Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: North Korea in the lead

Current consensus

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. 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)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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 (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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 (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Chinese virus"

Resolved

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

I would like to add the following to the article:

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

Now that WHO has told him not to say that [1] - and he has doubled down - it may have developed enough WEIGHT for the Presidency article, if not for this one. I don't think it should be added to this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's worth noting that someone "crossed out the word “Corona” in coronavirus and replaced it with the word “Chinese.”".[2] - MrX 🖋 21:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That opinion article has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Nowhere does it mention that Trump renamed the virus "Chinese virus" or "China virus". The article also doesn't say anything about "Chinese Communist Party propaganda spin". I know you wouldn't just make stuff up, so would it be safe to say that you are consuming information from sources like Chanel Rion?[3][4] Just be aware that COVID-19 is under community discretionary sanctions and there is very low tolerance in general for the willful spreading of bullshit on Wikipedia while we deal with misinformation in the middle of a pandemic. - MrX 🖋 11:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back on track

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Unresolved ?

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

Objections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reset

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: Related term also used is "Wuhan virus", see Talk:China–United States relations § SARS-2, add?. X1\ (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Time to revisit North Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: North Korea in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name of high school in the lead

User:Scribatorian added the name of Trump’s high school to the second paragraph of the lead.[5] I reverted it saying Reverting good faith edit. Any change to the lead section needs to be discussed at the talk page first.[6] But I have since been told that is not actually a rule or consensus here. Is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we please use the word "lead" and not "lede" since they are different? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

SARS-2 response appropriate mentality, add?

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

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

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

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

It was a building crisis unlike Trump had previously faced.

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

References

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

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

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

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

Russian interference

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

1a)

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

1b)

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

Deletion:

2a) None

2b)

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

Long-standing version:

3a Investigations)

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

3b Russian interference)

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

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

Note: the two "3" items (3a & 3b) are from (long-standing) just before my edits, i.e 23:48, 25 March 2020. X1\ (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Basically should the Donald_Trump#Investigations section have

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

and

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

Or should it just have

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

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

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

Example previous (arbitrary 1500 edits, 22:07, 10 October 2019‎) previously;

4a)

Further information: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017, 2018 and 2019)

4b)

Main articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Foreign electoral intervention

Again, note: old Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was long ago SPLIT into two, due to size; resulting in shrunken Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (up to July 2016 date) and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day) (from the same older article).

And also note: 2017, 2018, and 2019 Timeline wp articles were either SPLIT (2017 & 2018) or grew and renamed (2019 to 2019–2020).

They are all the same articles, they just grew in size.

a) Since 4 January 2019

b) Since 20 December 2017

X1\ (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - yes, the Investigations / Russian Interference hatnotes also look overly large - it runs to 4 lines for 16 lines of text in 3 paras. (And the third para of 5 lines isn't even about investigation of Russians, it's just a diversion about CrowdStrike.) See what others think, but I think WP:HATNOTE is best served by just ONE link to the main article for the topic, as that already has further links to timeline details. Don't see a need to elevate those links to this article en masse, and they're really not that understandable without going thru the main article. So for here, I think better choice is as follows

3b (shorter) Russian interference

Main article: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your description of 3b is incorrect. It wasn't a choice option for debate on change it is the description of the long-standing (i.e. before my recent edits). I have added a note under 3a/b here. X1\ (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

My recent edit was an addition of 358 characters out of an article that is currently 390,152 bytes: Less than trivial for such an epic and historic topic in American history.

For what is visible to the wp:Reader;

to the Investigations section, it is addition of the words "transition" (since the article SPLIT due to size), "January–June 2017" & " July–December 2017" (from just "2017"; and I'd be okay with an extreme shortening to "1H17" & "2H17" respectively), and "2019–2020" (from just "2019"),

and for the Russian interference section, it is the addition of the wikilink Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), since the article SPLIT due to size. These two can be piped to become Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections before July 2016, and July 2016–election day, or something similarly concise.

... so your description above does not match the actual edit. X1\ (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)‎

Reverted Investigations hatnote sprawl

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

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

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

Continue at main thread #Russian interference, just above. X1\ (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• This was discussed at the US politics project and it was found they should be replaced. You thene followed me around to everywhere I implemented this consensus and reverted with a misleading edit summary. Why? PackMecEng (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• @X1\: bad ping PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• This was discussed, up until very recent edits, ending 19:37, 23 February 2020 (my edit), and that was not what was found.
• Your description of You thene followed me around to everywhere is chronologically incorrect, thus entirely inaccurate. I made correction/updates to the Timeline wikilinks on various wp articles, then you (stalking?) either reverted my edits or deleted all the Timeline wikilinks (including long-standing items).
• Again, this thread section created by u:Markbassett is directly connected to the original thread; so, continue at main thread #Russian interference, just above.
• I don't know what your @X1\: bad ping PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC) means. X1\ (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"President T" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect President T. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Donald TRUMP" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald TRUMP. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)