Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RFC: First sentence

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: First sentence

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

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

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

Survey: First sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see you unhatted your personal comment eroniously citing TPG.[1] Sorry but no it is commenting on the contributor and not on their content and should be hatted as off-topic personal commentary. Stuff like No one can force you to respond to reason are not helpful and if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop making them. Quit badgering people that disagree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose – Linking to Trump's specific presidency is more useful to readers than linking to the generic article about what a U.S. president is. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As far as I'm concerned, no logical argument has been presented to necessitate the need to change this long-standing lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The current lead is not longstanding. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support linking to president of the United States makes far more sense than the presidency article helping meet MOS:LINKCLARITY. Consensus for the lead paragraph is not formed in a matter of days on such a high traffic article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the linking regarding "current presidents of the United States"; I oppose the linking regarding the 45th since it links to the article itself instead of a section. The linking to "his presidency" can be done somewhere else, and what in the world is a president of the U.S.? It's worth linking to. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: First sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey: Support some mention of coronavirus in lead

Support

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

   Donald Trump has made the Coronavirus a part of his biography, his legacy, because of Trump's willful inactions/actions, Trump's repeated untruthful statements about COVID19[3], Trump's sending of 18 Tons of U.S. Stockpiled PPE, ventilators, masks etc., to China on February 7 [4] despite being warned by his Adviser, Peter Navarro, in January that "that the coronavirus crisis could cost the United States trillions of dollars and put millions of Americans at risk of illness or death."[5], Trump's January 18 demands that HHS Secretary Azar not do massive testing because [6] "more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear - the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall." Trump ignoring Dr. Fauci and other medical experts and instead "pushed" U.S. governors force businesses to reopen[7] as coronavirus was spiking and "despite failing to achieve benchmarks laid out by the White House for when social distancing restrictions could be eased to ensure the public’s safety[8]. Yes, Trump has made Coronavirus a part of his biography, so naturally it belongs in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

8. Support as a defining issue worldwide, and Trump's actions have been central to the U.S. response. Whether that's effective is more complex, but the basic figures make this significant to Trump's presidency. . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support as the pandemic is the most important worldwide event that happened during Trumps presidency, and the response has influenced how the pandemic influenced the USA. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

   Markbassett - it's funny how you totally ignored what the Associated Press said: slow to act in favour of your own opinion. Here's more from the Associated Press [9]: the Trump administration squandered nearly two months that could have been used to bolster the federal stockpile of critically needed medical supplies and equipment. Here's the Guardian [10]: the U.S. dithered and procrastinated, became mired in chaos and confusion, was distracted by the individual whims of its leader, and is now confronted by a health emergency of daunting proportions, and is experiencing Trump’s failed leadership. Par for the course, you endorse. starship.paint (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   [11]: Nationally, the U.S. needs to be doing about 900,000 tests a day - but it's doing around half of that [12]. Travel back in time to 12 March. BBC says: [13] Relative to other countries dealing with coronavirus, the US has done only a handful of tests ... far fewer than 10,000 people have been tested - compared to 20,000 per day in South Korea.. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

7. Oppose For now as ongoing. I would rather wait until the section in the article is more finished and pared down. Then see if it is fit for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose – Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump. Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes regardless of specific measures taken. Can't single out Trump's responses from any other world leaders', unless we fall into the usual partisanship. — JFG ^talk 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose – Not specific Trump or any world leader for that matter. Not a result of any actions of Trump. Any praise or criticism of federal response is relative and an opinion and this article in general is already plagued with far too much opinion and misinformation as it is. — OnePercent ^talk 04:48, 09 May 2020 (UTC)

Wording proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

The key points are that Trump failed to act on the early warnings from his administration's national intelligence and health officials, concentrating instead on the potential harm to stock market indices if he took bold action against the virus. We now have the Columbia University study that quantifies the results of his having neglected the dire threat. The study estimated that had social distancing been implemented even a single week earlier, 36,000 lives would have been saved. [14] [15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above "survey" is already a ridiculous mess, so I'm just going to restate what I said in the last discussion. I continue to think this is an appropriate text:

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

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

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

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

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

• comment Because Trump ignored the advice from medical experts on the Coronavirus Task Force and Trump "began to undercut" the advice coming from the Task Force, [16] I would strike "to tackle the threat" and strike "on the American response" so it would read, "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created a task force and began giving daily briefings, and signed the CARES Act rescue package."

