is what editor SPECIFICO said about it: Choice 5 … takes a single talk page remark I posted and misrepresents it verbatim as proposed lead text There's so much more, from bungled federal response and Trump's rejection of responsibility to miracle cures, injection of bleach, UV irradiation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Abort. To avoid WP:Recentism and bias, we should wait for the body to develop before we even think about changing the lead, especially on a BLP. The RFC is also fundamentally malformed as it presents the proposals as different POVs or viewpoints the article could take, instead of offering options that holistically sum up the body. Jancarcu (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Abort. Ridiculous options. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 4 - No reason why we can't say what has already occurred with regards to what Trump has done, and its hardly a recent event anymore with regards to the coronavirus having started to spread to the U.S. around March. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 for now. I'm not satisfied with any of the proposals as worded or their intended phraseology (sorry that's the best way I could express my sentiments). I'm not sure exactly what is missing. And maybe it is best to wait. The present "team" of editors seem to be in tune with the tenor of Trump's response to the virus, so I'm sure a satisfactory lead sentence will eventually emerge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Merge RfC into a new RfC with proposals that received the most support.  I support something along the lines of what Scjessey propposed:

After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump [focussed his administration on the threat] and signed the CARES Act rescue package.

I wouldn't write that he formed a task force without also writing that he had cut the CDC and eliminated the "post of senior director for global health security and biothreats on the national security council"[7], so better to leave all that out.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Place longer comments here.

I agree with Mandruss' analysis below that we should focus on the body first and then the lead. To this end, however there are some problems in the body. The facts and RS are perfectly fine, but the choice of wording that reflects the RS contains politically charged and dramatized tones that are not encyclopedic. "Overpromised" for example is generally a political way opponents describe politicians, "changed his messaging on" would be more encyclopedic or even gave a "contradictory statement" for that matter. Additionally, the details on the lack of testing relative to South Korea are outdated, and it should be noted that the U.S. eventually did the most testing, however with the glaring caveat that relative to population per capita, our testing was low. Lastly, the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package which CNN described as "Historic," "Largest in History" should be included.

All this being noted, I think that a discussion on the content of the body should commence and a fair consensus be reached prior to selecting a sentence in the lead that reflects the body. Amorals (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Conformance with body content of "proposed text" / "potential text" examples. Per WP:LEAD, lead should summarize body. That means we don't put anything in the lead that is not present in the body. It does not mean we can put anything we see fit about coronavirus in the lead because coronavirus is in the body. Further, since we don't use citations in the lead, anything not present in the body would be sans reference.

Proposal	Grade	Notes
2	A
3	C	Nothing in the body about "the major focus of his attention during that year".
4	C	Neither of the words "trillion" and "stimulus" occur anywhere in the article.
5	B	Body speaks of "Trump played down the threat", but "until it was impossible to control" is not explicitly stated and requires some inference.

―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, regarding #3, I think the second and third paragraphs of the “Coronavirus pandemic” section make it clear that it has been the major focus of his attention for the past several months, although they do not use that exact wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it could make that clear without juxtaposing it with other issues occurring during "that year". It would be improved by changing it to "a major focus", which would raise its grade to a B in my estimation, but, like Proposal 5, it would still require some inference, precluding an A. For an A you would pretty much have to say in the body that it was a major focus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I know this is a more rigorous analysis than we're accustomed to, but it's an improvement in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @JFG: Would you consider changing this from an RfC to a plain discussion? It is clear that the community had not narrowed down the possibilities to the ones you list, and that we should work further on drafting actual language to see if we can reach consensus. Personally I think the proposal from Scjessey gives us a better framework to start from than any of the numbered alternatives. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  The RfC format is more appropriate given that the discussion was branching out in too many directions, and was getting very hard to follow (and that is continuing in the discussion section of the RfC, albeit in a manner more focused on actual proposals). My goal is to identify which approach to the subject matter should be taken in the lead section. Exact text can be tweaked once editors settle on how to report Trump's response to the pandemic. In this spirit, Scjessey's version fits in the "proposal 4" category, "state a few dry facts". As stated in the RfC preamble, I hope that editors will agree on an appropriate style of reporting, and then the exact text can be determined within that framework, taking into account events that will have unfolded by the time the RfC is closed. — JFG ^talk 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC has lost its mojo. First, events as reflected in the article body text have continued accumulate and narratives have changed. Second, this novel interpretation or use of the RfC format is unlikely to be helpful if somebody actually tries to close the discussion. Third, there were several editors who couldn't make any sense of the RfC or how to participate and !voted to shut it down. I think @MelanieN: has made an appropriate suggestion to move forward -- that this be changed to a (more structured) continuation of the prior and ongoing discussion. I think our focus will then turn to lead-worthy summary of the current article content, which has changed since the larger thread was begun. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know why MelanieN is supporting and Scjessey is proposing that language be in the lede to the effect that "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created ..." That is the least important point that could be made in the lede. That amounts to nothing more than blaming Trump for American lives lost. It is an instance of "spin" that even in the body of the article calls for attribution for who is saying that. We are expected to consider the source. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why you call this spin. It’s what occurred and is widely covered in RS. And, I don’t have a crystal ball, but it may possibly be what he is most known for in 20 years. O3000 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trump's downplaying of the crisis at the beginning was very significant, and covered in almost every reliable source. In fact, many sources use much harsher language and blame Trump for needless American deaths. We couldn't possibly give coverage to Trump's virus response without acknowledging this coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) O3000—I have to remind you, this is the lede of the article. We can have a separate debate over related wording in the body. I lean in favor of providing attribution. By that I mean not merely a citation following an assertion. What I mean is starting the sentence with "who says this". Therefore a sentence might read According to CNN "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created ..." The news sources are highly polarized. The news sources are as pertinent to these characterizations as the characterizations themselves. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not an assertion by biased sources. It is what occurred, heavily covered by reliable sources, and therefore should not be attributed. O3000 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The source matters to an extent that can't be overstated, calling for attribution. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No RS that aren't opinion pieces have gone so far as to outright blame Trump for American deaths, the only thing they have asserted is that had Trump acted sooner, deaths could potentially have been prevented. Even the guy running against Trump for President has disavowed the idea that Trump has blood on his hands[8] Such harsh language is sensationalist, particularly when the pandemic is still evolving and more facts and info about the virus are being discovered. Once again, I agree with other editors and propose that a separate debate should take place on the wording in the body.Amorals (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Straw man argument. Nothing currently in the article says or even hints that Trump is to blame for deaths. In fact the article currently doesn't say anything at all about the number of deaths and it doesn't describe the spread of the pandemic. There is no need to discuss "blaming Trump for deaths," because we aren't doing that and never have. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Straw man argument even though we have verbatim quotes from editors, Bus Stop voicing the concern "That amounts to nothing more than blaming Trump for American lives lost" and Scjessey saying "blaming Trump for needless American deaths." It seems like I am directly responding to what other editors have said and far from a "straw man" as you say Amorals (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, straw man. I said that there is nothing IN THE ARTICLE that suggests that. That is true: It is not in the article - and no one has proposed putting it there. Some people have commented on "blaming Trump" here at the talk page, yes, but not to suggest putting it in the lead. Bus Stop certainly wasn't proposing it; on the contrary, they were accusing others of wanting to blame Trump; they were the first to bring it up and it was their interpretation. (“It is "spin" if it is only said to lay blame at the door of Trump.”) Scjessey then noted that some “much harsher” sources have “blamed Trump for needless American deaths,” but he did not suggest putting anything along those lines in the article. Let’s stick to what is actually in the article and what has actually been proposed, please. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

