Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: North Korea in the lead
• #RfC: Coronavirus in the lead
• #RfC on rewording of Conronavirus Body

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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) (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. (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)

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
• 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)

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)

Mention of coronavirus in lead, take 2

Three weeks ago, I proposed something along the lines of "Trump was also present during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak" in the lead. The discussion was archived before we really resolved anything, though it seems clear that the coronavirus' impact on the United States is very clear. There is now information about Trump's response about coronavirus pandemic in the body. pbp 04:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 For reference, this is in archive 113 Mention of coronavirus in lead. Seems a reasonably short neutral line to add, presumably as the end to the third paragraph. Go for it, caveat expecting many edits to body and lead to follow. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Support coronavirus in the lead: Purplebackpack89, Markbassett. Oppose coronavirus in the lead: Chaheel Riens, Mandruss, Jack Upland. Markbassett's advice to Go for it is bad advice, Purplebackpack89's editsum "consensus on TP to add this" is false, and I've reverted the addition. Lead or otherwise, do not add disputed content to this article without consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

When I made the edit, no one had opposed the edit in the current discussion; you are referencing a discussion that is weeks old. Since then, a lot of coronavirus-related policy has occurred. Also, some of the opposition in the (now-irrelevant) previous discussion came from the lack of a mention of coronavirus in the body of the article; it has been added to the body of the article since then. Can you give a valid reason why, NOW, that a sentence that innocuous shouldn't be in the article? Because, there is no good reason. pbp 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your argument about the staleness of the previous discussion may have some merit, but that's decided by consensus, not by you unilaterally, or even by you and Markbassett bilaterally. I would like to see more participation in this thread; absent that, the existing non-consensus is what we have to live with, like it or not. The default for any new content is to omit it. There is no deadline, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and there is no urgency to publish NOW. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't given an ACTUAL REASON why YOU still believe it DOESN'T belong. You're just needlessly stonewalling to preserve an out-of-date and incorrect decision that you haven't explained why you still agree with. pbp 19:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My "actual reason" is stated in the previous discussion and is unchanged. That I haven't explained is patently and objectively false. I am not required to convince you that it's a good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This should be added at some point. At this point, a brief addition wouldn't tell the reader anything they didn't already know. That is, it would be a waste of space in an article with space problems. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Why "at some point"? Why not now? Also, I think that that argument is inherently weak. Just because we rambled on about other topics (topics that are pretty clearly of less importance than the coronavirus) shouldn't prohibit us from mentioning a very important topic with a single sentence in the lead. pbp 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

At some point because we will then have a better idea of what effect it has on his life compared to other events. O3000 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty damn clear right now that this is one of the seminal occurrances of his presidency, and if there's only room for a half-dozen aspects of his presidency to be mentioned in the lead, this should be one of them. If it's not, then I'm not sure anything is, and why even bother writing about his presidency all right now? Also, if it turns out not to be (which I consider very unlikely) at said point in the future, we can always go back then and revise it. pbp 20:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To review Mandruss' reasons for opposing were a) that it shouldn't be in the lead because it wasn't mentioned in the body (which is invalid because now it is), and b) that you thought there was too much about his presidency in the lead, which wasn't (and isn't) a good argument because it doesn't specifically address this verbiage only. Is a major public health crisis that's shut down the entire country for several weeks and necessitated dozens of press briefings and actions by the President just not important enough for the lead? You could easily propose shortening the lead (or the body) by cutting something else; there are a half-dozen things in the lead that are of less importance than the coronavirus. pbp 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of saying, as suggested, that "Trump was also present during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak". That says absolutely nothing about what he did in response to the outbreak. In February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic reached massive worldwide proportions, and Trump "was also present" because he happened to be president at that time, so what? Merkel was also present, Trudeau was also present, Putin was also present, and Macron was also present. If there is something special to say about Trump regarding the pandemic, then go ahead and suggest it. Personally I feel that all world leaders were kind of caught by surprise and each took more or less drastic action when their country got seriously threatened. Apart from the usual partisan bickering and the staggering size of the economic stimulus package (mostly due to the staggering size of the US economy and the precariousness of its workforce, not specific to Trump's philosophy despite the spin), I don't see anything special about Trump's response. Specifics of the pandemic in the USA have a dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 01:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I see an enormous amount to see and say about Trump's response (or non-response), such as it is. In particular in contrast to US leadership in past world problems. I just think it's premature to add to an encyclopedic bio. Let the scholars sort it out. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: There's a lot to say about Trump and the pandemic, but most of it should be said in places other than the lead. pbp 02:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only stonewaller in this. </sarcasm> Purplebackpack89, your non-apology is accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

O3000, it has already been added to the body, with a relatively long dedicated section. Is your comment meant to be specific to the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, as per the section title. O3000 (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be in the lead, but "was present" is so meaningless it might as well be left out. How about something like "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." Feel free to tweak this, but something along these lines seems called for. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, this sentence merely states that the pandemic happened while Trump was president, and says nothing about him or his administration's response. You could replace Trump's name with that of any world leader and the sentence would be the same. The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Emmanuel Macron's fourth year in office, and its spread in France became the major focus of his attention during that year. Useless. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I ask, isn't a more detailed explanation more appropriate in the body of this article or in another article? pbp 03:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Did I say "present" at top? I meant presIDent pbp 02:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  LOL — JFG ^talk 02:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a sizable section in the article, and it has dominated the news (and Trump's words and actions) for at least the last month. We need to have SOMETHING in the lead. But the section is so detailed, action by action, word by word, that I don't see any way to summarize it in a sentence except the way I suggested. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This article should focus more on Trump's biography not the coronavirus. The coronavirus might be appropriate in the article about the presidency of Donald Trump but not this one. Coronavirus didn't have an impact on Trump's overall biography.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The section needs to be trimmed of the log-like detail, and instead should summarize the overall view of Trump's handling of the pandemic in the U.S. There have been plenty of articles written about how poor his leadership has been.[3][4][5][6][7] I think the lead sentence should notate that the usual misinformation, misdirection, divisiveness, and narcissism are evident as Trump bumbles his way through this disaster with his unique style of leadership. - MrX 🖋 20:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the lede should merely note that he presided over this period of time during which a pandemic ravaged the world and the US. I don't think an evaluation of his handling of the epidemic should be in the lede at all. This is just to remind the reader of this important aspect of his presidency and to alert readers to look to the body of the article for more full coverage. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the comment above from MrX, recent mainstream reporting tells us that the pandemic is ravaged the U.S. largely due to Trump's having ignored it, fearing that any acknowledgement would adversely affect the buoyant capital markets that are a signal accomplishment of his term in office. That's aside from the larger issue of policy toward preparedness, which belongs in the article text rather than the lead. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Too much analysis, SPECIFICO, though I do agree the pandemic is also ravaging the United States. This is for the lede of the article—does it have to say "largely due to Trump's having ignored it, fearing that any acknowledgement would adversely affect the buoyant capital markets that are a signal accomplishment of his term in office"? That is a degree of analysis that would not be lede-worthy. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember this is Trump's biography article. For the bio, his reaction is the relevant point -- similar to his handling of North Korea. The relevant reporting tells us that he handled each of these matters from a standpoint of short-term personal advantage and publicity rather than from the standpoint of the policy advice given by persons within his administration. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

His "reaction" isn't the relevant point because the spread of virus in the United States is unprecedented. His "reaction" will require long term analysis. We don't know if his "reaction" was highly problematic or merely suffered from the stumbles that anyone in the presidency might have suffered under such an event. The problem of this medical emergency is still ongoing. A separate article will probably focus on such a topic but it would be premature for the lede of this article wax eloquent on Trump's handling of the outbreak. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the word "reaction" was key to what I was trying to say above. You may substitute "handling" "leadership" "executive actions" or whatever is relevant to his biography, the subject of this article. The article reflects the present. We already know a lot about what you call his "stumbles". Speculation about how other imaginary presidents would have reacted, handled, led, etc. are irrelevant. Not the subject here. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A lede only needs to mention that he presided over such a medical emergency. I think that is sufficient. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

First, that text really adds no information. It reads as boiler plate. Second, if it is intended to have specific meaning or to refer to some actions, can you offer a source for the "presiding" you think we should convey in the lead? Because this article is his biography, any content should describe something significant about him, not merely that he happened to be president at the time of the pandemic. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The "something significant about him" is that he was president during the Covid 19 pandemic. For the lede, that is sufficient. Readers are expected to look to the body of the article if they want to know more about this. It is in the body of the article that the reader might find a link to a yet-to-be-created article on how well or how poorly the Trump administration handled the Covid 19 outbreak. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not about him any more than that he was president when every other news event of the past 3 years has occurred. We don't do that with biographies. Our article on Jimmy Walker doesn't say he was Mayor of New York when the Empire State Building was built. Let's see what others think. If that were the only rationale for inclusion, I think it is exactly the kind of thing that should not go in the lead of this big space-constrained article. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Walker was mayor of New York City from 1926 to 1932 and the Covid 19 outbreak is still ongoing. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

My agreement with (Caps Lock on) SPECIFICO (Caps Lock off) has already been stated. The Empire State Building comparison could be countered with the point that the construction of that building did not have anywhere near the impact on the country, but the principle is the same. FDR was president during the Great Depression, but we mention that in his lead because he was instrumental in turning it around, not merely because he was in office when it happened. And the point is that we describe that role in the mention, thereby justifying its inclusion in his lead. This is a biography of Trump, not a history of the United States. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

But for better or worse, Trump has had a role in the coronavirus just like FDR had a role in the Great Depression. The lead should describe this role, in this case forming the task force and signing the stimulus package. Then the body further fleshes out whether Trump bungled these efforts or was successful according to RS. Regardless of whether he had a positive or negative role in the pandemic, the significant role he played and a summary of what he did should be in the lead. Amorals (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's been convincingly demonstrated, with ample supporting citations, that for the purposes of this article Trump's role was to exacerbate the impact of the disease in the U.S. by his failure to take any meaningful action. The matter of whether signing a veto-proof bill or forming a TV taskforce is of any biographic significance has also been addressed and discarded. Please review this entire thread and all the linked WP articles and references. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the lede should barely note that Trump presided over the severe impact of the Covid 19 epidemic on the United States in early 2020. Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It was among the largest financial stimulus packages in US history, that in and of itself is noteworthy regardless of if it was "veto-proof" as you put it. Other editors, namely Bustop had initially supported mention of the taskforce, so it does not appear that such a mention has been outright discarded. Again, if a neutral wording cannot be decided, I would support leaving out entirely. I don't believe a lack of a mention in the lead is overly criticalAmorals (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The legislation had nothing to do with Trump. He just happened to be president when the Congress enacted it. He asked for $2 billion. Congress and the Fed enacted +/- 20 trillion, giving effect to the Fed portion being leverageable bank reserves. Once again, I'll ask you to read the available references and WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This sounds even more extraordinary! +/- 20 trillion, giving effect to the Fed portion being leverageable bank reserves. Got a source, or is that WP:OR / personal interpretation? — JFG ^talk 23:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to bone up on Fractional reserve banking, Quantitative easing and all the press reports on recent Fed moves. No scarcity of RS explanations for you. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I'm aware of such fundamental banking mechanisms. Instead of acting condescendingly towards your fellow editors, please exhibit a source stating that the stimulus package amounts to $20 trillion, or admit that you indulged in hyperbolic personal interpretation. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Must side with JFG. "Go look it up, dummy" is not a constructive response to a request for sources to support one's claim about sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's discussed putting any figure in the lead, which is the topic of this thread, I believe. Hence no reference provided for a fact that's widely discussed. I have no way of knowing JFG's state of knowledge concerning monetary policy or why he would be surprised to see that figure. Nothing condescending about a few links. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On your other point, it is very misleading to declare that Trump only "asked for $2 billion" – that was the initial amount requested for medical response and preparedness, at the beginning of the crisis. That one was increased to $8.3 billion by Congress, which Trump readily approved. Then came the $104-billion Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which Trump supported as well. Finally came the $2 trillion economic relief package, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. — JFG ^talk 23:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's right, it was increased to $8.3 at the insistence of the Democrats in the house and senate. Trump supported none of his until it landed on his desk. He was not involved in the formulation of the assistance bills. Again, there's no scarcity of RS references you can check. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: He asked for $2 billion. Congress and the Fed enacted +/- 20 trillion. That's baloney. — JFG ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing approached the amount of 20 trillion. Specifico, regardless of if you think Congress did all the work (White House still had to negotiate with Congress on the legislation) and Trump "just happened to be President" that's just the system of American government. Congress does all the heavy lifting and Presidents ultimately sit back and wait to sign the bill and get final approval to implement it. By your interpretation, an argument could be made that any piece of legislation should not be mentioned in a President's bio on here because "Congress does all the work." Ultimately, the buck stops with the President and he signed the bill and it was a historically significant bill. Your beef seems not to be with the facts, just the reality of how our branches of government functionAmorals (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the liquidity came from the Fed, whose policy actions are independent of both the president and Congress. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