RE I don't know why MelanieN is supporting and Scjessey is proposing that language be in the lede: The reason I support Scjessey's proposal is that it clearly and accurately reflects what is in the article text. Exactly like the lead is supposed to do. It should get an "A" on Mandruss' table. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)]

MelanieN makes sense but editors have voiced concern over the current wording of the body. So it makes more sense to reach a consensus on the wording in the body first, and then revisit the lead. Continuing discussion on the lead is putting the cart before the horse, and therefore, I suggest this discussion be temporary halted, and a new discussion commence on the wording in the body.Amorals (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Amorals, I think you are the only person recommending that we have some big discussion about the body of the text. Most of that text has been in the article for weeks or months without objection. If there is some specific wording in the text that you think should be reworded you can start a separate section about that. But in the meantime this discussion of what should be in the lead should continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN—you point out that the suggested wording "clearly and accurately reflects what is in the article text". The body of the article is an almost interminable litany of complaints, all without attribution. And now the initiative is to elevate one of those complaints to the lede. How have you determined which of the complaints found in the body of the article warrants elevation to the lede of the article? Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again MelanieN you state I am the only editor concerned with the wording of the body, when we have 03330 stating, "we can have a separate debate over wording in the body" and Busstop noting above that the body reads leads like a litany of complaints. Clearly if you have read through this whole discussion "I am not the only person recommending..."Amorals (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop and Amorals, you may think the entire article is an "almost interminable litany of complaints" (exaggeration at best) "all without attribution" (completely untrue). If you find a litany of unattributed complaints somewhere in the article text, please open a discussion about it elsewhere at this talk page. But we are talking here about adding a sentence about the coronavirus epidemic. That means it should reflect what the "Coronavirus epidemic" section of the text says. If you look at that section, it has three paragraphs. The first reflects, with ample references, his initial downplaying of the epidemic. The second and third, also well referenced, describe his actions to deal with the virus. Those three paragraphs are exactly reflected, one clause per paragraph, is Scjessey's proposed sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN the problem is not that the complaints are unattributed, it's the wording of these complaints as I have already stated. It's possible for everything in the text to be valid based on the sources, which they 100% are (i.e. his downplaying, and the actions to deal with the virus) but the wording to be problematic, which as of right now, is politicized and uses sensationalist phrasing. I think enough editors have voiced issue here, I count 4 so far, (not just me and Busstop as you say) where it deserves attention. In respect to the lead reflecting the current body, it's supposed to reflect the most important parts of the body, not just blindly follow the chronology of each paragraph systematically (1, 2, 3). No RS has quantified at this point how critical his downplaying of the virus has been. Short of an RS stating, "Scientists have said Trump's downplaying lead to preventable deaths" or "governors have said Trump's downplaying of the virus lulled them into a false sense of security which they believe cost lives in their state" it does not rise to the importance to include in the lead. All we can do is address the actions he's taken (task force, stimulus package), and allow for further analysis of his comments and response in the body. Amorals (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There you go again. You are still claiming that our article, or our proposed statement in the lead, somehow suggests that his downplaying of the virus led to preventable deaths or cost lives. Maybe I need to say this in bold: Nobody has proposed saying that Trump's initial downplaying caused deaths or cost lives. The article doesn't suggest that. Nobody here has suggested that. So please stop arguing against it. Please limit your complaints to what is actually in the article and what has actually been suggested here. Or if you see "politicized wording" or "sensationalized phrasing" with regard to this subject in the article, please point it out (in a separate discussion) so we can change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There's an RfC underway. If I understand you correctly, Amorals, you are among those who agree that the RfC is either premature or unnecessary. If so, please so indicate above. Meanwhile, as MelanieN has said, you are free to offer article improvements in a separate thread. Just as an aside, however, there's been plenty of RS discussion as to why there's been little public criticism from governors with their constituents' lives in the balance and scientiests desperately trying to keep Trump to policies that can mitigate the epidemic. He might react in ways that would be adverse to the people those governors and scientists are trying to protect. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with above editors that the body reads like a “litany of complaints” written by an opposition party rather than a neutral accounting of the RS. Amending the body should be discussed in concert with the wording in the lead Bsubprime7 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC) (Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN—we know the media is polarized. Not one sentence in an almost interminable litany of complaints says that "CNN characterizes" or "MSNBC characterizes". But we are burying attribution in citations. How does that help WP:NPOV? The purpose of a lede is to alert a reader to landmarks within the article. This can be accomplished while limiting ourselves to neutral facts. Language like "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic..." constitutes gratuitous complaint in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no citation of any Coronavirus content to MSNBC, so that's another false premise. "The media" is a broad term. The reliable sources are generally not biased. Please review our WP article on Coronavirus in the U.S. and the section on it in the Trump presidency article. Then read all the cited sources. You will see the same narrative presented there, only in greater detail. I don't see any indication of bias. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

How does the omission of the name of the entity characterizing a certain situation in a certain way, further WP:NPOV? We aim for a neutral point of view. That aim is advanced by explicitly stating which source or sources has formulated a given characterization. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. If a significant majority of reliable sources take a certain position (i.e. consensus is that they do so), policy requires us to present that in wiki voice (i.e. without attribution). The classic example of that is "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." – which has survived the fiery crucible of debate probably more than anything else currently in the article. You are free to argue that a significant majority of reliable sources do or do not take a certain position, and your argument is strengthened by links to high-quality sources. You are incorrect to say that NPOV requires or even suggests attribution merely because a statement is qualitative or subjective. Even if there were attribution, it would be "A significant majority of reliable sources say..." – and what good would that be? That kind of attribution would be entirely redundant with Wikipedia content policy, therefore superfluous. It would also be needed in several dozen places in the article, which would be quite repetitive and cumbersome. It would be like editors preceding every talk page comment with "In my opinion..." – implied and understood by most, and usually omitted for brevity. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm only addressing Trump's handling of the coronavirus epidemic. Concerning an unprecedented situation the unending complaints about Trump's handling of it call for attention to be drawn to the origin of those complaints. Trump's own speaking style has been cited as evidence of problematic handling of the coronavirus epidemic—he used the term "miracle". That is not in the article now but I recall it being discussed. The sources themselves are not just slightly polarized. For the liberal sources everything Trump does is wrong. "Downplayed" is not even a real concept in this context. If he downplayed it less the liberal media would be accusing him of "scaremongering". The way to deal with non-moderate sources is to attribute characterizations to those sources. All sources pertaining to the coronavirus epidemic should be named when used to support assertions. This would of course also include any conservative sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

the unending complaints about Trump's handling of it call for attention to be drawn to the origin of those complaints. I know of nothing in policy to that effect. NPOV has a fairly precise definition, and we don't get to assert NPOV for whatever we consider "neutral". Notwithstanding the large number of editors who do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I will concede that Rfc seems to be premature since we don't have enough information at this point with the pandemic ongoing to reach a consensus that a plurality of editors would approve. Relative to Specifico's comments regarding scientists and governors not making public statements for above reasons, I believe you may be correct, but analysis in RS as to why they aren't publicly speaking their minds falls into the category of opinion pieces that call for a considerable level of speculation. Therefore, for better or worse, these don't rise to the concrete level of factual RS to include in the lead. In regards, to including MSNBC or something along those lines that's not a practice generally used. Even though MSNBC is generally perceived as having a liberal bias, it is listed as a RS just like Fox News (generally perceived as a conservative bias) is listed as a RS. A plurality of sources are what fostered a fair and neutral reporting of facts. More discussion should continue in a separate thread on the body of this subject, which I encourage other editors to participate in. Amorals (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not continue to state concerns about MSNBC when there is no MSNBC source in the coronavirus content of this article. If you think there's some other reason to discuss MSNBC in this context, please specify it. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC has provided excellent coverage on many, if not all topics, related to the Coronavirus. Same with CNN. So much so, that one can easily get burned out on the coverage. Hopefully this is helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Comment This is obviously the most important thing that has happened during Trump's Presidency. As I keep saying elsewhere, a proper treatment should cover both words and actions. The "downplayed" language is fine in isolation but without covering Trump's actions, it fails WP:NPOV. Similarly, the rescue package and the China travel ban are both lead-worthy, but without also mentioning that Trump did downplay the crisis during the early stages, it would also fail WP:NPOV, in the opposite direction but for the same underlying reason. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Adoring Nanny, you draw a false equivalence when you state that mentioning the downplaying of the threat in isolation would fail WP:NPOV to the same extent that mentioning his actions in isolation would. On a very basic level, significant actions of any living person are treated with more weight than words. Additionally, while noting his downplaying of the virus evokes a clear negative undertone, just saying that he instituted a travel ban or signed a stimulus package, does not evoke a clear positive undertone. It just says that’s what he did, without passing judgement on whether those actions were good, bad, or failures. Any further critiques and analysis of these actions then get covered in the body. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean we don't report disturbing facts. Imagine our article on World War One without the bad parts. Here's an interesting survey article that adds some perspective. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, I actually have read that same article today. The problem is we still don’t have an idea from the RS as to what extent Trump’s public downplaying of the virus has had. As another editor has said above, unless a scientist makes a statement that action taken sooner definitely would have prevented death, or a governor makes a statement citing Trump’s remarks as a reason they didn’t take further action, or something like this, it does not rise to a level of including in the lead. I am fine with its inclusion in the body (it absolutely should be included there). Unlike the bad stuff in WW I where we know that specific actions resulted in mass death, we don’t have the same information here. Unless more information is revealed as to the clear effect the downplaying had, it does not belong in the lead. Bsubprime7 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bsubprime7: We have multiple, high-quality reliable sources specifically referring to how Trump downplayed the virus, and it likely had some negative effect. The language I suggested in my comment above does not attempt to quantify, or even assign a positive or negative value, to Trump's downplaying. We can leave that to the body of the article. Let me repeat my suggested text for you, in case you missed it:

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

This would seem to answer all of your concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bsubprime7, now you're doing it. No one, repeat no one, is suggesting that there be any hint that Trump's actions/inactions resulted in more death, or less death, or had no effect. We won't know for months, maybe years, what effect his actions had on the ultimate severity or not of the pandemic. All we can do is describe what he did and when. There is absolutely no justification for saying we can't mention what a president did until we know, maybe years later, what the effect was! We don't know for a long time what the effect of many government actions turns out to be. That doesn't mean we withhold any mention of some action - for example, a tax cut or trade war - until we know the judgment of history on how it worked out. That's how it is throughout this article: we report what he did. If it is important (and at Wikipedia we judge its importance, among other criteria, by how much coverage it got) then we put it in the article. We report on it neutrally. We don't include or imply any crystal ball predictions about whether the net result was good or bad. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN you say there’s no justification for not mentioning what a President “did.” I 100% agree. But you are not proposing what a President did but rather what he “said.” My point is there’s a significant distinction between words and actions. Actions rise to a greater level of importance. The examples you mention like a tax cut or trade war are much more significant than words a President says at a partisan political rally while pandering to his base. Again, short of sources saying a scientist or governor have stated Trump’s words have had a significant effect, it currently does not rise to the same level of importance as the signing of the stimulus bill. The distinction needs to be made that actions are more important than words. Article leads here almost never include a reporting of words its subject said. I continue to state my objection to the inclusion of any mention of his downplaying statements in the lead. They belong in the article, but in the body only. Bsubprime7 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We're quoting what he SAID because that was all he did at first: he talked, he downplayed the risk. What he did: nothing. Nothing for the better part of two months. Yes, actions are important. Inactions are also important. And that's what we are reporting: his inaction. As for some scientist saying that his inaction had a significant effect: you are still harping on the "effect" of his inaction. We don't know yet what the effect will turn out to be, although it is being widely studied in the "laboratory" of the country and the world: how did things turn out in the places where action was taken early? how did things turn out where action was delayed? That kind of study is suggestive but not yet ready for prime time. What we do know that his inaction, and his repeated comments minimizing the danger, were real and were widely reported at the time and since. And that's why we report them. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes we report things that were “widely reported at the time and since.” But merely because it was widely reported does not necessarily mean it rises to a clear level of importance. Part of what we do is not just regurgitate what’s widely reported, but determine what among what was reported was in fact important. And as the jury is still out as to whether Trump’s repeated downplaying and “inaction” was important, we should wait to include this in the lead until we learn more. For now it’s place in the body is proper Bsubprime7 (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN—can it possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as being beneficial for the American people, for Trump to have downplayed the epidemic? So why are you saying "We don't know yet what the effect will turn out to be" and "No one, repeat no one, is suggesting that there be any hint that Trump's actions/inactions resulted in more death, or less death, or had no effect"? Yes we do know. Delay equals exacerbation in terms of the spread of this disease. There are direct relationships between the factors involved. I'm not a scientist but a key point in social distancing vis-à-vis this virus is that one person on average infects two more people. Now please explain to me why, in your opinion, it is important that the lede of Trump's biography say "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic..."? That is saying that Trump is responsible to some degree for the harm that has been done to the American people by the Covid 19 virus. Is that what you would consider an important point that should be conveyed by the lede of this biography? It was my understanding that only important points from the body of the article are included in the lede. Reliable sources said a lot of things. Why is this particular point worthy of inclusion in the lede? Because lots of reliable sources say this? The "left" side of the polarized media will only find fault with Trump. Had he reacted to the epidemic with greater speed the "left" would have accused Trump of "scaremongering". We use common sense when extracting from the plethora of sources those points to appear in the lede of an article. We don't elevate mere talking points of one side of a highly opinionated "news" media into key points worthy of inclusion in the lede of a subject's biography. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread that you have accused the media of doing something in a hypothetical. This shows more bias than anything else talked to in the thread. IMHO, you are the one pushing "talking points". I suggest you stick to what is actually presented by RS. O3000 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, The "left" side of the polarized media will only find fault with Trump. -- This statement is problematic for many reasons. First, we should not conflate "the media" with "reliable sources". There's all kinds of media, including, notably, the evening Fox News cable TV shows, that are not reliable sources. In fact, those media are the media that are promoting the meaningless statement I highlighted in red. Mainstream publications, including the ones that WP considers generally reliable, regularly publish "conservative" analysis and opinion -- for example neocon Republican David Frum at the Atlantic, conservative establishmentarian and William F. Buckley protégé David Brooks at the NY Times, and icon of the intellectual right (and critic of "liberal media") Hugh Hewitt at the Washington Post. By definition, on Wikipedia, the mainstream is not "biased". That is the core principle of our editing here. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan may have been locked down immediately and thoroughly. But the president of the United States is much more answerable to the populace. The populace would fault the president no matter what. That criticism would take the form of accusations that he acted too slowly or that he acted too quickly. That is not "hypothetical". Yes, the word "scaremongering" is hypothetical. But the point is that fault would be found no matter what. That is a function of the relationship between the electorate and their representatives in a democracy, which the United States happens to be. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: Next time you are editing, I think you need to deal with the bad format of this RfC that's been noted by several experienced editors. If you need more information to understand these objections, please say so and editors can respond. If this RfC continues to a conclusion in favor of one of the five texts, I have no doubt it's going to be contested immediately by a clearer and better-supported RfC that will attempt to arrive at appropriate lead text. If this is not aborted and/or replaced, we will simply have wasted up to two months talking around the issues with none of the best options on the table. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, the idea that the mainstream media is not biased has never been a core principle. Those examples you listed, David Frum of the Atlantic and David Buckley, how many times are they cited here on this article? Please include the links. Busstop is not conflating the mainstream media with RS, just acknowledging that “some” RS are in fact mainstream media. That being said, unless you’ve been living under a rock, everybody knows certain RS like the Washington Post, NY Times and CNN lean left and quite frankly hate Trump. However, in general news(non-opinion pieces) what they have say is mostly factual and reliable. With that being said, here on Wikipedia, we have to judge and filter what is important among this information and tone down some of the dramatic wording. Because while bias may not affect facts, they undoubtedly affect the wording and framing of those facts. That’s where the burden on us editors is. Bsubprime7 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