According to your own quote, "Congress and the Fed enacted" then you backtrack and qualify, "most of the liquidity came from the Fed." So in your view, Congress now doesn't have much to do with it even though the stimulus bill Congress passed gives the Fed the leverage to invest more into the economy[8]. Also in your view, Trump's got nothing to do with the legislation, but RS ABC News says, "White house negotiators strike a deal..."[9] Also according to RS,..."signs into law historic stimulus package...largest emergency aid package in U.S. history."[10] CNN calls it historic and the largest in history but not important enough to include for the guy who signed it into existence. With all due respect, you need to reevaluate your logic on this one. Amorals (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support mention in lead along lines proposed by MelanieN.--MONGO (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN's wording is a fair way to mention coronavirus in the lead. I agree with Busstop that Specifico's wording of "largely due to Trump's having ignored it," is a partisan talking point, a non-biased analysis would concede that there were other factors at play including the slowness of China to communicate with the rest of the world, and their overall lack of transparency.Amorals (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you read and taken account of the links provided by @MrX: and myself? The U.S. national security agencies are well aware of the dishonesty and obfuscation of totalitarian regimes such as China's. The suggestion that the President of the U.S. would rely on published reports or the public statements of a dishonest foreign autocrat is itself -- if true -- one of the personal failures of Trump's response. This is not me talking, this is the WEIGHT of RS reporting. Neither I nor they are partisan in this regard. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I concede that this is an actual big deal. No other issue of his presidency (aside from his presidency itself) has represented such a clear and immediate threat to the welfare of the country. This is the first time he has declared a national state of emergency. So I am no longer opposing an addition outright. To combat lead creep, we should remove a roughly equal amount of less important content. I suggest Soleimani. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, I and other editors like Bustop I'm sure have read the links and I am not defending the fact that many in RS have been critical of Trump's response. However, this is a factor the suggestion that it is The Primary Factor is a partisan point. Regardless if China is a totalitarian regime, it's difficult for any country to fully prepare for a virus emanating thousands of miles away without proper intel from the country of origin. If you look at other countries like Italy and Spain suffering, you have to ask yourself are people there suffering too primarily because their leaders were inept and slow to respond? The preponderance of analyses suggests other factors were involved as well. Amorals (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. does indeed have "proper intel" on China and its government. The reach and depth of the American intelligence capability is vast beyond belief. The U.S. intelligence capability enabled POTUS' staff to be warning him in early January of the catastrophic danger. Let's not speculate about other countries here. It's really not relevant and I suspect you are mistaken in the comparison you may be trying to draw. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Intel is not that great is more what the RS generally said. RS reported more about Intel tries to assess how much (not ‘if’) other governments in China and elsewhere know or conceal or intend, but it’s hard to track (Reuters), and the pandemic impacts what little they can find out. (Time). A satellite image of Iran mass graves tells you only that they undercounted a week or two before. And it’s just not actionable. It takes the Chinese formally bringing in WHO to get things officially moving. And a satellite image is just not the same as having medical knowledge about the disease on how the virus spreads or can be fought. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those links conflicts with the fact that U.S. Intelligence services identified the novel virus in 2019 and began trying to warn President Trump around January 3. I hope you know it's well documented that he does not read his security briefings and that his national intelligence staff has struggled to keep his attention on oral briefings. This just happens to be an instance that resulted in hundreds of thousands of illnesses and the loss of trillions of dollars of national income. There is no doubt as to what happened and when. Detailed tracking data such as is used by epidemiological modelers is not the topic of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

None of this fantasising has any RS from January nor any credible rationale. And no place in the topic of LEAD content. Yes, IC would have been watching China (of course), yes they would likely note China reality was not a match for official press (also no surprise). But that a January mention of a worse-than-reported-flu would instantly be interpreted by President Trump better than WHO experts were doing two weeks later with on-site access ... or that it would magically have made it not a pandemic... is SPECULATION and just not DUE. President Trump’s response was factually ahead of most world leaders, and the United States is factually pretty high up in the range of developed nations. Obviously better than the UK, just ahead of Canada or France. Obviously not as good as Scandinavian countries or Switzerland (never a chance), and just behind Germany. But largely RS track that to factors other than what their leaders did, in demographics and infrastructure and trade patterns. Not speculative Trump-fixations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh mercy. Repeating the source: National Security warnings were issued the first week of January

The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus — the first of many — in the President’s Daily Brief.

Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

So what did they say, ‘the flu in remote China may be worse than reported’? And so things progress to not much until WHO notified and then health screenings on 17 January. Just acting in accord with what was known when. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no speculation regarding other countries. Death totals are facts. It's a perfectly relevant comparison as they are dealing with the same pandemic as the U.S., so it is fair to consider they may be dealing with similar obstacles. I suspect you are putting too much stock in the transparency of U.S. intelligence. The breadth of U.S. intel on this particular issue is not fully verified in RS (for obvious reasons, much of Intelligence and National Security intel is classified.) To definitively state that U.S. intelligence was on top of the outbreak soon enough to truly stop the spread and that Trump 100% ignored every aspect of this intelligence at the time, is what truly calls for speculation. Not to mention its veracity simply isn't available to the public. Amorals (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you up to date reading recent RS news reports? The National Security team and China experts within the Administration -- and those privvy to their information -- were frantically trying to rouse Trump to constructive action in early January 2020. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not so much and *not* a detail for lead anyway, that should only identify the main topics. The ongoing risk of disease out of China was a standing item over a year ago in the World Threat Assessment (CNN). But the existence of anything more than usual flu only started to be a part of briefings in January (CNN 8 April), not that far apart from the Chinese doctor spreading the word via social media. How bad it actually is more that perceptions and actions follow events, and for most of the U.S. and the world that did not start until mid-March. We just did not know and still are finding out. In any case, January RS were not dominated by IC reporting insights, and neither is this article’s coverage, so just not something for lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Commentary about his handling of the situation can be included in the text section, provided it is well sourced and reported by multiple sources. No such commentary should go in the lead IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We can't be evaluating him in the lede vis-à-vis his handling of the pandemic that is still ongoing. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: How about just the first part of what you wrote, i.e. "The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office. We really have no idea what's occupying his attention, and as you say the detail is in the body and in our other articles about this. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I could go along with that. It's totally obvious that it's the main thing occupying his attention - he is holding daily news conferences that are at least theoretically about the pandemic. Even if those are really just his current excuse for getting TV time, it is his major public activity and has been for a month. But I suppose that could be considered original research. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

How about "The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, wreaking widespread havoc on the United States." Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The impact of the pandemic on the U.S., by itself, cannot justify mention in this lead merely because it coincided with his time in office. This is not an article about what happened in the U.S. between 2017 and 2021 (or 2025). If, within our severe space constraint, we can't fairly summarize Trump's involvement in the crisis – considering the size of that can of worms, it's very possible that we can't – we should not say anything at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to have the lede say something more about Trump's involvement in these travails, what more would the lede say? Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I haven't had the time or inclination to assimilate a lot of the RS about this, so I don't feel competent to offer an opinion about that. I of course have personal opinions, but they are irrelevant here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with a simple formulation for now, but when we identify multiple sources that provide similar analysis (not commentary) of Trump's role, then I think a brief summary in the lead would be warranted. I can't support "wreaking widespread havoc" because it seems a bit cliche. - MrX 🖋 11:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support short content - either first half of MelanieN or php proposal. Shorter is better. Leave out embellishments “widespread havoc” and ‘became major focus’ as both seem inherent and obvious for any nation, and are not an explicit big topic in article or RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, the earliest significant "rousing" as you say cannot be confirmed to have taken place prior to January 30, so early January is not accurate. Peter Navarro is the only source mentioned by name in RS, and any unnamed sources prior to that cannot be verified as not being compromised in some way. "Wreaked havoc" is too theatrical a term and not encyclopedic. Neutral and fair wording would be something along the lines of, "During his fourth year in office, the 2019-2020 Coronavirus Pandemic broke out, causing widespread social and economic unrest, leading Trump to form the Coronavirus Task Force." Any analysis or criticism of the task force and Trump's response should be reserved for the body. However, since some editors seem hellbent on not saying anything that could be interpreted as positive in the lead, and Trump merely doing something (i.e. forming the task force) may fit this bill for some ideologs, I agree with Mandruss that if consensus cannot be reached in summarizing Trump's role, it should be left out entirely. Amorals (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the first warnings were in the first days of 2020. Please read the sources on this. National Security warnings were issued the first week of January

The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus — the first of many — in the President’s Daily Brief.

There have been no reports of civic unrest or economic unrest in the USA. We need to get the facts right. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, Jan 3 was when the intel was first gathered from China but there is no way to know how dire of a threat the virus was treated by the intelligence community at this time. The only RS date we can point to in which the seriousness of the virus was outlined was Jan 30 through Peter Navarro. With respect to the source you've offered, we cannot speculate because a single publication says there were unnamed sources who sent these reports to the President's desk. We don't know who these sources are, nor do we know what specifically was in the reports and how exactly they were treated by the President's staff. Unless we have the names of individuals (i.e. like we do with Navarro) and specific concrete evidence, it falls in the category of WP:Undue. Amorals (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump

. As cited. That's how we know. We are not detectives, just aggregators of reliable secondary source reporting. We often do not know how these RS publications discover and vet the facts they report. They are deemed RS because they have the practices, reputation, and history to demonstrate they check facts and publish well-sourced content. The sources are not unknown to the Washington Post, just not publicly disclosed. That is the key point. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post in a vacuum does not warrant inclusion for something this serious. Multiple publications that are RS need to have reported on this timeline for a claim of this magnitude to be made. We are not detectives, but we are here to evaluate what warrants inclusion based on a plurality of RS from different perspectives. However, the point of emphasis seems to be on the wording in the lead, and reference to the timeline would go in the body, which should be adressed in a separate discussion. Amorals (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A number of people have referred to or supported my proposed wording, but that wording has likely gotten lost in all the discussion here. For clarity, what I proposed was 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. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That is good wording, MelanieN. I also like Amorals suggestion concerning mention of the "Coronavirus Task Force". Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I still don't think it's necessary to mention the coronavirus in the lead. It seems recent and after 2 years it probably wouldn't be suitable in the lead section. It is also not much related to Trump, the coronavirus has "became the major focus of" all nations leaders attention during this time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"It seems recent and after 2 years it probably wouldn't be suitable in the lead section." Why wouldn't mention of the epidemic not be suitable for mention in the lede after 2 years? Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry MelanieN, this wording says nothing of substance, besides "Trump happened to be president when the coronavirux pandemic broke out". If we can't agree on stating something that Trump actually did, we'd better say nothing. Perhaps something like this:

In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and passed a $2 trillion stimulus package.

Factual and non-judgmental. Comments? — JFG ^talk 08:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, except it should say "signed" rather than passed. Congress passed it; Trump signed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

JFG, that proposed text is not factual. (I don't think "judgmental" has been an issue in any of the proposals to date) Trump requested roughly $2.5 billion in pandemic relief. This was increased to $8.5 billion, at the insistence of the Democrats in Congress over initial Republican resistance. The U.S. relief total, to date, has been several thousands of times the sum requested by Trump -- at the initiative of the Congress and the Federal Reserve. There is detail in this article and in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and in the Presidency article, which states

From January 2020 to mid-March 2020, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, giving many optimistic public statements, which were mainly aimed at calming stock markets. He initially said he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic. He went on to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control", and repeatedly suggested the virus would somehow vanish one day. He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax". Trump eventually changed his tone on March 16 to a somber one. For the first time, he acknowledged that the coronavirus was "not under control", the situation was "bad" with months of impending disruption to daily lives, and a recession might occur.