David Buckley? Frum is cited at least once. I added it. Look it up. Please read WP:NPOV. We reflect the weight of the mainstream narrative. It's what we publish here. We don't publish a biased encyclopedia.

You are linking where I live with what "everybody" knows? Please take a minute to consider whether you can state your view in more objective terms to which others might respond. My personal sense is that you're simply reflecting some of the grievances that air on Trump-world broadcast and internet media, but without enough detail or any citations that could advance a constructive analysis or discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, so you are conceding that Trump's delaying action means exacerbation of the disease. Good, so we can set aside people's "we don't know the outcome yet so don't mention it" argument. He downplayed, and the result will be a worse epidemic. His very public, very prolonged minimizing of the threat was widely reported by the "polarized left-wing media". So... it must not have been important? They only reported it to make him look bad? Even though it was the main thing he said for weeks, they shouldn't have reported it? (I've got news for you: Fox News and the right wing media were widely quoting him too. "Relax, everything is fine, it's under control, the president said so.") Now that it is clear the result of his downplaying and delaying will the worsening of a nation-wide catastrophe, in your mind his downplaying and delaying are not important, a "mere talking point of one side of a highly opinionated "news" media". Let me try to follow your logic. It goes something like this: President Joe Blow took an important action. The action is obviously going to have a bad outcome for the country. Therefore, we must not mention the action that he took, because it might imply blaming him for the bad outcome. Even though we do not say anything to suggest blame, neutrality requires that we not mention his important action. Right? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That Trump "downplayed" the threat is "hot air", unworthy of placement in the lede. In my humble opinion there is a burden on you to tell us why it is important that the lede of this article imply that Trump has responsibility for the sicknesses and deaths of Americans? Please explain the importance of that, especially as it is unquantified. Or maybe you can tell me—how many deaths are attributable to Trump's supposed "downplaying" of the epidemic? Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what I said above was seemingly ignored. MealnieN, I don’t believe Busstop has conceded that Trump downplaying the virus made the pandemic worse: we don’t know that yet. You referred to the “we don’t know yet” as an argument but it’s not an argument, it’s just “a fact.” What Busstop is saying and what I continue to logically point out is that by including his downplaying in the lead you are elevating comments that may end up being just pandering comments to a political base to a level of importance we can not yet verify. Until we get more info on the impact it does not belong in the lead. Bsubprime7 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

Of course I have not "conced[ed] that Trump's delaying action means exacerbation of the disease". Closer to the truth is that I am horrified that anyone would imply that the president did anything to exacerbate the disease. Contrary to arguments about the stock market Trump has no vested interest in harming Americans. Those who agitated for more swift action, in the style of Wuhan, found the wording to express their impatience. MelanieN correctly notes that Fox News expressed this impatience too. But we should not be misconstruing or taking out of context expressions intended to agitate for measures to swiftly be taken to suppress the spread of a lethal disease. It is obvious that no matter what he did he would be faulted. Carping doesn't belong in the lede, unless it applies to something firmly known to be of consequence, and whatever "downplaying" may have taken place is not firmly reported to have been of consequence.

Bsubprime7—you mean "David Brooks", not "David Buckley". Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the recent article by conservative thought leader and Bush Administration hardliner David Frum? It's referenced in the article section on coronavirus. Also, this kind of thing Template:Tq red is a straw man. Nobody has said that, and it begs the core issue concerning harm (or prevention of harm) to Americans under his Administration. That kind of talk page statement has already resulted in reduced particpation on the subject, and it's not going to advance whatever view you think needs to be understood. You'll just end up a lone voice against a consensus to the contrary that tires of repeating its rejection of your view. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If something is of highly questionable consequence, why should it be noted in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Busstop yes I inverted the names aby accident. Specifico, I am not airing Trump broadcast grievances, I am backing things up and talking in terms of common sense: Do you really believe that the majority of journalists at the Washpost, Ny times, and CNN aren’t left-leaning and dislike Trump? This doesn’t mean they don’t report facts but it does mean we should weigh the importance of the facts they present and the wording they use. After all, dramatic wording is often used as they need to grab people’s attention and sell papers to make $. In this case, mere comments are not important enough to be lead worthy as of right now Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

All in, that just sounds like projection, and if it were true you would easily be able to document it. Consider the Wall Street Journal, with good news reporting and the signature Murdoch editoral writing. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In all fairness Specifico, I don't think the idea that writers at publications like the Washpost and NY times mostly have a left-lean is a projection. It's generally a well accepted reality that has in fact been documented[9][10]. This by no means indicates that they don't report reliable facts, they absolutely do, however they choose what facts to write about based on what they deem newsworthy. This is greatly contingent on their readership base and the need to be profitable. This is a bit of a crossover with the rfc I started below, that RS wording is often charged and dramatic. We, as editors have the burden of both judging which facts are important, and carefully selecting the best way to convey these facts in a more encyclopedic tone. Amorals (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Those two links, both the publications and their "findings", negate the view you are trying to defend. Try starting with our WP article Media bias in the United States to get a survey of the matter that concerns you. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, you said “can it possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as being beneficial for the American people, for Trump to have downplayed the epidemic?” You also said “Delay equals exacerbation in terms of the spread of this disease. There are direct relationships between the factors involved. I'm not a scientist but a key point in social distancing vis-à-vis this virus is that one person on average infects two more people.” “Delay equals exacerbation”. Your words. Not my words. And yet you are now demanding why **I** have said that Trump has responsibility for the sicknesses and deaths of Americans - something I have never said, but you have, over and over. You are demanding that **I** say how many deaths are attributable to Trump’s delay when I have never said that either. I am sick of you putting words into my mouth. All the talk here about how Trump is responsible for additional deaths has come entirely from YOU. NOT ME. YOU. Here is the indisputable fact, widely reported by sources on all sides of the political divide: Trump said, over and over, for the better part of two months, that the virus was under control, would not be a problem, would go away. That’s what we are reporting. That’s all. For people to say that this is the same as saying “Trump killed people” is a ridiculous exaggeration, never made by any of the people who want to include this, only (and irrationally) made by people who think this mustn’t be included because, well, someone might think we were accusing him. I am done here. I am done repeating myself and trying to respond civilly to ridiculous rhetorical questions. Here’s my bottom line: We need to say that he initially downplayed the virus threat and resisted taking any action against it. No implications, no conclusion, just the indisputable fact. And then two paragraphs about what he DID do to combat it. Exactly what is already in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, fair concern has been shown. I’m sure no one wants to upset you. Trump downplaying the virus repeatedly is an “indisputable fact” as you say. 100% true. However, we cannot include something in the lead merely because “it’s a fact”, it has to rise to a high level of importance. Until we can verify its importance, it should remain in the body. Simple as that. You repeating over and over again that it’s a fact that’s been widely reported does not mean it’s necessarily a lead-worthy fact Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