From the standpoint of this personal biography, the key one liner is that Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control. Do you disagree that is how it's been reported in RS? SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

References

"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control" is exactly correct. It's what we can objectively say from a historical perspective. The rest of the story is still being written. Who knows–maybe Trump will discover that over consumption of happy meals is the cure and the DJIA will bounce back to 26,000. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no. Trump is not a legislator, and the $2 trillion was not his to spend. Declaring a national emergency is not the significant fact we should be summarizing. If anything, we should note that he initially ignored the emerging pandemic, called it a hoax, tried to promote unproven treatments, lied, blamed Chgina, attacked the press, rambled incoherently from the press room, and so on. - MrX 🖋 11:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I can't support the "major focus" aspect, because there is an argument to be made that his major focus was the economy (stock market) and his re-election. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control" is a very special view. Any spin can be put on this. The point is not to put a spin on it. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not "spin" or a "special view",[11][12][13][14] and the point is to proportionately reflect what sources say about it. - MrX 🖋 14:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that anyone could suggest that the wording "Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control" belongs in the lede. The lede involves noting the high points of the subject, not putting a highly idiosyncratic perspective on the subject. WP:NPOV is primarily a quality that has to permeate the body of the article. In my opinion what we are endeavoring to do in this thread is to simply to take note of a subject-area that will be more fully explored in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you will give a close look to the WP detailed content I referenced in this comment. That's what is explored in our articles and that's why it's an accurate summary to state that Trump failed to stem the tide. The timeline, his priorities and other factors are not in any proposed lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize significant points about the subject (not about the virus; not about the pandemic). What is significant here is Trump's ham-fisted handling of a major national crisis which distinguishes him from every other U.S. president with the possible exception of James Buchanan. If it's too nuanced to briefly handle in the lead, that's fine, but if we can succinctly state it, there's no reason not to do so. - MrX 🖋 15:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

We can't quantify the level of which Trump's slowness to respond affected the pandemic. It's very possible that he could have reacted sooner, the results could still have been awful just in a lesser degree. We are not in the business of speculating. Even the RS haven't gone as far to make an absolutist statement like "Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control," including this in the lead or even in the body would turn the entire article into a farce. I would also caution editors from using inflammatory wording like "ham-fisted" and "happy meal" that make it very clear you personally dislike Trump as it discredits your POV, not to mention it calls into question the integrity of this entire article if you are playing a significant role in editing it. Amorals (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to quantify; we just need to describe, not his slowness, but his effort to sweep an emerging pandemic under the rug. Multiple sources are very clear that Trump ignored the crisis until he could no more. FYI: Given your 35 edits, I don't think you have much standing to be cautioning editors, or making assumptions about their likes or dislikes. Please keep those opinions to yourself. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 15:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct. We don't have to quantify the level of Trump's slowness. We have multiple reliable sources that basically say Trump was slow to respond and focused on the economic impact, rather than the threat to life and health. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect twice. First - that’s not content for LEAD (topic of this thread). Second - per NPOV, DUE weight to all POVs and attribution as POV not fact. Any partisan praise and criticism framing a month or three after events should get the same treatment of WEIGHT and presented as ‘POV’. Factual comparisons simply do not support ‘slow’. It’s kind of a glass-half-full POV whether one says ‘behind 3 Republican governors ‘ or says ‘ahead of 47 governors’ and both seem an unnecessary POV spin. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If we don't "quantify the level of Trump's slowness" then why say this in the lede? It is "spin" if it is only said to lay blame at the door of Trump. Some degree of "slowness" is likely to be present in any response. One perceives information, processes information, formulates a response—by definition this takes time. Of course there is "slowness" attributable to Trump, just as there would be "slowness" attributable to anyone in the presidency at the time of the outbreak of a new epidemic that was spreading worldwide. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's OR. Whatever the latency of information processing within the national security organizations, it had already occurred by January 3, when urgent warnings were presented to Trump. Sources don't say he needed 9 weeks to think about it. They say he ignored it. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes "he ignored it". If a source said "he ignored it", that could warrant inclusion in the body of the article, with attribution to the source. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Good grief, please read the sources before making such an easily refutable claim.

Several officials told the Post that the president ignored the matter since he did not believe that the virus would spread across the United States. This coincides with the public statements made by Trump, who on February 19 said that “It’s going to work out fine” and that by April, “warmer weather” will halt the spread of the virus.
— [15]

President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday.
— [16]

Nevertheless, Trump’s apparent decision to ignore his own intelligence experts’ warnings in the early stages of this crisis — to say nothing of the warnings from other experts and organizations — has important implications for how we think about the relationship between policymaking and intelligence broadly, and with respect to public health in particular.
— [17]

Trump has reportedly ignored a step-by-step guide from the Obama administration detailing how to fight a pandemic. Even when U.S. intelligence officials directly warned Trump in January and February that a pandemic was likely, he failed to act—all the while playing down the threat the virus posed to Americans.
— [18]

- MrX 🖋 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"The intelligence reports did not predict when the virus might hit the US or recommend steps that should be taken in response, the source said." Do you see how saying he overtly ignored the threat would be too much of an absolutist statement. Editors need to not let personal amnimus toward Trump affect their judgement in presenting these facts in an encyclopedic tone. "In light of reports that sources within US intelligence agencies had alerted Trump to the threat of the virus as early as January, many were critical of Trump's seemingly slow response in taking these warnings seriously." You see how this is a more neutral and encyclopedic account, rather than the inflammatory, absolutist language of "He ignored the warnings." I hope the more neutral editors and admins like MelanieN can comment on this to preserve the article's integrity on this issue. Amorals (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amorals: this, We can't quantify ... just in a lesser degree is a contradiction. But has been explained in previous replies, there's no proposal to quantify the effect of Trump's inaction and public deflections. The deflections, btw, are ongoing -- just yesterday he said the USA is going to open up "with a bang" on May 1. Reports indicate a huge amount of valuable executive and scientific staff time is being spent trying to reduce the self-inflicted damage done by Trump's daily TV walk-ons. Since early March, even Trump's ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has repeatedly criticized POTUS on his response. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, you are taking my comments out of context, evidenced by the "..." in you quoting what I said and skipping what I said in the middle. When I said to a lesser degree that was me offering possible speculation showing why this would not be suitable wording and any attempt to quantify would be a fool's errand. Lindsey Graham has offered cautionary advice and a different opinion not overt "criticism." And therein lies the problem with this topic and much of this article on Trump in general actually. Editors don't generally disagree on the RS just some editors are hellbent on using inflammatory absolutist wording that reads more like an opposition campaign piece than an encyclopedia. We can reflect some of the shortcomings of Trump's response in a more encyclopedic tone.Amorals (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Slow to respond has been removed inexplicably. This is a very bad edit. [19] - MrX 🖋 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it was not a good move to alter those two bits of text that MrX has now restored. After such extensive detailed discussion and collaboration among so many editors, and such clear documentation from many RS cited on the talk page, any tweaks that change the meaning should always be discussed first on talk. Consensus is unlikely to have changed in such a short time. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 21 April 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.

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)
• 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)

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[20] 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[21][22]. 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)

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)

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)

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.[23] 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.” [24]
• 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.” [25] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 14 April 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)

Coronavirus pandemic section - BOLD add January items, fix order of occurrence

From the discussions above, it was apparent that major January events were MIA, and the 30 March pandemic declaration as the second line was out of sequence. So I've BOLD-ly added those events and put the pandemic declaration lower down. I've left the language there neutral, skipping the China criticisms for just conveying the more on-topic U.S. and WHO actions . I've also shifted the late March and April parts in debate about "slow" into a closing -- since those are late March and April. The start is changed to "was criticized as slow" instead of "was slow" but otherwise left the same. Leaving "Reducing editorialising and sensational language" to work on the language of it further.

On December 31, 2019, China notified the World Health Organization China office that it was treating cases of an unknown illness in Wuhan, Hubei, China.[1][2] By 17 January, the CDC announced enhanced health screening at three airports for “2019-nCoV” on flights thru Wuhan.[3] The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020.[4] A day after the 30 January announcement by WHO that coronavirus was a public health emergency of international concern, HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency for the U.S. for the novel coronavirus and announced travel restrictions to and from China.[5]

On March 6, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law, which provided $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies.[6] The spreading worldwide within weeks was recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020.[7][8] On March 11, President Trump gave a nationwide oval office address, announcing travel prohibitions would now include Europe and giving reassurance for businesses that "This is not a financial crisis, this just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world.”[9][10] On March 13 he declared a national state of emergency, freeing up additional federal resources.[11][12][13] In a March 16 press conference, he acknowledged for the first time that the pandemic was "not under control", that the situation was "bad", acknowledging that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur.[14] Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from the media, health experts, the World Health Organization, and the Chinese government.[15][16][17]

By mid-March, Trump started having daily press conferences with medical experts and other administration officials.[18] He sometimes disagreed with the experts by promoting possible but unproven treatments,[19] and he frequently used his time at the podium to criticize Joe Biden, praise his own response to the pandemic, or attack the media.[18][20][21]

Trump has been criticized as slow to address the pandemic, initially playing down the threat and ignoring calls for action from government experts.[22] He rejected persistent public health warnings from officials within his administration, focusing instead on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[23] He continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and CDC officials repeatedly told him it would take 12–18 months to develop a vaccine.[24][25] Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, falsely claiming that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though availability of tests was severely limited.[26][27]

• Feel free to add February events ...

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Onetwothreeip Whupsa -- all my edits hit an edit conflict, as you were doing a number of edits too. I've tried to merge your content changes and will go back to adjust what you also did to the internal structure of cites as best I can. Sorry, that's not intended as a revert or alteration of your work, just ... well you can see it wasn't an easy merge. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the ref changes (putting the part into template order ?) are also included. Please check and correct as needed. FWIW, I think one of the URLs was malfed before either of us got there - the one on the oval office address that says "url=at that day's press briefing ". Markbassett (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: What is "template order"? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I've now changed all the cites in the section back to the coding conventions that have been widely used in this article for at least two years. If any editor wants to change those conventions, I'd ask them to (1) get consensus for the change, and (2) agree to edit the entire article to reflect the change, so as to preserve the consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Template order is what it looked like -- moving the parts into the order shown in the WP:CITEHOW templates. For example, where cites to web put the URL late or last, this moved the URL into first like the template at WP:CITEWEB -- "cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=". Similarly where a cite to news gave the firstname first or the URL first, this moved parts to the template order "cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |work= |location= |access-date= ". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this and the some of the edits made by Onetwthreeip are not good. The section now improperly emphasizes non-biographical information, reframes content differently than presented in sources, adds unnecessary esoterica ("2019-nCoV" ), and it is worded awkwardly ("The spreading worldwide of the disease within weeks was recognized..."). The edits have managed to strip the most important aspect, which is that Trump ignored/minimized/joked about the impending pandemic for six weeks. Any sentence that starts "Trump was criticized..." based on an editor's interpretation of sources is violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 12:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Trump, ignored/minimized/or joked at campaign rallies is hardly the most important part of the article. Many of the edits by Onetwthreeip were legit and should not be immediately dismissed. Your personal interpretation that this is what's most important is what is in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Amorals (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump put the entire nation at risk by ignoring it according to numerous very good reliable sources. That is an key aspect of his involvement with pandemic. This is not complicated. Simply read the leads of feature articled about the subject and see what they are emphasizing. I don't know what you mean by "legit". Feel free to explain point by point, being sure to cite sources along the way. - MrX