Specifico—you also say "it's not going to advance whatever view you think needs to be understood". I am not promoting a view that should be understood. I am opposing a view that others are arguing for inclusion in the lede. It is a view that Trump downplayed the seriousness of the viral epidemic. But that view is little more than partisan carping without any articulated repercussions. Has anyone said Trump's indecisiveness resulted in the loss of lives that had he acted sooner would have been spared? No source is saying that a quantifiable loss of life resulted from any delay attributable to Trump. A president of the United States is not going to act like the Communist Party of China and initiate a lockdown of a city as took place in Wuhan. ("Wuhan and other Hubei cities were placed under lockdown for nearly three months to contain the disease.") It is because of this that a president of the United States is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. There is no way that entirely predictable carping should find its way into the lede of an article. That Trump supposedly "downplayed" the seriousness of the threat is just political carping. Until sources say that an estimated number of deaths are blamed on Trump we should not be implying that anyone was harmed by his response to the threat. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think my post regarding sources indicating a left-lean for certain publications was adverse to my point at all. The wiki page on media bias even states that the vast plurality of journalists are registered Democrats. Common sense tells us that this affects what facts they deem are newsworthy and what wording to use when they present these facts. The writers are human after all. The argument for inclusion is hollow, simply that we should include the comments by repeating that it was "widely reported" and it's factual. If we didn't take caution to evaluate what facts were most important in RS, there would almost be no purpose for what we do. We might as well get a job working for these RS publications. Amorals (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

So we who are without bias should correct for the bias of reliable sources. Completely untenable proposition. No thanks, given a choice between the biases of educated and trained journalists and the biases of a group of Joe Schmos off the street, I'll take the former. That's also the basis of Wikipedia policy, if that means anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the burden is on those wishing to include this insinuation to explain why it is important enough for the lede. Is it perhaps because good quality sources have said that many lives could have been saved had Trump acted earlier? And especially, have any such good quality sources quantified the supposed loss of life that they feel is attributable to Trump's supposed slowness to take this epidemic very seriously? Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss I never said correct for bias of RS please don't put words in my mouth. Our job is never to correct but more to filter by evaluating what facts are most important, and if needed formulate a more encyclopedic wording to reflect these facts. Basis of wikipedia policy is not to merely indiscriminately regurgitate everything that's present in RS, without evaluation Amorals (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss did no such thing. He was trying to add his voice to the other editors' comments on NPOV. But if you wish to filter, it vitiated your argument to cite two of the weakest possible sources and web pages you could have found. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Any "filtering" we did would be highly influenced by our own bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we don't already do that far too much, on both sides of the Trump political divide. But the existence of bad stuff never justifies more bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Well, at least Bsubprimes agrees that Trump downplaying the virus is an indisputable fact. That’s progress. But (as you repeat over and over) it isn’t important enough to include in the lead until reliable sources say it caused a certain number of deaths? Because otherwise it wasn’t “of consequence”? Please apply that criterion to every other action of Trump’s that is in the lead. Then post a thread requesting that the entire lead be deleted, because it consists entirely of actions that cannot be shown to be important enough to have either saved or cost people’s lives. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The importance need not only be based on saving or costing lives. MelanieN, according to your comparison of other things in Trump’s lead, there’s economic implications, (tax cut), cultural (travel ban), environmental (Paris accord) diplomatic (Iran nuclear deal), etc. As of right now, we can’t determine if his comments rise beyond just making Trump sound ignorant and out of touch with the medical facts. Not lead worthy until we get more infoBsubprime7 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

Yes, those things have implications. However, the actual result of something like the tax cut or pulling out of the Paris accord or the nuclear deal is not yet established. We include them in the lead anyhow. His actions on the virus have public health implications. But we can't mention his actions with regard to the virus in the lead until history has determined the outcome? Then please remove the tax cut, the Paris accord, and the nuclear deal. History has not yet determined their outcome either. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. re "making Trump sound ignorant and out of touch with the medical facts": Your words, not mine. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Fauci -- lives were lost due to delay in mitigation efforts

I mean, obviously you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives,” Fauci told CNN this morning. “Obviously, no one is going to deny that. But what goes into those kinds of decision is complicated. But you’re right, I mean obviously, if we had right from the very beginning shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

Ironic he says "nobody's going to deny that". OMG. Please read the entire article at the link to get context and detail. SPECIFICO talk

MelanieN yes we do know a lot more about the tax cut and Paris accord and other things in the lead than this. We already know the tax cut assisted corporations and affected healthcare by repealing the individual mandate. And we know withdrawal from the Paris accord has decreased the standards we hold ourselves to on climate change. No RS have shown us this level of concrete information regarding the implication of Trump’s comments Bsubprime7 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)(Account blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

Dr. Fauci's comments are 100% valid, but even with them we can't draw a clear link between Trump's public comments and the actual mitigation efforts. Sure if we started mitigation sooner, hell 6 months ago, we could have saved lives and yes there is no denial in trying to play a Monday morning quarterback when you look back now with more perspective. But the point in question in this thread however, is the level of importance of Trump's comments at time Amorals (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

President Trump retweeted a tweet demanding that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, be fired from his post.[11] I'm not suggesting we say anything about lives lost. But, eventually I imagine it will be added. O3000 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN—"the tax cut or pulling out of the Paris accord or the nuclear deal" are calculated and deliberate decisions whereas downplaying the threat is a characterization. This is in response to "Yes, those things have implications. However, the actual result of something like the tax cut or pulling out of the Paris accord or the nuclear deal is not yet established." I think we are concerned with whether something is factual or not. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Downplaying the threat may be one of the most important decisions of his life. And of course it was calculated and deliberate. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You are saying that "of course it was calculated and deliberate". What makes you believe that? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm giving him credit for not flipping a coin. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There can no longer be any doubt about Trump delaying or downplaying the risks of this. Here are two survey articles, “landmark pieces of journalism”, “the real time Pentagon Papers of this administration’s pandemic disaster,” that thoroughly document Trump’s delaying actions.