🖋 15:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This blind obsession with RS seems to be clouding editors’ ability to write in an encyclopedic tone. “Simply read the leads...”” you mean the leads that are written in a manner to get people to buy papers? Again we’re an encyclopedia, not a for profit newspaper. There seems to be a big disconnect overall between getting info from the RS and actually transferring them into quality writing in the article. Bsubprime7 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bsubprime7: "This blind obsession with RS" Aww... that may be the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me on Wikipedia. I dispute that online news article leads are written in a manner to get people to buy papers. Traditionally, leads are written to give an overview of an article and to induce readers to read the rest of the article. Our job is to derive content from a variety of reliable sources, while remaining faithful to how they represent the subject. It is not our role to editorialize what is written in reliable sources. This is covered in WP:NPOV, right near the top of the policy page. It's too bad if editors don't like the adjectives or characterizations of a subject in reliable sources. We are not supposed to neutralize them to accomodate our personal preferences. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. X- all that and you still didn’t address that the current wording is grammatically incorrect. And yes headlines are written to sell papers, let’s dispense with that notion and start living in reality. For the 100th time, there are synonyms in the English language where you can make the wording sound more encyclopedic and still be 100% faithful to RS and not violate WP:NPOV. “Blind obsession with the RS” is by no means a compliment, the only thing it proves is a bot could do the same quality of editing as you. You can cite as many wiki policies as you want it does not change the fact that your wording is grammatically inaccurate and poorly written. Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX—numerous factors are taken into consideration. You refer to Trump "ignoring it". Trump was weighing numerous factors, including but not limited to the economy. You're saying it's "not complicated". Actually it is. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The text MrX reinstated, which was a team effort by several experienced editors, specifically refers to the two most important of the "numerous factors" Trump weighed -- namely, the political and economic factors. Please don't add opinions "Actually it is". Just sources and text. It's much simpler for us all to collaborate that way. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean the situation on the ground wasn't complicated. I meant that determining the most significant facts reported by sources is not complicated. You read a few articles and they practically jump off the page. I agree that Trump was probably weighing different things like his re-election, his real estate holdings, and the stock market while he publicly downplayed the seriousness of the impending pandemic. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing down the economy also puts "the entire nation at risk". Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please again. No OR and no repetition. I just directed you to the article content that mentions economic factors as among Trump's determining factors in the neglect. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you are indulging in exaggeration in your use of the term "neglect". Here is Webster's definition of "neglect". Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

no. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The January events simply have much more WEIGHT -- If one googles "Trump declares state of emergency for covid" you'll see circa 39 million Ghits. "Trump travel restrictions for pandemic" are 73 million ... and "Trump slow responding to pandemic" is only 21 million Ghits. Time matters and the months of events gathered more notes and for now they have more WEIGHT, When inserting January events, the obvious spot was after the December mention so the April criticisms became the closer. If you wish to put all the actual events as the endpiece, and make THAT the closing impression folks are left with, meh... I think that's wierd and the reader would wonder why January comes last. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

For the google file: Trump virus failure 112 million, Trump virus not true 157 million. Your turn. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Poll concerning article edits

I see that the section has basically been restored to what it was before Mark’s changes. But I do agree with him about a couple of problems in the current first paragraph - which is basically about January and February.

• "and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020" has no business in the first paragraph; it’s way out of chronological order. It should be moved to the second paragraph, or better yet left out entirely, as not relevant to Trump’s biography and his actions to deal with the U.S. situation.
• We should add that on January 31 he announced a partial ban on travel to the U.S. from China, effective February 2. That is the one thing he DID do before March and we have no justification for leaving it out.

If there is no objection I intend to do these two things, which I believe should be obvious and non-controversial. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for coming to this very reasonable consensus. I’m sure some of the usual suspects will object to this, but it is absolutely the right decision and improves the article. Bsubprime7 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

She has not "come to a consensus" -- she is asking whether there are objections. For my part,

• #1 yes I think the first suggestion is good.
• #2 no *#2 no I think the second would need lots of context. The travel ban came a month after Trump received an urgent national security warning, with nearly 400,000 travelers having arrived from China to a dozen U.S. cities in the interim see here. By the time of the warning there was little or no air travel to the US from China. And more. This is a talking point that Trump has highlighted by repetition as the criticism of his actions has increased in recent weeks. I think it's just as well to leave it out, but certainly it would need lots of collateral information and recent RS contextualization. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

By the time of the warning there was little or no air travel to the US from China. Not true. Just in the time since he imposed that travel ban, 40,000 people entered the U.S. from China (that's why I call it a partial ban).[26] And just because Trump likes to brag about it and exaggerate its importance is not an excuse for leaving it out. He did it, it was the one and only early action he took, and we should report it. (I loved a comment from one commentator at the time: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a wall, everything looks like an invasion.") -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, @MelanieN: I didn't see this. I began replying below MrX's !votes below and was no longer looking up here. RS have said that air travel was slowed to a fraction of that January 400,000 rate by the end of the month. I'd have to look up the sources that address that specifically. I will look later. However meanwhile, I think the factcheck.org link I gave below is the best source we can use for context about the China travel ban. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, About 300,000 people came to the U.S. from China during the outbreak and before his ban. Another 40,000 arrived after his travel ban, so it cannot be true that “there was little or no air travel to the US from China”. At the time it was imposed and afterward, there was obviously still air travel from China, or else how did the 40,000 get here? Yes, the U.S. airlines had suspended scheduled flights, but the Chinese carriers were still flying - not to mention the many charter flights. Anyhow, that’s not important. Your claim below that “We should require a recent RS that tells us it was significant, not just boiler plate or PR” is the mirror image of Bus stop’s saying that we can’t say he got off to a slow start until somebody spells out exactly how many deaths his slow start caused. I reject that line of reasoning in both cases. We report major (highly reported at the time and afterward) actions. We don’t wait to mention them until we find out, maybe years later, what the final effect of those actions was. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: "so it cannot be true" - actually I think it is true. Because the airlines themselves canceled flights shortly before Trump announced his ban. In other words (and I know neither of us is or aspires to be an air traffic expert) to check what I said (which I got from sources but I don't recall which) -- one needs to consider the rate of travel at the end of the month of January and not the average rate or total over the month, during which traffic was falling rapidly. From this chart [27] it appears that steady-state traffic to the US from China was about 700,000 passengers a month in 2019. So 300-something thousand in January 2020 would be consistent with a decline during the month from the normal 700,000 level to near zero at month's end when Trump announced his travel ban. I think the factcheck.org link I gave below is our best bet for a balanced view of this. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: "so it cannot be true" - actually I think it is true Well, those 40,000 people got here after the ban somehow. Maybe they swam? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: There are many carve-outs from the "ban" that account for the 40,000. You can read them at the text of the presidential proclamation or in some of the news coverage. No swimmers. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Like I've been saying. Especially, American citizens were exempt, which probably accounts for the vast majority of the 40,000. So what does the suspension of American-carrier flights have to do with anything? Can we quit talking about that as if it meant something? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN—you can't put quotes around something like this: Your claim below that “We should require a recent RS that tells us it was significant, not just boiler plate or PR” is the mirror image of Bus stop’s “we can’t say he got off to a slow start until somebody spells out exactly how many deaths it caused”. It is in fact not a quote of anything I said. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. It's not a quote. I'll remove the quotation marks. It's actually a paraphrase of what you have been saying, over and over. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted and I thank you for that. But it is not "a paraphrase of what [I] have been saying, over and over". Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Bus stop: I've said 2 or 3 times now, let's use the factcheck.org reference to contextualize the ban. Nobody, least of all I, said we should wait until ultimate outcomes are known. I don't see any similarity between Bus stop's denial of abundant RS narratives RE: Trump's neglect of the virus and my suggestion we use factcheck.org to contextualize the travel ban. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, RE the factcheck report: it is partly about the ridiculous expansion of Trump's claims about how many lives the travel ban saved, and partly discussing the efficacy of travel bans in general. Their conclusion: not very effective, but we can't tell about its effect on the U.S., because we know so little about the state of the outbreak at the time, due to lack of testing. I don't find anything there to imply we shouldn't put in a sentence about him imposing the travel ban. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what two things are you referring to MelanieN? 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

My two bullet points: move the WHO designation as a pandemic to the next paragraph, and add his China travel ban.

OK, I support #1 (and considered doing myself). I don't think that #2 is important for this article (but probably for the presidency article). It just seems too routine to me. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Routine? Sources called it unprecedented.[28][29] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

For context, I was thinking of something along these lines in the first paragraph: "The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020.[551] On January 31 he announced a partial ban on travel to the U.S. from China, effective February 1.[reference] Otherwise (or "aside from that") Trump was slow to address the pandemic, initially playing down the threat…" -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with it, while noting that there's almost nothing about this president that's not unprecedented.- MrX 🖋 19:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate, this travel ban is being promoted every day in the TV press briefings. It was a month after Trump received dire warnings from national security professionals and two weeks after his China hawk adviser Navarro and Sec'y Azar both warned him of the worsening situation. In the interim nearly half a million potentially infected persons arrived at 17 U.S. cities. Trump knows that "travel bans" are a great thing with his base. This one had little prophylactic effect -- arrivals from China having all but halted by then -- but this ban has provided useful tv and cable news fodder that is still paying dividends. We should require a recent RS that tells us it was significant, not just boiler plate or PR. Here's a link to Factcheck.org for starters. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

arrivals from China having all but halted by then SPECIFICO, did you not happen to see my reply to you above? I don't want to accuse you of WP:IDHT. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't mention the China travel ban, or that we should add more context to it? If the latter, would you propose some wording? - MrX 🖋 22:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to leave it out. Were it not for his recent daily carping on it, this insignificant and ineffective proclamation would not be on our minds. I'm confident of that because if it were deemed significant, we would not have omitted it from the current much-scrutinized version. There is much more reason for it to be in the Trump Presidency article than in this biography. If we add the travel ban directly after the sentence about his neglect of public health warnings, that would be a reasonable way to establish context. I don't think any of us wants to spend much more effort on this. If we do, the next step would be to include the context from factcheck.org that makes clear that hundreds of thousands arrived here while Trump dallied and that the ban itself did little to reduce virus transmission risk. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, Trump ordering a travel ban is something he factually did. Any President instituting a travel ban is unprecedented as described by the RS. The fact that its something Trump likes to tout when he appeals to his base is irrelevant. We’re not passing judgement whether his travel ban was effective or ineffective just merely that he did it. Your narrative about warnings he received prior are inadmissible relative to the travel ban cause it’s not clear if any of those prior warnings specifically advised him to ban travel from China, the RS merely said advisers warned him of a pandemic he needed to pay attention to, and we’ve addressed Trump’s downplaying and disregard ad nauseam. There is no logical reason to not include MelanieN’s proposal #2 unless you are pushing a partisan perspective which you continue to purport you are not. So hopefully we can stick to the logical points. Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's where I come from: I think it is deceptive for us to point out that he was slow to address the epidemic, while deliberately leaving out the one thing he DID do. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts exactly as I said in my comments above. Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see this story from the New York Times. The airlines themselves, not Trump, suspended flights from China. Trump's "travel ban" came after there was virtually no air traffic scheduled. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Third or maybe fourth time you've raised this irrelevant point. Whether or not the U.S. carriers were still operating scheduled flights, those 40,000 people got here somehow. That's from your own references. And they were presumably most or all U.S. citizens. It can be argued that without Trump's ban on foreigners there would almost certainly have been a lot more. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That's an empirical question, and while it could be (falsely 😉) argued as you say, I have seen no RS that shares your view. Anyway you'll be pleased to see I've given up on this one. It's boilerplate, it's puppeting a Trump/Fox talking point, but it won't kill our article. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico that's all well and good, but his travel ban still suspended other types of travel that aren't commercial. There is a segment of the population who do not use commercial airlines to fly from China. The ban cemented this by eliminating other types of travel as well (i.e. private flights). Amorals (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like nobody objects to moving the WHO pandemic statement, and I will do it. The China travel ban remains under discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if you have a source for that. Quite the contrary is true. There were many exceptions to the so-called "ban", and if you're thinking of American Corporate CEOs returning to the US on private jets, bingo. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The very fact that the source you presented only included mention of commercial airlines and the lack of mention of private travel tell us this. Believe it or not there are Chinese Corporate CEOs who take private jets to the U.S. American CEOs aren't the only ones who own private jets. Amorals (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You are narrating some rather unconvincing Original Research. Even from the level of your intuitive guess, you could check the ratio of commercial to private air traffic China-US and you could verify that, contrary to what I just said, private corporate jets were not one of the numerous exceptions. Please, no more OR or "common sense" arguments. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Amorals, it's not just a matter of private corporate jets. The article you posted said that U.S. commercial flights had been discontinued but that Chinese and other foreign flag flights were continuing. Not to mention (again) all the charter flights that were being organized to bring Americans out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes true, telling another editor to stop with "common sense" is a ridiculous statement. There is something called "subtext." Reading the subtext of an article does not make it original research. We are humans with brains not robots. If the NYT is deemed reliable then we are left to believe they would be reporting all the flights that were discontinued. They would not just selectively be giving their readers incomplete information. It's not just what the sources say, but what the sources don't say. The very fact that an RS, who has a proven journalistic process, did not include these other types of flights in their list of those that had been discontinued tells you they weren't. Amorals (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear statement. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty confident you're mistaken. The mission of great journalists is to be clear enough that "subtext" plays no role in their message and that the message is stated in a way that precludes misinterpretation. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---Moreover, I haven't explicitly made my position on MelanieN's proposals clear, so: Support proposals #1 and #2 Amorals (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the China travel ban even needs further discussion, is just a microcosm of why people accuse Wikipedia political articles as being partisan mouthpieces. Makes me sad for those trying to improve the article. I encourage editors to put nonsense aside and remember this is an “encyclopedia.” Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if SPECIFICO has dropped their objection to mentioning this in the "January-February" paragraph. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to it? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Now to mention 11 March adding Europe travel restrictions, and to correct misquote. Yes ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Protests against state measures

Re: [30][31]

The coronavirus section of this article was already too large and too detailed for a one-page Trump biography. A prime example of the slippery slope issue that occurs when you write at that level of detail, this new subsection has nothing to do with Trump except "encouraged by Trump in tweets", and that hardly warrants the new content. The connection to Trump is tangential in the extreme. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

These have apparently been fomented by Trump and his coterie. Why do you say thay are not about Trump? He personally insinuated guns into the health briefings on 2 recent days. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say the issue is not about Trump, I said the new subsection has little to do with Trump. It's mostly about:

• Republican-connected groups.
• Protests against the measures.
• The far-right.
• Conservative pundits.

Regardless, simply being "about Trump" does not automatically qualify something for inclusion in this one-page account of an entire life (so far). Presidency-related content now comprises almost 60% of the article's content, for no reason but that this article has high visibility, not an encyclopedic use of this space. Meanwhile, the article's readable prose is at 98% of the size where it "almost certainly should be divided" per guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

These were the original edits adding large parts of two other articles: [32], [33], [34]. I considered removing all of it but then left the one sentence because it's remarkable that he is encouraging protests against his own policy. I wouldn't mind losing the subsection title and the "main article" link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I would remove them but I already reverted another edit and don't know whether removing title and link would be a 1RR violation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's also remarkable who's organizing these "grassroots" protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss this segment should be deleted and does not warrant its own sub-section. A simple mention that Trump offered his support for the protests, (you can even say this drew criticism from governors) with a link to the article on the protests is fine. Not to mention, the current wording of this sub-section reads like a poorly written-run on sentence, like who writes this stuff? Amorals (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on good writing, Amorals. I was, like, partially responsible for that stuff poorly written-run on sentence. I will strive to attain your level of excellency in the future. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point I don’t think his comments belong in this biography beyond a mere mention. Trump’s comments about the protests are spelled out in detail at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#President Trump, and the protests themselves are mentioned under 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Public response. Plus apparently there is now an article about the protests themselves, which can be linked to and his involvement laid out in detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the section heading and the "main article" link, replacing it with an inline Wikilink. Also trimmed and edited the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Good edits MelanieN, I would suggest, however, being a little more specific in the wording, protesting “the measures to combat the virus.” RS seem to indicate that the protests were devoted specifically to strict stay-at home orders. And obviously there have been other measures governments have taken to stop the pandemic other than the the stay-at home orders. It’s not clear that they were protesting all of those too. Amorals (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Amorals. I went through our references and there is not just one thing they are protesting for. Sometimes it’s the stay-at-home orders, sometimes it’s about jobs lost when businesses were closed, sometimes it’s generic “freedom” and “constitutional rights”. From one of our references: “While protesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and other states claim to speak for ordinary citizens, many are also supported by street-fighting rightwing groups like the Proud Boys, conservative armed militia groups, religious fundamentalists, anti-vaccination groups and other elements of the radical right.” (Sure enough, I did see an anti-vaccination sign in footage of one of the rallies.) So I think I'll keep it generic. That's too much detail for this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Very tangential indeed. I support MelanieN's edit. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Forbes net worth - change the rest

I'm thinking delete the footnote a about other measures of Trumps wealth, anyone prefer to do otherwise ?

This is from 2019 items and appears in the lead and the template. It was mentioned in the earlier TALK Forbes cuts net worth estimate by a billion but no further discussion or action happened. I'm thinking the newer Forbes makes those interim numbers excess, but perhaps there is a rationale for keeping them ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking delete, as well. starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's net worth is opaque and the rationale was that three estimates are better than one. While only the Forbes number currently reflects the coronavirus impact (assuming that's the main reason for the $1B drop in the past 13 months), that kind of variation is to be expected of multiple estimates that are not synchronized in time. The dates for all three are provided. While there will come a time when the Bloomberg and Wealth-X numbers, if not updated, become too old to be relevant, we are not there yet at 10 months and 12 months respectively. I oppose removal at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What Mandruss said. Keep comparison with other estimates until they're either updated or too stale to make sense. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

His net worth is so opaque and dubious as to be an unknown amount. It is suspected he isn't even a billionaire, and that his debts make any guesstimates rather irrelevant, so should we have anything at all? That is the question. -- Valjean (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that this was adequately addressed in the discussions supporting #Current consensus #5, and I see no reason to revisit the issue. His net worth was opaque and dubious then, too. If you want to propose clearer language about the opaqueness and dubiousness in the Wealth section, and can show adequate RS support for WEIGHT, propose away (preferably separately, since that is not the topic of this thread). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss No, this wasn’t part of #5 links from 2018 and earlier. Having a footnote for infobox is talk in archive 98 June 2019. The duplicate footnote into article is just something Dwaro added on 9 November 2019. Or at least I didn’t see it in the [35] archive 107. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism as slow failing V

Personal conversation best suited for user talk pages — JFG talk 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Mandruss - the subject is "Criticism as slow failing V", where the article language was not supported by the cites. Your relabelling to "Criticism as slow to address the pandemic" is a somewhat different topic. Feel free to start a different section if you want to discuss that. For this one -- it needs "V" said in the section title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC) @Markbassett: Huh? That it failed V was your opinion, as demonstrated by comments that dispute that claim. Therefore your heading fails WP:TALKNEW bullet 5 - "A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it" (my emphasis). If no one else cares, I won't press the point further on this one, but please make an effort to omit your "specific views" from future headings. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) User:Mandruss Don't be silly. Reread that "should indicate what the topic is" and my "it needs "V" said in the section title." The focus being V was maybe lost when you changed the section title. Or at least we wound up seeing not much showing article text matched to some an inline cite quote. It needs "V" said in the section title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 1. See WP:IDHT. 2. Kindly stop telling me not to "be silly". I'm seldom silly and certainly never when participating at Wikipedia (it has generally been when I was under the influence of something). That is the second time in as many weeks that you've said that to me, and I hope the last. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC) User:Mandruss you seemed unable to hear me and going afield. Just reread “should indicate what the topic is” with my “it needs "V" said in the section title." If you want you can further look at the edit note being about V and this thread having started with V being the policy cited and quoted, and then reconsider whether taking out V was good for the section title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - The line saying "Aside from that, Trump was slow to address the pandemic" is not supported by the Washington Post Blake cite attached to it. That cite only provides a timeline, saying that he was "relentlessly optimistic" and "a timeline of Trump’s commentary downplaying the threat" from the end of January thru late March.

• WaPo gives no direct support for the wording "slow to address the pandemic"
• WaPo also gives no direct support for the wording "dismissing" the "imminent threat" and "ignoring calls for action" from government "medical experts".

I refer you the top section of WP:V All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

I did try to resolve some of this by merging the next line with the NYT Lipton cite, and rephrasing where neither cite supports the prior phrases. But yourMrX revert here undid that edit.

In this case, I think the line as stated is a bit false to fact, which has distorted or missed events of both cites or is pulling from sources not shown. Please provide additional cites to provide WP:V, or rephrase the line to suit the cites present. In particular the next line has issue with the NYT cite:

• In January the NYT cite noted President Trump as focused on impeachment which ended February 5, 2020. The "focusing instead on economic and political considerations of the outbreak" misses that large item and is about February as part of his initial responses, not "Throughout January and February". It is a bit conflicted to both be criticising not responding and to be criticising a mis-focus of response.
• The time in the next line beginning "Throughout January and February" is also a bit misportraying the period and content of cites, making initial vague briefings at the end of January from Azar as if all January and as if "persistent public health warnings from officials". Neither cite supports that such was actually reaching President Trump in all January or to any great extent. A "Throughout February" or "Six long weeks" through February and early March would be more suitable.

Again, please provide cites to provide WP:V for the text you have entered, or rephrase the line(s) to suit the cites presented. Perhaps others will suggest candidate cites or edits here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, if you're looking for citations that say Trump was slow to address the pandemic, there's a lot to choose from. Here's three: [36][37][38] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted Markbassett's removal of this material, so I'm not sure what MelanieN is being called to account. I added two additional cites, although the existing cites were adequate. There are many more sources for this material, which I would expect anyone who has even scratched the surface of the subject to know. - MrX 🖋 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX thanks, it was a merge not removal but yes Reverted to revision 952190974 by MelanieN was you. Strikeout done above to correct that. So she as last writer or you as reverter please alter or provide V. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, most of the current instance of this talk page was devoted to pushing back on various denials and deflections about Trump's slow response. In the course of those discussions, numerous references were presented -- way more than were ultimately needed for the article text. I hope we do not waste any more time rehashing what's already documented on this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - “numerous” is misguided. WP:V is having cite content that directly supports the article text. WP:STICKTOSOURCE The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. That there are other cites saying the response wasn’t slow or having multiples of saying there were other issues or even multiple cites onto a line does not relate to the V. It’s how *accurately* does the cite text match the article text, not how many cites were fired at it. Generically, more numerous cites would seem likely more a hurt than a help by giving more not-matches. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The article may only cite one, but you have your pick from among numerous. As has been mentioned, "slow" is pretty deadpan given what's in the RS reporting. There are also other harsher descriptions in RS. I think you've got a good neutral word in "slow". SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO So pick some source and WP:STICKTOSOURCE match what it directly supports. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no controversy here that can't be solved by references. If you need a reference saying "slow to address" - that exact language - we can easily supply one or several.

• Here you have the Guardian: "The president was slow to address the pandemic"
• Here you have 65% of the American public saying Trump was too slow to address the virus.
• Here is one saying that "The Trump administration" was slow to address the spread of the virus. We could say "Aside from that, the Trump administration was slow to address the pandemic" - instead of Trump personally in that sentence - but this article is about Trump and so are most of the citations, so I don't favor that.

The references MrX added are fine. Or pick one of these references for the exact language and put it in the article. Problem solved. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be stated as if it were a fact, that "Trump was slow to address the pandemic". That is an opinion, and a highly subjective one at that. "Some perceive Trump as being slow to address the pandemic" would be preferable. And it was not even classified as a "pandemic" at the time being referenced. Was he "slow to address" something that did not even officially exist? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

He was slow. Documented in RS. Would you prefer "slow to address the dire threat and prospect of widespread suffering and economic collapse posed by the virus"? That's pretty well-sourced as well. I think the current text is more compact. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be "compact" but presenting characterizations as facts imbues the article with an unwanted bias. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You need facts, that he was slow off the dime in responding to this situation? OK, here’s some:

• Take that one action he took in January, that he is so proud of - the travel restrictions from China. He likes to claim that he “cut off China very early.” He has claimed he was “the first one to do it” and “it had never been done before.” In fact, 38 other countries had travel restrictions in place by the time his took effect on February 2. [39]
  
• Testing. Most experts agree that we lost a crucial month of testing just when we needed it most. [40]
  
• Community surveillance. Trump was so focused on “keeping the virus out of our country” that he insisted - and probably believed - for more than a month that the virus was “contained” and “under control”. His administration didn’t even authorize community surveillance and disease tracking until the end of February. [41]
  

I could go on, but you get the idea. He was very, very late in recognizing the seriousness of this epidemic (that's the "downplaying" that we keep talking about), or in rolling out a plan to deal with it, or taking concrete actions to stop or slow the spread of the infection. Not an opinion. A fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, fact would be dates and events. Relentlessly optimistic and early downplay and reasonably prompt are plausible opinions, not facts. And “very, very” is both overly theatric and reflecting things not known at the time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN ??? Upon relook, those weren't good points. Factchecking - Politifact says that the US travel restrictions were about the same time as the others and somewhat stronger, "they were not slow in instituting a travel ban on China." Otherwise, yes testing had technical issues which isn't President Trump being slow, and if he did truly believe as you say then he was giving his honest evaluation and not "downplaying", yah ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett - (1) "travel ban on China" wasn't even complete, Americans were still coming back, (2) even if it was a complete China travel ban, virus still gets in from other places - like it did from Europe, he only restricted Europe on March 13, and again Americans were still coming back, (3) private sector testing was not approved until end of February, (4) strict testing guidelines were not relaxed until early March,(5) despite shortages in medical supplies, Defense Production Act was only signed on March 18, and Trump only used it to direct industry production on March 27, (6) social distancing was implemented on March 16. starship.paint (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Her fact-checker cite ‘not the first’ was no good V for ‘slow’ on China, noting the other fact-checker cite explicitly opposed ‘slow’. The restrictions to Europe *were* the first I think, but there is no mention in article so no V is needed. The criticisms of quality you post above are unrelated to speed, but I’ll point to the Politico saying the US restrictions were somewhat stronger. The topic here is gaps in V for article text, not a blog. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - no, those cites aren't a solution. The concern is a V one which may have been lost as section title "Criticism as slow failing V", was changed to "Criticism as slow to address the pandemic". Not having inline cites presented that support text shown was the topic. The WaPo cite was simply not about the contentious "slow" first half of that line, and the next line NYT cite had some 'slow' but it's own issues. My attempt at merge/edit to provide as close as those cites actually said was reverted, so was back to did not meet V. The cites you mention above won't fit the lines presented.