• Washington Post, April 4: “The failure has echoes of the period leading up to 9/11: Warnings were sounded, including at the highest levels of government, but the president was deaf to them until the enemy had already struck.” “it took 70 days from that initial notification for Trump to treat the coronavirus not as a distant threat or harmless flu strain well under control, but as a lethal force that had outflanked America’s defenses and was poised to kill tens of thousands of citizens. That more-than-two-month stretch now stands as critical time that was squandered.” [12]
• New York Times, April 11: “Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action.” [13] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Close requested at WP:ANRFC Mgasparin (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Abort

Can we all agree this RfC should be aborted? It's a mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the easiest way for it to be aborted is that OP returns and return and withdraw it. If it's allowed to continue, it will only be followed immediately by another one and two months time and attention will have been wasted. This one doesn't reflect the talk page discussion as of the time it was created, and additional RS reporting over the past few days has clarified the underlying content issue considerably. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus hasn’t been reached for inclusion, and talks have stalled so this should be aborted and perhaps a new one started at some point. For now, saying nothing about Coronavirus in the lead seems appropriate until we have more information. Bsubprime7 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying nothing (option 1) has not achieved consensus. In fact the vast majority of commenters here believe it should be in the lead in some form. And while it may not be a proper RfC, the vast amount of commentary here should not just be flushed. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep going. To respect RFC, it should be at least given more than a couple days for input to show up. Thus far I’ve seen people object the body did not mention trillions in stimulus, but that does not block other choices and was an interesting point for other edits that emerged. See what else comes or doesn’t... by letting it go on. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions the stimulus bill prominently. It just doesn't say the word "trillions". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, abort and restart per my reasoning here. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort - This is so clearly a mess. I can't even tell if these are different votes going on or if my "abort" vote here is different from my "abort" vote in the section above. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: You seem to have returned to editing here without responding to the calls to abort this RfC. We have plenty of opinions, but to spare some unsuspecting closer the effort, I suggest you at least undo the RfC format and let this die a natural death. The issue will be resolved in due time based on reasonably full and stable article conetent. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Early motions to abort this RfC were due to a feeling that the matter could have been settled by normal discussion, but I asserted that ordinary discussion was going downhill, and opened this RfC to get a feel for the possibility of agreeing on a general approach to the subject matter. Later calls to abort were in substance similar to proposal 1, "say nothing for now". I do not see a point in withdrawing the RfC at this late stage: there is no harm done to the article, as long as the silent status quo is maintained, and comments from uninvolved editors who will be called by RfC bots may still enrich the discussion. — JFG ^talk 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Read it again. They were based on a poorly formed set of choices, too many choices, strange language about not to take the choices literally, etc. It was just poorly formatted and destined -- as time has shown -- to be unproductive. Sound and fury signifying nothing, as they say. Carry on. It'll just waste a closer's time and all be ignored due to subsequent events. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC: First sentence

Should we change the intro of this article to bring it in line with the other US presidents bio intro?

• ...is the 45th and current president of the United States, since 2017.

Do we need linking to Presidency of Donald Trump? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: First sentence

• Abort on the basis this RfC has not been created properly. Per WP:RFCST, it should be a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." Instead, GoodDay has told us what should change and told us what we shouldn't have. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - RfC question has been rephrased. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. I've rephrased it into a 'question'. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per the discussion further up. Since he is currently president, this is a different situation than former presidents. I also think it's just more useful to link to his presidency rather than the general concept. -- Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As documented at #Current consensus item 17, the first sentence has been thoroughly flogged in recent years, with the last revisitation only two weeks ago. I think it's good enough. The main rationale given for this proposed change is conformity between presidents' BLPs, and there is nothing found in PAGs or other community consensus indicating that as a goal. I oppose that cookie-cutter approach, as it appears to serve a tiny minority of editors far more than it serves readers. No reader is going to be thrown for a loop if this article's first sentence has a different structure than those of other presidents' articles – if they even notice the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but I oppose on the basis we have a consensus for the existing text and I see no reason why we cannot have its slightly differing language approach for the current officeholder. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - As we don't link to Presidency of... articles in the other aforementioned bios. Also, we show the years of service in the others. Like any hard-copy encyclopedia, we should have consistency in a series of bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, but this is not a hard-copy encyclopedia. We can, you know, edit stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  "We should do x" is a completely empty argument without the "why" we should do x. I'd be interested to know "why" it's really important to be like hard-copy encyclopedias in this way, when in many other ways we are happy (or proud) to be different. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  We can't accept sloppiness in the intro, which is what we now have. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've just looked again, and I see no sloppiness. Are you sure you're at the right article? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Are you sure you're at the right article? Quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Yes the intro should include President of the United States as what was consensus #17. The April 2020 discussion was *not* a consensus to eliminate the commonly included POTUS link, it was asking about potential alternative techniques to add a link and TALK mentioned to keep the POTUS. There was not an RFC or stated question to drop POTUS, so that should still be present as the explicit consensusifying. There wasn’t technically even an explicit ask to change consensus and add a link - it was just asking for potential means, and a later proposal might have been done. Perhaps “...is the 45th and current President of the United States, since 2017.“ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Among the other stated reasons, see MOS:CURRENTLY, which discourages the use of that word. – Muboshgu (talk)`

  "Except on pages updated regularly". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I still feel its good practice to keep it out of pages that are updated regularly, but it seems consensus is not with me on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above as well as per the consensus to have the current text. –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to have the current intro. This RFC is what will determine which version gets a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there absolutely was a consensus. We all discussed it in your absence and agreed to the change. An RfC is only necessary in a deadlocked discussion, which was not the case. This RfC is your attempt to overturn an existing consensus because you weren't happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A tiny number of editors changing a long-kept version, after a few days of discussion? No consensus there. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The change was not made by a tiny number of editors. Most or all of the editors who participate on this page saw the change, saw the discussion, and chose not to object to the change on the basis of the discussion. Many did not participate in the discussion, but nevertheless contributed to the consensus by their silence. The consensus list entry #17 was updated without objection. You were not here to participate in the discussion, nor around to object to the change on this basis of it, and you can't drop in ten days after a change and cry "no consensus". This concept has been reaffirmed many times at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but don't confuse that with having equally valid positions. No one can force you to respond to reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you unhatted your personal comment eroniously citing TPG.[14] Sorry but no it is commenting on the contributor and not on their content and should be hatted as off-topic personal commentary. Stuff like No one can force you to respond to reason are not helpful and if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop making them. Quit badgering people that disagree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, PackMecEng, but your comment is way out of line. So far, your only contributions to this thread have been to criticize Mandruss, so maybe you need to heed your own advice. GoodDay missed the consensus party and is now abusing the RfC process (which is really only meant for deadlocked discussion) to try to overturn the will of the editors who participated in the original discussion. Mandruss is right to point that out, and GoodDay's refusal to accept the normal Wikipedia process here is the troubling aspect of all this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We have been having a discussion about it on my talk page, you are welcome to stop by. I do not plan on continuing here unless asked to. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support The starting year of his presidency is an important piece of information that should be in the lede, but currently it is not even mentioned there. Given that other presidential articles have term years in the first sentence, then I don't understand why the present article doesn't have it. The infobox has this information, but per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". The starting year of Trump's presidency should be added to the first sentence and it would be of use to the reader who probably, like me, wonders when did Trump start his presidency. Thinker78 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As we write for an international audience, better we link to the page that discusses what a US President is rather than just to the one about this President.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The link was discussed (see consensus #17) and the agreement was to change it to the "Presidency of Donald Trump" page. Also, point of grammar, "since" requires the use of present perfect, i.e., "has been." tempted, but nah Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose/Abort per current consensus item 17. This matter was recently discussed and satisfactorily resolved, and it is irresponsible to have an RfC that does not link to the extremely relevant context of the prior discussion in the opening statement. Nothing has changed in the past month that would require revisiting this so soon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Was not resolved at all. A tiny number of editors decided to change #17 among themselves & after only a few days. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: First sentence

• Seems an oops. The April discussion asked about possible ways to add, not about removal. There wasn’t even an agreement *to* add, it just was asking for methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: For this RfC to have any validity, you need to at least refactor to link to the April discussion in the question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can link to that 'short discussion' if you like. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Weird change.