• Guardian is about election chances in a recession ... below the subeadline not about 'slow' or particularly January and February.
• The Axios cite to Pew Poll is showing this as not a fact, but as a WP:OPINION concern of NPOV that would need restating. I also note the article seems not paraphrasing the whole of that part of the Pew poll (emphasis mine) "The survey finds that while Trump is widely viewed as having acted too slowly in the initial phase of the crisis, Americans have more positive views of how he is currently handling some aspects of the coronavirus outbreak. About half (51%) say he is doing an excellent or good job in addressing the economic needs of businesses facing financial difficulties."
• The NYT cite also is not evidence for the article text. This cite portrays the 'Red Dawn' emails of concerns from those not in contact with the President, particularly starting in mid-February, how one of their members aborted the scheduled (26 Feb?) meeting with Trump to present mitigation recommendations, and anger in mid-March with the CDC guidelines. This just does not match article text "Throughout January and February, he rejected persistent public health warnings from officials". I would think RedDawn being outside Trump means it doesn’t belong here, but if it was here then it would need different article text.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I don't think the new header is neutral. It's not criticism, it's verified fact according to our sources. Mischaracterizing it as "criticism" is the false narrative that, as I understand it, is preferred by Markbassett. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Five editors including you commented here without saying they objected to "Criticism as slow failing V". Most or all of them are aware of the guideline for neutral headings. So I remove the "failing V" part and now it's a problem? It's close enough for me, but I don't run the place. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I think you're incorrectly equating criticism with opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Not to worry, the topic is that the line was not providing V, so I have reinstated that header as the focus of concern. Not having cites *present* that at least address the text shown was the topic. The WaPo cite was simply not about the contentious "slow" first half of that line, and the NYT cite had it's own issues. My attempt at merge/edit to provide as close as those cites actually said was reverted, so ... I flagged the concern as V and pinged the editor who made the line (MelanieN). Should have also pinged the reverting MrX. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

p.s. "Slow" is an adjective, generally defined as a descriptive of negative values, and it does seem intended as a criticism of the early period. Adjectival descriptives can be perceptions or judgements or so on *of* facts, but are not themselves facts. In this case, many but by no means all share a critical view of that kind for the early period, and it is a noted phrasing if a bit vague. (And perhaps somewhat wishful thinking ... in the end it seems that there never was a chance this would not be a pandemic.) If you prefer, the section is about "V gaps in line(s) for 'slow' response" or "Line about 'slow' has V issues". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

AP When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances.

NYT 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. The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have been foreseen.

Kaiser Health News / Politifact: Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale.

Politico: The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak.

NPR: The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.

Time At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus.

• See above. starship.paint (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Markbassett - in case you didn’t see the above. starship.paint (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Thanks for the ping. The AP seems the only semi-useable one there for the article text, though it would require dropping the ‘ignoring calls for action’ part of the line as it instead says distractions and disagreement and no clear calls for action. The author is maybe voicing his hindsight view what would have been useful, not saying that President Trump was asked for them. The NYT is talking magnitude of response, not speed. The Politico and NPR are only saying a criticism exists and not more. Time concluding ‘delayed’ is on-topic, but the article is all over the place, so not as good as AP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Really, this whole thread is a waste of time. The language is obviously fully supported by umpteen sources. We shouldn't indulge this kind of nitpicking, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey well WP is a WP:VOLUNTEER effort, so if you have no interest in threads on V quality then just skip that thread and others can do any simple TALK to add cites and alter text. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you cannot. Because you are ignoring consensus against your view. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

One works WP:VOLUNTEER on whatever one wants, so if you feel this a waste of your time then you can just leave it to those who don’t. Entirely up to everyone what bits of what articles they get into. And re Consensus you seem yet again mistaken in your facts - obviously it agreed with me as far as some changes being needed since changes were done to both cite and text. That you feel no value to that topic is fine, but don’t mis-state your uninterest as Consensus when fact instead is this TALK did wind up with edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)your being uninterested is perhaps misleading you. That you feel no value to that topic is fine, but please allow that others did and so consensus thus far changed things. However awkwardly and touchy discussions here are, this TALK did get somewhat productive for some edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding what's the big deal here. We all listened to you. Nobody much agreed with you. Many gave specific rebuttals to your core argument - the peak of Graham's Pyramid, and now you're saying what? That we have to continue to come bag and log disagreement every time you repeat the same arguments? I don't believe that will happen. If you try to edit the article against sources and consensus, somebody will revert it. But in the meanwhile, I don't see a lot of interest in extending this talk thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I agree there’s no *need* for a big deal at all. And nobody much *liked* me pointing out the flaws. But consensus *did* agree with me on V and did something about it. I saw a V failure, I try a BOLD fix, someone REVERTS, it goes to DISCUSS and with much detours gets something done. Could skip the cognitive bias and voiced negativity and just get on with it, but being it is WP:VOLUNTEER and part of the environment for this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read that consensus page you keep linking? I looked at it. I didn't see it says much of anything relevant to article content and sourcing. Glad you are happy again. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO ??? What link? I’ve been linking to WP:V and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, seems relevant to content sourcing. Except in response to Scjessey value of this I offered WP:VOLUNTEER work on whatever you value, any waste is by one’s own making. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: It's not that the topic is a waste of everyone's time. It's the fact that you are wasting everyone's time by consistently and annoyingly arguing against consensus when everyone has long since moved on. Please, Mark, I implore you. Drop the fucking stick and accept what the community has decided. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey ??? Mmm exactly where or why are you getting this or putting this odd spin on things ? Consensus seems to have agreed with me that something was missing. Or at least it’s only been a couple days but a lot of people wanted to TALK and offer cites for the two lines. I have responded if pinged or seemed otherwise addressed, but really not involved in the edits. Perhaps you should try to accept other views exist and are valid and it would be a boring old world if that weren’t so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

^ This. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Why ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically per what Scjessey said above. The president recently suggested, unironically, that people should inject Lysol into their veins to cure the coronavirus, or that “heat and light” could treat it. Reality just became a bit too farcical for me. I think I’m gonna take a break to study for my Latin final. I’ll respond to pings. Let me know when the world becomes a bit more sane. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)−

Trump now says he was being sarcastic [42] - is this his way of retracting a statement? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus ??? that’s really nothing to do with my thread or any V failings of the two lines in question or any changes to their language. I will offer that poorly scrutinised WP text or misstated cites could well devalue WP and the credibility of the cites abused, that to rant casually at things is likely not helping sanity . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark, you hatted a HUGE portion of this conversation, and the edits of several users. Basically everyone who disagreed with you. I undid it. Don’t do that again. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Hatted the wandering into Lysol and Latin tests up to the outdent VOLUNTEER stretch as being Sidebar, since not even close to being in topic. Nor I think us five even close to everyone who agreed/disagreed/other about the V for the two lines and the WaPo/NYT cites. Just a norm for unrelated content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I can barely understand what you’re saying. But no, it wasn’t just my singular comment you hatted. It was the contributions of Scjessey and several people. Basically everything after people suggested this was a waste of time. That isn’t a “norm”. It’s a norm for SPAs and socks, and things that have absolutely nothing to do with the article subject. I see sources, commentary, evaluation, and general treatment of the subject. As well as people questioning the utility of the conversation, yes. My comment was sardonic, but that’s not a reason to hat half of a section. If you want to hat something, hat the whole conversation. You clearly have no consensus here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hydrox

We are getting some additional information now about the first trials of Hydroxychloroquine, after POTUS promoted it and said he had ordered (I believe the number was) 7 million doses from a manufacturer in India. See here and [43] SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, but not for this article. All we say is that he "promoted unproven treatments" so we don't need any more about this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have conclusive results, but if it turns out the stuff's a dud we can certainly consider adding "which were later proven ineffective" or whatever. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note that this is not a "trial". A randomized controlled trial will account for confounding variables. This VA study is a retrospective cohort study. People who had worse prognosis may have been more likely to get hydroxychloroquine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Journalists are using poorly chosen language. I think some of them are locally random but not within neutral cohorts. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Woopsie Trump dismisses doctor for questioning Hydroxychloroquine treatment 2. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this was undue weight, but now that Trump has demoted that doctor he has turned it into a Big Thing that makes the United States look like a dictatorship, so maybe it should go in after all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Scjessey: - there is some doubt to that doctor's story. POLITICO: Three people with knowledge of HHS' recent acquisition of tens of millions of doses of those drugs said that Bright had supported those acquisitions in internal communications, with one official saying that Bright praised the move as a win for the health department. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well at this point we really don't know what happened. It seems Bright's assertions clash with other narratives that may be valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be covered in the slightly broader context of Trump advocating pseudoscience in the midst of a viral pandemic. It should include his suggestion about injecting disinfectant as a treatment[44] and the ensuing response from Lysol. Then there is the light inside the body cure.[45]. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s truly shocking to see the POTUS suggest a dangerous solution involving chemicals found in most households, in an official press conference, to a public hungry for information, and to state that it was being taken seriously by the medical community and that they would study it, worsened by the fact that a large number of his followers hang on to every word he says and believe his instincts are ingenious. But, I still think this doesn’t survive recentism, unless we see hospital admissions for Lysol poisoning. If it has legs, maybe a sentence in a pseudoscience section. O3000 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We may soon have a good RS discussion of the broader topic of stable genius inspirations. Also the recent book on the subject by Washington Post reporters gives some perspecive and gets us editors out of the business of picking and choosing among daily news reports. Yesterday, Trump had been discussing his photo/bleach therapy ideas backstage before the briefing, as he noted in his prompting of the officials seated beside him. I believe Judge Jeanine had some comments on this, but I can't locate a link just now. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000, I certainly wouldn't rush to include this now, mainly because he will probably top it with something even more bizarre and outlandish. My point was mainly that this is not just about one drug, but about the torrent of misinformation from the president since he decided to take the pandemic seriously. Maybe he hasn't read WP:MEDRS. - MrX 🖋 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it is more applicable to general handling of the pandemic, and/or his rule by instinct. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a suggestion. It was a question, albeit a terrible question with an obvious answer. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only was it a suggestion, he said it was being taken seriously by top doctors. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

WaPo calls it a question - “ The question, which Trump offered unprompted, immediately spurred doctors, lawmakers and the makers of Lysol to respond with incredulity and warnings against injecting or otherwise ingesting disinfectants, which are highly toxic.” Story from here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they didn't say it in WaPoSpeak doesn't mean it wasn't. The word is used several times in the article, and numerous other sources call it a suggestion. Or, you can use DJT's own words. When asked about it by a reporter, he said "I'm the President and you're fake news....It's just a suggestion." O3000 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)O3000 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Warnings by foreign leaders and rejections of Trump's statements were published around the world in the mainstream press of dozens of countries. Trump's suggestion -- some international coverage: BBC Washington Post France 24 Australia India Arab News SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

He has now taken it back claiming he was being sarcastic, or a reporter was being sarcastic. Unclear. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sarcastic:[46].

“I was asking the question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen,” Trump said at an Oval Office signing for the Paycheck Protection Program. “I was asking a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands, and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.”

---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's convenient, and totally believable. I guess Dr. Birx wasn't in on the joke?[47]- MrX 🖋 18:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

When Philip Rucker, also not in on the fun, asked Trump why he was promoting rumors, Trump told him +/- to STFU. So, unlike in some past denials "I don't know Lev Parnas" "You'd have to ask Michael Cohen" "Fired the CDC guy? Never heard of him", in this case there was a contemporaneous insistence that he was serious about it. Also, Trump twice referred to having discussed his concept in some detail with the doctors in the green roomOval Office just before the briefing. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Flooding New York with Hydroxycholoquine

There's quite a bit of reporting on Hydroxychloroquine in Vanity Fair today. Among other things, those millions of doses he bragged having on order from India were to be pushed out and fed to New Yorkers in an attempt to... unclear what. Worth a careful reading. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Shortage of the medication for Malaria patients, see here and da Beeb, here. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This reads 8 on the forumeter. Please hold general discussions about Trump, politics, etc, on user talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the President is not intending to be taken seriously. This is my own original synthesis, but I am suggesting that he may be some type of satirist in the sense that he exposes the "extreme, stupid gullibility" of humanity with his false information, as well as point out the extreme hyperpartisanship of "irrational, intolerant" politicians. I cannot tell you whether that is his intention, but he is doing an awfully good job at doing both of them. At least give the POTUS credit for exposing them. Back on topic, I am not sure what to think of his plan involving the use of hydroxychloroquine, given what I had just said. I do not know whether he really does think that his plan is a good idea, or whether he is acting like Alex Jones in the sense that the latter holds views so absurd that he may very well turn out to be a satirist himself. Oh well, I guess we will have to keep an eye out for more news. FreeMediaKid! 22:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC) FreeMediaKid! (talk · contribs) I'm assuming your comment is itself satire. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Perhaps it is satire, but it does get my point across: that people who hold absurd views are credible in a gullible society. It is surprising that the United States has come so far as to nominate candidates without any honorable traits. Nevertheless, I do know that the idea that the POTUS may be satirical does not make him any better. The problem is that there is a fringe side of Trump supporters who think that (most of) what he says is right. If Trump's diehard fans are gullible enough to anticipate unlikely medications that supposedly cure the coronavirus, that may very well add to Trump's record of the veracity of his statements. I find it dumbfounding that a couple in Arizona thought that Trump said, "Take the chemicals. Drink the fish tank cleaners." While it may be awful what Trump is suggesting for curing the virus, it is putting words in his mouth to say that Trump told them to consume the chemicals. Even for such a baffling act, one would have to lack a heart to call the couple half-witted and not pity them, especially since one of them died. Still, I doubt Trump can be criticized for their decisions since their logic led to non sequitur conclusions. It is hard to describe Trump's actions during the pandemic other than that they are unduly optimistic. FreeMediaKid! 01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC) @FreeMediaKid!: - It's not satire, it's just that Trump is a person that has a good you-know-what. starship.paint (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that Vanity Fair article is worth a careful reading. I have added information from that article, documenting the White House pressure on health agencies, to the fourth paragraph of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Research into vaccine and drug therapies. It’s probably better there than here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

New article: Media career of Donald Trump

We currently have Business career of Donald Trump and Political career of Donald Trump, so as a corollary I created Media career of Donald Trump, using the "Media career" section from this article as a starting point, and integrated it in various places. Please feel free to add on to it so it can grow. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's requested study of injecting disinfectants

Onetwothreeip reverted (using vandalism reversion software Twinkle) my addition of:

In an April 23, 2020 press conference, Trump asked medical experts if they could look into injecting disinfectants to kill Coronavirus. Lysol's manufacturer, medical experts and government officials issued warnings that doing so is dangerous and could be deadly. The next day, Trump claimed he was being sarcastic.

References

using this edit-summary:

Article not merely a receptacle for moronic statements by the subject (TW)

I am a bit confused by this reasoning. If the WP:RS talks about "moronic statements by the subject", which I believe it does, then we include them in the article. Here is some of the WP:RS that I easily dug up using this Google search:

• "Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment". BBC News. 2020-04-24.
• Le Monde
• "Trump claims disinfectant 'injection' idea was sarcasm -- Medical community warns of dangers from use of cleaning agent as internal treatment". Financial Times.
• Dale, Daniel. "Fact check: Trump lies that he was being 'sarcastic' when he talked about injecting disinfectant". CNN.
• "'Under No Circumstance': Lysol Maker, Officials Reject Trump's Disinfectant Idea". NPR.
• Swanson, Ian (2020-04-24). "Trump remarks on injecting disinfectants draw blowback from doctors". TheHill.
• Rogers, Katie; Hauser, Christine; Yuhas, Alan; Haberman, Maggie (2020-04-24). "Trump's Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
• Hawkins, Derek. "Live updates: As U.S. coronavirus toll tops 50,000, physicians find that young people with covid-19 are dying of strokes". Washington Post.
• NBCnews
• Guardian News
• CBS
• Ryan, Jackson. "Trump recklessly suggests injecting disinfectant to kill coronavirus. Why he's wrong". CNET.
• "Trump falsely claims injecting disinfectant remark was 'sarcastic'". MSNBC.com.
• Davis, Charles. "A timeline of Trump's musings on the false idea of injecting 'light' and 'disinfectant' to treat coronavirus — from a presentation to Trump's claim he was being 'sarcastic'". Business Insider.
• "After backlash that his disinfectant 'injection' idea could be deadly, Trump claims he was being 'sarcastic'". ABC News.
• Perez, Matt. "After Storm Of Controversy, Trump Now Claims His Comments On Injecting Disinfectants Were 'Sarcastic'". Forbes.

The list goes on. The question is not who covered it, but who did not.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this actually happened, and I am not disputing that this was amusing enough for it to be covered widely. This, like many other "stupid man says something stupid" remarks, is most decidedly not a particularly important statement of the many statements that Donald Trump has made or will ever make. Please consider the WP:TENYEARTEST, especially for an article like this. This is simply not something that is going to be worthy to include in his biography in ten years' time. Something being covered in many sources is not alone a justification to be included in the Donald Trump article, and it has been this way for some time. We can expect media sources to report on everything Donald Trump says and does, but we cannot be expected to write all of that in this particular article. We have enough issues with recentism as it is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You know, I think you might be wrong about whether this will pass the ten year test. Talking with friends today, many think he has achieved a personal best with the disinfectant comment. Especially in the sciency kind of circles in which I move, I reckon it will stay in the consciousness of many. However, I probably agree that it doesn't belong in the article. There is already enough to highlight how he differs from most other Presidents in the type of unusual things he says. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's consider how this fits in the context and narrtive of this encylopedia article. We need to write a brief but more general summary of the narratives he has presented at his daily virus TV show. Philip Rucker's book A Very Stable Genius sheds light on Trump's characteristic statements and behaviors. We need to present the false and confused narratives of the briefings from a larger encyclopedic perspective so that we editors do not try to pick which instances of such behavior are most illustrative or most noteworthy. That would be WP:OR. Thanks for the list of citations. They show little dispute that his recent behavior has been dangerous and demented. RS reports tell us that Trump's inner circle was shocked by his behavior at the briefing and by his ad lib "sarcastic" excuse afterward, which undermined their attempts at "Communications 101" damage control. Reports say that aides later convinced Trump to curtail his daily briefing room shows. If that's confirmed, there may be further reporting of events that would anchor a brief description of the briefings and their success or failure. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - an overview article before this particular fiasco - Analyzing the Patterns in Trump’s Falsehoods About Coronavirus - The New York Times, March 27, 2020 - {1} Playing down the severity of the pandemic, {2} Overstating potential treatments and policies, {3} Blaming others, (4) Rewriting history. starship.paint (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There are many such overviews that we should be using. Sometimes they are dismissed as mere opinion, but commentary and analysis such as you've linked are very valuable. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope this half-truth doesn’t make it into the article. His full statement at the presser said it will clean out the lungs. When Trump said “inject” he pointed to his mouth. He meant inhaling disinfectant. There are many articles about nebulizing/ vaping diluted Hydrogen peroxide vapor to treat COPD. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: - When Trump said “inject” he pointed to his mouth - no, he did not - see video footage, 2:07. He meant inhaling disinfectant. - no, he could not have been talking about that, because as he said, he was actually being "very sarcastic" - see video footage, 0:53. I seriously question the sources that you are reading. starship.paint (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding the link to the C-Span footage of the sequence from the moment Bryan leaves the podium - no pointing. As for inhaling: "could be fatal if ingested." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: - yes, there are inhaled disinfectants, here is a list. There are also past examples of Light disinfection, and injected anti-infectant. In this case, I think Trump was just vaguely rambling out loud. I’d be willing to try the old standby of ethyl alcohol. Cheers! Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. There is no sign that this has any lasting impact, on well anything honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Largely agree. Still reacting to today's headlines in this account of an entire life. Most stuff at this level should be taken to Trump sub-articles for consideration. Near the top of this page, widely ignored: "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here." ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This has obviously received a lot of coverage in the news, and even sustained coverage beyond the 24-hour news cycle, so much so that it "bothers" Dr. Brix.[48] This represents a shocking lapse of judgement by someone who has lowered the bar so much that a virus could step over it. Yes this should be included because of WP:DUEWEIGHT, but let's weave it in with the other content without mentioning the specific date and without extensively quoting the subject. Something like this:

Beginning in mid-March, Trump held daily press conferences, joined by medical experts and other administration officials, sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting various unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine. After one such briefing in which Trump suggested that patients might be treated with "tremendous light" or by injecting disinfectant. Lysol's manufacturer, medical experts, and government officials warned that injecting disinfectant is dangerous and could be deadly. Trump later falsely claimed he was being sarcastic, and his administration took steps to minimize his involvement with future press briefings.

- MrX 🖋 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The coverage on this has seemed a bit misleading to me. I didn't understand him to say Brix should fill a hypodermic with bleach, etc.OK, he actually did say that00:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC) I thought it was more vaping or aromatherapy with biocides. And the light I thought he was stressing to get it "inside the body" -- so I don't know if that's the same as Light therapy? Because he said either through the skin or some other way. Mabye fiber optic. Anyway, I'm disappointed to see the media hype the injecting Lysol thing because I think his idea was more nuanced. What's interesting, and I forget the source for this, is that these ideas fit various fringe internet narratives about home-brew medicine. They are an offshoot of the anti-vaxing concerns and may live on their own sites or on Reddit or other hubs. Sorry I don't have a specific suggestion. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - Not really important. Silly wishful thinking out loud, but trivia. On a sidenote, I can see why it bothers Dr. Birx that this is still in the news cycle.here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

1. if you gargle bleach (as someone did yesterday) get used to a feeding tube.
2. There has been a huge increase in poison control calls.
3. There has been a massive increase in hydroxycloroquine prescriptions, causing shortages for people that actually need it.
4. Isopropyl alcohol is poison. Wood alcohol will result in blindness. Careless statements that alcohol may be useful, in front of a national audience, by the POTUS is extraordinarily dangerous.