Is this vandalism?[15] FollowTheSources (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was vandalism. I have reverted this change. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Personal image" subsection; change to Consensus item 39

I had attempted to add this subsection:

Personal image

Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion. Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" and is a "very stable genius". A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans would describe Trump as "self-centered".

Sources

While this would be a change to Consensus item 39, "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health", I do not think it goes against the rationale of the relevant RfC close discussion, because this section does not describe Trump's mental health itself (besides Trump's self-description as "very stable"), it merely informs the reader of this very noteworthy story about his public image. There is no "armchair diagnosis", and per WP:WEIGHT "we should include a paragraph just because of the sheer volume of coverage." We could also include more about his personal image similar to George W. Bush#Cultural and political image. Thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Removed last sentence from proposal as UNDUE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:D153:56BA:8530:2D8F (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we would need another RfC to overturn Consensus item 39. Most of the material you are proposing was rejected then. I don't think this would add anything to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yuck, this 'mental health' again. Dubious to try in this area, it's not exactly a BLP event or choice, but certainly not this proposal. This one doesn't have the prominence of the earlier items that have been ruled out, and if we're not allowing "mental status" section of armchair diagnosis from professionals why would we seek it from non-professionals ? Just to be clear in WP terms, this appears to be an WP:OR assemblage of stuff, which isn't a coherent set of parts and is WP:UNDUE as given -- as in I'm not seeing the poll shown to have much relative WP:WEIGHT. And not a valid psychological opinion per WP:MEDRS or WP:PSCI. Look, if you want to discuss personality, you're going to have to keep it limited to conveying the POVs about it positive ones too, and also not wander into manufactured things or terms like "mental status". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that the poll would be UNDUE without also adding positive perceptions of his personality (which I suggested by referencing George W. above). However, I feel the rest is due. "Mental status" is the term used in the first reference, the APA news source which was discussing the Goldwater rule as the country was first getting "swept up in media speculation about the mental status of" Trump.[16] The APA news used "mental status" again a year later reporting that "psychiatrists have publicly offered their views on the mental status of the 45th president."[17] The opinions themselves are not being discussed in my proposed version, just the fact is that this is a huge story about Trump's image. Notice that this is all I'm suggesting we say about the story itself: "Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of this version is the last information we had in the article about Trump's mental health. This information is materially different than what I am suggesting. There we had actual diagnoses listed. My proposal merely acknowledges that this noteworthy story exists. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We could also add something about his personal image as the "embodiment of achievement",[18] only with a higher-tier and more positive RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He also has a reputation as a "straight shooter" not worried about political correctness.[19]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, RE: personal image: if you propose to add a few cherry-picked opinions like “achiever” and “straight shooter”, why not a few more generally held opinions like “bully”[20] [21] [22] or “childish” [23][24] ? Trying to characterize his personality under the title of “personal image” is simply not going to be possible. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, I don't appreciate your attitude. I'm sure if we are professional we can summarize his public persona. Yes, "bully" and "childish" are popular descriptions of his perceived personality. Those words help as a starting off point for brainstorming. Those words are judgmental versions of other descriptions, such as "lacking emotional intelligence", "uninformed", "aggressive", or the example from the Pew poll, "self-centered". But, "the embodiment of success" is the public image many sources have said he has successfully cultivated for himself. Sources also described his appeal to voters as someone who "tells it like it is". We don't censor the encyclopedia because topics are difficult. I'm sure we can address everyone's concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, you participated in the relevant RfC; what are your thoughts on these changes to address what had been previously opposed?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I am not in favor of including anything about Trump's mental state whatsoever. Even high quality sources that discuss the matter are based mostly on speculation and armchair diagnoses, and it just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this addition, for two reasons. One, I still oppose writing anything about his supposed mental state (I have my own opinion on the subject, but IMO none of that kind of speculation belongs here). I don't believe we've ever done that for other presidents. Even when there is a whole article, like Public image of George W. Bush, we talk about his intelligence but not his mental health. Basically, I reaffirm the consensus statement as it stands. Two, it really adds nothing to his biography to say "there has been discussion about his temperament and mental status" and "this is what he says about himself". Thank you for striking the public opinion poll. If we're not allowing analyses from mental health professionals, we should certainly not post the results of popular polls. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, I'm hearing what sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. Please cite policy reasons for your opposition; the policies cited in the RfC close are not violated with this text. The relevant policy here is WP:NFRINGE. "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines", or for a topic within an article, WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Similar information is included about Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign article: "Despite this letter [from her physician], rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories."[25] And as for the poll, that was not an "analysis" of Trump's mental health; it was a public opinion poll about his personality and temperament, i.e., his public image. I did not remove it because it did not represent the opinions of experts; I removed it because including that opinion alone created a WP:BLPBALANCE problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't throw around cheap accusations like WP:JDL. Reaffirming consensus is not JDL. If you want more policy reasons, just ask. I oppose it because 1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to talk, or speculate, or report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence. BLP overrules FRINGE by a mile. And 2) we don't do this for other people even when there has been public speculation. I already cited GW Bush, where there is an entire article about his public image but does not say anything about his mental health. For an example on the other side of the political spectrum, look at Joe Biden; there have been many attempts to claim that he is "losing it" but they are not mentioned in the article. Some of us have worked to keep them out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, please be civil. Like I said, I don't feel your arguments are policy-based; that is my understanding of WP:JDL, but I could be wrong. It is not a violation of BLP because we would only "report that other people are speculating" about someone's mental health with evidence that they are in fact speculating. 2) sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but George Bush is not a comparator here; as far as I know his mental health has not received coverage in RS. I referenced George Bush only to show an example of a "Personal image" subsection. Obama's image section is less personal: Barack Obama#Cultural and political image Joe Biden is also WP:OTHER, and obviously the weight is quite different here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You asked for my policy based reasons. I gave them. You disagree. You apparently either think citing BLP is not a policy based reason, or that BLP doesn't apply to what you are proposing to do. I think it does. So let's move on and see what other people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, does my proposed text above avoid the policy problems discussed in your RfC close? Note the sourcing published by the APA itself. I wonder if we were to consider the hypothetical of a notable individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness, what would Wikipedia do in that situation? My thought is that we would not try to inform readers about his mental health itself; we would inform readers about this aspect of his life story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the very first source in the proposed addition focuses on the Goldwater rule (which was the subject of extensive debate last time), I find little substantial difference between this version and previous versions. Speculating on a person's mental health is a BLP issue. If folks wish to hold another RfC, they are free to, as consensus can change. Still, I think without new and better sources, it would only be an attempt to re-litigate. As I said in my close I think there could be some carefully worded addition at some point in the future. I don't think this addition is carefully worded enough, and I think it doesn't provide DUE weight. I think a more solid version should be work-shopped prior to any new RfC. Such a version probably needs to be paragraph length, and summarize a good dozen or two sources. However, my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here. My close was merely a summary of the arguments presented at the RfC, and reflected a very, very difficult discussion. Most importantly: my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I am trying to understand your interpretation. The RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule seems to center on whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use medical opinions from professionals who violate their own professional standards. The APA obviously is not violating the Goldwater rule by reporting that the media is discussing Trump's mental status, so this addresses the concerns raised in the RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule. The previous version was meant to inform about his mental health itself, and it included diagnoses. I am not proposing we say anything like, "according to Dr. Bandy Lee, Trump is dangerous". I am proposing that we either say something about his public image or we say something about this ongoing media event in his life. We may have a dozen or more sources between the Vox video and WaPo meta-stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The last version focused on issues of direct speculation, but the overall conversation was about whether or not to mention it at all. My close and reading of consensus was on a basis of no inclusion whatsoever. However, I'm not against a new RfC to see about inserting this paragraph. I just think it currently goes against the last RfC, and thus would need support for inclusion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How come is there no mention of Trump's Mafia connections & friendship with Roy Cohn?

Why and how is there no mention of one of Donald Trump's most influential and important associates, the Mafia lawyer, Roy Cohn, in this article about a New York metropolitan area real estate and Atlantic City Casino developer? Is this article written by acolytes of Donald Trump? Why would such a large omission be permitted by the reigning editors of Wikipedia that control this article? While there is superficial information on some of Trump's casino activities, there is no mention, at all, of this well-publicized connection with Roy Cohn, and his current methodologies that Cohn taught to Trump that have emerged as characteristic traits of Trump's behavior and his business and political strategies... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured this article is not written by the Donald's acolytes, but rather by rampant anti-Trumpers. Cohn acted for Trump, and for Mafiosi, and he also prosecuted the Rosenbergs and worked with McCarthy. Lawyers act in many roles and shouldn't be tarnished by guilt by association. This article is already overblown and can't mention every association Trump has had in his long and varied career. There is shamefully little here about wrestling and beauty pageants. Cohn and the Mafia are already mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump and there is more information about Trump's casinos in Business career of Donald Trump. If you have more well-sourced information please add it where appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured this article is not written by the Donald's acolytes, but rather by rampant anti-Trumpers. Give it a rest, Jack. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"This is but one in a long list of stupid things Trump does (or at least says) daily." - Scjessey, 2020. I'd say Jack has his merits. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: Jack cast aspersions on fellow editors, which is against policy. I simply stated the obvious, which is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Jack, take your foot off the gas pedal. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jack Upland Cohn isn't really relevant as BLP. But it's a a bit off the thread to mention that the article is biased -- yes, it is strongly biased, mostly written by critics, and heavily based on sources that are critics. But those are NPOV and RSN concerns, and ... really I don't think there is a good venue to address it, but this thread is just an example of the material and not a means for solving it all. A separate thread to discuss POV or bias might be suitable, but that seems to just evoke heated denialism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you just advised Jack that it's pointless to discuss article bias in this thread and then proceeded to do just that. You could have said the same thing at User talk:Jack Upland. Give it a rest, Mark. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss more precisely, I think I said three separate items -- perhaps you can add something relevant to the thread, or recommend an approach for the bias concern.

(a) Cohn isn't BLP relevant;

(b) Bias is off this thread's topic, although I do agree bias exists and the thread topic is an example of it; and

(c) Bias and POV could more properly be a separate thread topic, but I don't really think that works or have any good approach.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett and Jack Upland, focus on content, not on editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu think I just did that - (a) Cohn isn't BLP relevant content; and (b) re a general content bias concern - agreed but while this thread may be an example of it, that isn't the thread topic -- and I had no great redirect. Muboshgu, if you have a good means of detection and addressing of bias, redirect Jack as needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, you need a redirect too. Anything else you say gets lost when you say the article is biased -- yes, it is strongly biased, mostly written by critics, and heavily based on sources that are critics, demeaning all of the regular editors of this page without bringing up a single instance of bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu This still is not the thread for that, and since you didn’t mention any suggestions for the requested means of measuring article bias and addressing same, then we’re still without a redirect for Jack. Ta ! Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the talk page is where article improvement should be discussed, I decided to look for some sources connecting Cohn and Trump. There may be some things that can be added, neutrally of course.[26][27][28][29][30] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I was merely replying informatively to the OP. Neutrality is always relevant. I don't understand what the fuss is about.Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Should Trump's ingestion of hydroxychloroquine be added?

I mean, Trump's an overweight (or "morbidly obese", to put it in Pelosi's words), old person with a history of heart disease. His ingestion of hydroxychloroquine is pretty significant, isn't it? Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not in this article, which is a one-page account of an entire life. Maybe in one or more of the pandemic articles. I note that this article says nothing resembling Trump's an overweight (or "morbidly obese", to put it in Pelosi's words), old person with a history of heart disease – nor should it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not yet, little here but trivia and a mess - thanks for asking, but give things like this a 48-hour holding period to let more facts or WEIGHT emerge and often they just blow over. Ignore that Pelosi falsely stated "morbidly obese" as that just isn't important. Do not get into the mess of details over anecdotal or studies of Hydroxychloroquinine and Zinc, as that's just not BLP material. There seems just a little tidbit in all this, if anything, for BLP. That Trump has consulted with the White House doctor and has been recently been taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as preventive measures seems a bit relevant to BLP - as it is a personal choice and is getting mentioned in press such as Daily Mail, The Hill and Daily Telegraph. But give it a day or three for things to become clearer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

At this point, we don't even know if he didn't just make it up on the spot. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is but one in a long list of stupid things Trump does (or at least says) daily. We can't cover it all, and I am not in favor of covering this one. Obviously that will change if it kills him. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist

Is this sentence actually WP:DUE for the lead? The body yes, but the lead?? If it is to remain in the lead it would seem that it should at least be re-worded to "Some of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist". This would more accurately reflect the sources. Also, of all the crap Trump says only a miniscule percentage could actually be characterized as racial/racist so to have wording like "many" makes no sense, especially for the lead. Hoekwind (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It just means that "Trump has made many comments and taken many actions which have been characterized as...". But that's wordy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 30 and the discussions linked there. Not linked there are the discussions that failed to reach a consensus to modify that consensus. This issue has received enough attention and there is no reason to revisit it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Co-founder of Wikipedia says Wikipedia is biased because of this article and Obama article

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

---

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics . I think this is notable and belongs to this article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In the article, clearly not. WP:RECENT/WP:PROPORTION etc. In another article, like Larry Sanger, maybe. This is probably the "highest" coverage he's had in awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It's about Wikipedia, not Donald Trump's life (this article's subject). Are you suggesting we add something about this to articles about Obama and "Hillary Clinton, abortion, drug legalization, religion and LGBT adoption" as well? I hope not. If anything, you should be at Talk:Wikipedia having a discussion about possible new content there. On the inclusion side of the WEIGHT discussion would be the fact that Sanger is a co-founder and is already fairly prominent in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not - Sanger's opinion is not relevant to this article, or frankly another article, except perhaps his own. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 22 May 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.