How can anyone belittle what he has done? This is about as DUE as DUE can get. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 Hyperbolic posturings. Note that since it’s only ranting critics who suggested bleach, Lysol, or isopropyl alcohol, I believe they may bear some of any blame for those. With some blame for the media that gave them space and made this story-du-jour. As Birx said, it’s troubling this is still being spread. As to what Trump actually said and how much BLP importance it had - silly trivia, Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyperbolic? Moi? Did I stand in front of the presidential seal and say what he said? But, lets us blame the press for reporting what actually occurred. I'll stick with RS. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 Hyperbolic posturings in media: from you it’s just false claims about how DUE is based on hypothetical importance instead of WP:DUE is WP:WEIGHT. Note that since it’s only ranting critics who suggested bleach, Lysol, or isopropyl alcohol, I believe they may bear some of any blame for those. With some blame for the media that gave them space and made this story-du-jour. Instead of conveying the helpful information from briefings. As Birx said, “It bothers me that this is still in the news cycle, because I think we’re missing the bigger pieces of what we need to be doing as an American people to continue to protect one another. As a scientist and a public health official and a researcher, sometimes I worry that we don’t get the information to the American people that they need when we continue to bring up something that was from Thursday night.” As to what Trump actually said and how much BLP importance it had - silly trivia, Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to believe my lying eyes, and reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, calls to poison control increase because of Trump's comment,[49] and you want to blame it on Lysol because their corporate Twitter account sent out a tweet saying not to ingest their product? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu Since there’s more ranting critics in NYC spouting about Lysol, etcetera, it perhaps makes some sense their words caused NYC to have an issue. Or could be normal statistical variation in NYC-only that NYC chose to find and speculate about. But speculative causation is not for the article. And again - as to what Trump actually said and how much BLP enduring impact it had - silly trivia, Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I saw a panel on Fox News that, surprisingly, supported what Trump said about these proposed therapies. Have you seen the recent Fox coverage of this? What is the latest coverage from them and their panelists? SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO ? No, I have not been there, but you can go to foxnews.com and find out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For the second day, Fox.com is all about Joe Biden. Virus? What virus? O3000 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I was mistaken above, he did say "inject" disinfectant. I have seen reports today that local poison control centers have received calls about people who ingested disinfectants. Also there has been widespread state and local messaging repeating Dr. Birx' call for people not to poison themselves. It's hard to believe, but there apparently is a large number of people for whom Trump confers some sort of credibility on ideas that would otherwise seem ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to consider the lasting impact, recognize that he talked about bleach and UV on Thursday, cut the briefing off without questions on Friday, then didn't hold one on Saturday while claiming they're a waste of time.[50] It's gotten Trump to want to not be on camera. That's some impact. Is there going to be a conference tomorrow? And there's the talk that this is when he had finally gone off the rails for good (opinion piece, not RS) but we'll need time to tell on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully we have not gotten so immune to the daily misinformation that we receive from this administration that no matter what Trump says we just go ho-hum just more chatter that means nothing and there is no need to take note of it. This incident was not just normal political lies that all politicians engage in. This chatter went around the world and was on every newscast for days. It caused spikes in poison hotlines across the nation. It seems, at least for now, to have put an end to the Trump coronavirus team daily news briefings. To have Trump as usual not attend the daily briefing where the upcoming televised news briefing is discussed and then "muse" (which I believe Birx called it in defense of Trump) on camera about injecting disinfectants or somehow putting "powerful light" inside one's body is so far from anything that is normal for a president to do and then have Wikipedia call it not needed in this article is, to me, pretty amazing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There are always minority opinions, even on the Supreme Court. I think {{ping}|MrX}} provided a good first draft. @Starship.paint: has been working on related issues at Trump administration communication during the coronavirus pandemic, so I think that if they bring their latest ideas to us, we'll soon have text to go in this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. When the FDA, the CDC, and the EPA all comment on something that came right out of Trump's *** we need to document it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps so, in one or more of the articles about his presidency, and/or one or more of the articles about the pandemic. We don't necessarily need to document it – or anything else of this nature – here merely because of this article's high visibility. That's not how Wikipedia seeks to organize its information. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer this is the BLP article, so not everything suits or is big enough to appear. A three-day about silly wishful voicing is trivia that has no enduring impact or biographical effect. I have no doubt the repetition of the story led some folks to ask poison control about it, but that’s also trivia and only a hypothetical as I have not seen cites to V “hotlines across the country” as anything but hyperbole. (Have you actual cites of multiple cities on that?) Likewise whether President Trump has stopped appearing at those briefings is minutiae, and hypothetical beyond the actual days seen. If you have seen cites of multiple city effects, I suggest you try at an article more detailed and specific to the item than this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we find a way to link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the first paragraph?

We do a good job here of moving content to the presidency article when needed, but judging by the pretty striking disparity in viewing statistics, we do much worse job of redirecting readers who might be better served there. Adding a link in the first paragraph might help remedy that. For reference, what we currently have 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 easiest way to do this might be to just modify the wikilinking a bit, to

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.

(I also added wikilinks to his business and media career articles in the above; if that's controversial, then disregard.)

I think the presidency article will be much more useful than the generic President of the United States article up top. We could link the presidency article later on in the intro by switching He became the oldest first-term U.S. president to He became the oldest first-term U.S. president. Does that sound alright? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to do this, I suggest a link that is not easter-eggy. Somehow the text should say "his presidency". It would not be obvious to me as a reader that the suggested links above would take me to discussion of his presidency. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you propose to do when he is no longer the "current" president of the United States? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a simple way to put a link to "Presidency of Donald Trump" into the first paragraph. Change Before entering politics to Before he became president. If politics is defined as the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power - nah, that's not what we've been witnessing since he came down that escalator. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Alternatively: Before assuming the presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: That's a good thought. To write it out, you're proposing

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before he became president, he was a businessman and television personality.

I see two issues, though, both of which are perhaps solvable with some tweaks. First, this would mean we'd use "president" twice, which introduces a bit of a language variation issue. Second, readers might think that "became president" would go to his inauguration article, so there's a bit of an MOS:EGG issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we should still have a link to President of the United States in the first sentence. Let's not replace one link with the other. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't like this idea very much. We already link to it later in the introduction. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support linking to Trump's presidency on the anchor text "current president of the United States". The link to President of the United States is indeed less important, and curious readers can readily access the generic presidency article from the specific Trump presidency article. I would oppose links to businessman and television personality as being generic terms according to MOS:OVERLINK, and I wouldn't link to the articles on his business and media career either due to the WP:Easter Egg feeling. The presidency link is not EGGy, though. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• That link is not an egg, but it is eggy. I do not think readers who want more detail Donald Trump's policies and his staff and his actions in office are going to think that "current president of the United States" takes them to content about kids in cages etc. But Scjessey has made a good point, so this may not be worth more effort. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I used "was a businessman" rather than "businessman" for the link to remedy the EGG issue there, but I don't know what could be done for "television personality". I agree it's not perfect, but I think it's a reasonable enough target and that the benefits of having the link there outweigh the downsides. If that's persuasive to you, good, we can role that change into this one. If not, we should probably have a separate discussion on that, since it's fully separate and shouldn't muddy our discussion on the presidency link question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per others, and because my question has not been answered. If a link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the first paragraph is important now, it will be equally important when he leaves office – unless you have a recentist mind-set re this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Once he's out of office, we could use something like Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States. Before his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality. But that seems like a bridge to cross when the time comes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  I guess that's good enough to strike my Oppose, but not good enough to switch to Support. I doubt I'd write the prose that way if we didn't have wikilinks, and I'm not comfortable bending it quite that much to accommodate a useful link that is already available slightly below the first paragraph. Actually I prefer a two-step process, one that is not being used in this thread: First, write best prose without thinking about links. Only then provide useful links, as possible without significant egginess. Does this approach mean providing less useful links than combining the two steps into one? Yes, sometimes it does. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  Why would we have to wait until he's out of office to say "Before his presidency"? It seems like perfectly good wording to use now. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can take the view that his is an unconventional presidency, therefore we can use unconventional wording and linking. Well, something like that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• The easiest way to avoid a surprise that POTUS goes to his presidency might be to make do the wikilinking on “current”, as has been done elsewhere, to

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.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitalizing "president" is a separate change and one that's likely to be controversial, so let's not get into that here. I like your idea, though — I think linking over "current" or "current president" would be a good solution. I'd slightly prefer the latter, since the whole idea here is to help readers discover the presidency article, and a slightly longer link does that better. My reading of the general consensus here is that we want to include the link, so let's wait a day or two, and if that still seems to be the case, I think we can go ahead and implement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That alternative link idea is one I saw on the old Obama page, thought it a perhaps less confusing option. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm warming up to the idea of linking to Trump's business and media careers as well as his presidency. Capital P has run out of style per MOS:JOBTITLES, and a link on just "current" looks weird, while a link on "current president of the United States" looks overkill, so I'd suggest linking just "current president" to the presidency article. Thus:

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.

I could do without the trivia link on 45th, but the numbering of presidents seems like a sacred national tradition in that country. Comments on this latest version? — JFG ^talk 05:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's where we've landed since you're concurring with my reply to Mark. I'm going to go ahead and implement; hopefully that's not overly bold. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The article needs a review

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.

---

After reading the lead section, it is clear that it doesn’t follow the neutral and encyclopaedic point of view. Part of the section seems to be a conglomeration of some of Trump’s failures and controversies, when in reality it should be a brief outline of his life and political position. Whilst I fully concur with everything that was said and believe they are necessary components of the article, out of context (e.g not under their own section) they are just a depiction of why he is a bad president—which, as mentioned, is not neutral. In order for it to seem unbiased, I feel they strictly belong under the “Public Profile” section.

Please feel free to correct and educate me though—I’m fairly new to Wikipedia so any educational correction is definitely welcomed! Androvax (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You might start with a read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and I think you'll find that it doesn't closely correspond to common notions of "neutrality". Basically we are required to report the bad with the good, in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, in this case largely major news outlets. The lead is simply supposed to summarize the most essential points of the rest of the article, and that's the topic of continuous discussions. I don't know what a "review" would look like beyond what we are already doing every day – if there's a mechanism for independent review of an article's general neutrality, I'm not aware of it – but any editor including you is welcome to suggest a specific, policy-based improvement to any part of the article. That initiates a discussion which may yield a consensus that results in a change to the article.

All that said, education of new editors is really outside the function and purpose of this page. Your best learning resources are policies and guidelines (you could start at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) and editor assistance pages including WP:Teahouse and WP:Help desk. And you might be interested in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a similar comment (elsewhere on this talk page) just yesterday. The tone of the article creates an impression on a reader that would tend to diminish the credibility of the website as a whole. Worded as they are, a reader would accept many or most of these statements as editorial. - Drsruli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The language of this article is the result of a carefully worked out consensus with dozens of contributors. Can you offer a more concrete suggestion for improvement than a vague "impression" and general condemnation of the credibility of the project? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drsruli and Androvax: at stated at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. If the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that "Trump is funny", then Wikipedia will prominently reflect: "Trump is funny". If the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that Trump is doing many bad things, then that is also what this article will reflect. starship.paint (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Drsruli Yes, the article is biased. Part of it is from WP policy saying to show material according to the WP:WEIGHT, and the media is what it is. The article goes further, but that’s a result of WP:VOLUNTEER - editors are whoever want to edit here, including whatever biases they have. At worst, when WP articles have an obvious bias, it becomes obvious and readers will be able to discount some of it as they wish. Call that WP:READER! Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense, Mark. Please STOP claiming Wikipedia, this article, and its editors are biased. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you, since you seem unable to assume any sort of good faith from your fellow editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Thank you for providing an example. WP:AGF would apply to the many who have remarked upon this article bias, yes? And remarking on use of WP:BIASED sources and of editor POVs or exaggeration in edits is normal and should be normal. That in this article even these simple matters are hotly denied and denounced or proclaimed and accused in TALK seems just natural. This is a partisan topic, so one has to expect WP:PARTISAN sources and editor views - and things to just not be easy. Just not credible to say there is no bias about. As to this and AGF - note that a BIASED source or flawed edit is certainly possible in good faith, and part of POV is that every editor actually has a limited and flawed view - AGF just is trying to view flaws in the light of honest mistakes. Cheers 2604:2D80:911A:8900:45CB:ACA:A78B:2B33(talk) 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

While it is understandable that some will constantly make broad based claims of biased sources and editor POV and exaggeration because of their own biases, it does not contribute to consensus. O3000 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume 2604:2D80:911A:8900:45CB:ACA:A78B:2B33 is Markbassett (talk · contribs), right? It just makes me laugh out loud when some editors cry "bias!" when Wikipedia dispassionately reports the unvarnished facts about politicians. You cannot claim something is biased just because you disagree with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Thanks, I’ve fixed my signature above. And I think it obvious your second part is factually and logically incorrect. Factually many have claimed something is biased just because they disagreed with it, and logically that’s a prerequisite for finding actual bias. Such as the over 100 mentions of bias in the TALK archives. Think I need to talk about the edit now, cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Androvax in trying to seem less biased by not leading with the conglomeration of controversies and failures, to have only a shorter summary form in lead section, can you highlight bits in particular you have in mind? For example, are you looking to prune the end part of the second paragraph when it starts running into criticisms, something like the below?

Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated 16 other candidates in the primaries. His political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Despite not being favored in most forecasts, he was elected over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president,[b] and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. 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. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.

RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:30, 28 April 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.

@Scjessey I can, and I did above, in my actual original comment.

Aside from the inappropriate style, I would also mention... it should be obvious by now, that standards for neutrality won't be adhered to when quoting from transparently biased sources. Newspapers are generally "liberal" or "conservative", and some more heavily in their reporting than others. TNYT is a good newspaper, but it makes no secret of its political leaning, and this goes beyond the designated editorial page. That's acceptable for a newspaper. But it is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. EVEN if only a minority of the voices here noticed it (and I'm not sure that it is a minority) the fraction is certainly large enough, that the point must be considered. - Drsruli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)