And maybe we could add, "Talk of cutting down Trump's daily briefings heated up after Trump suggested injecting disinfectant as a potential virus treatment."[17] -- or, maybe that part doesn't belong in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Implementing the suggestions from the recent Peer Review

It has been about a month since I opened the PR of this article, (linked here) and I did get a few good suggestions on how to improve the article, especially its lead.

Some of the issues raised were:

• Trump's proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel gets proportionally much more coverage in this lead compared with his presidency article. This is because the presidency article has 5 paragraphs on the subject whereas this article has only a few sentences. Given the low amount of coverage it receives here it could be dropped from the lead.
• A low amount of coverage in this article as far as deregulation is concerned.
• An incomplete summary in the lead of certain social and immigration issues, given that the lead does not mention the lengthy government shutdown or the border wall.

Your comments or suggestions on which suggestions we should implement and how are most welcome. Mgasparin (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Mgasparin: - regarding immigration, in the body I've expanded the family separation section, created/expanded the migrant detention section, and created the Trump wall section. starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint What about Jerusalem though? What should we do there? (An RfC may be necessary). Mgasparin (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: - yeah, we should go to an RfC on Jerusalem. At least that will provide a consensus whether or not it should remain. starship.paint (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: - I've expanded the Trump wall section, the shutdown section, created/expanded the national emergency section. We should be good to go in proposing a change to the lead regarding immigration. starship.paint (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• @JFG: - we originally worked on the above. You wrote that there is increased policing of the Mexican border. Is this already in the body of this article? I did write in the article that the Trump administration is granting less exemptions for migrant detentions, but that's not totally the same, is it? From what I’ve read, it’s more of harsher policing. Sources below. starship.paint (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Santa Clara Law Review [18]: ...President Trump's systematic efforts to dramatically escalate immigration enforcement ... The Trump administration seeks to significantly build on the Obama administration's coldly efficient immigration enforcement program, while narrowing, and perhaps eliminating, more generous treatment of immigrants subject to possible removal from the United States.
  • Wake Forest Law Review [19] Trump has pursued a full assortment of tough enforcement measures ... the Trump administration responded to Central American asylum seekers through measures tougher than the policies pursued by any modern president.
  • Critical Social Work [20]: The use of detention and deportation policy and procedure was initiated to a heightened degree under the Obama administration and ramped up considerably under the Trump administration

  I was thinking of the measures detailed at Immigration policy of Donald Trump#Increased immigration enforcement, including the "zero tolerance" policy on illegal crossings, the efforts to avoid "catch and release" scenarios and intent to patch relevant loopholes in law, and the summoning of the army to the border (which apparently has precedent under G.W. Bush). All this can be neatly summarized for the lead with "increased policing", but I'm open to other wording suggestions. — JFG ^talk 06:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JFG: - the thing is, I don't think intent to patch relevant loopholes in law, and the summoning of the army to the border (which apparently has precedent under G.W. Bush). are in this article yet. It has to go into the body.

  Trump's immigration policy resulted in travel bans on citizens from several countries, while at the Mexican border, he increased policing, expanded border fencing ("the wall"), and implemented harsher immigration enforcement, causing increased migrant detentions and family separations.

  starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, absolutely, and thanks for your job so far expanding the relevant sections. I have limited time for this today; would you like to continue on your stride or rather wait for help? — JFG ^talk 07:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JFG: - please always ping me to alert me. I've just added that he was sent 6,000 troops to the border. The body now reflects the proposed text above. Are you okay with it? Oh, and I didn't know what you were referring to by intent to patch relevant loopholes in law. So I probably missed it. starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump has implemented restrictive immigration policy and travel bans. At the Mexican border, he increased policing, expanded border fencing ("the wall"), and harshened immigration enforcement, causing increased migrant detentions and family separations.

@JFG: - re-thought this. starship.paint (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 24, 2018 before a group of U.S. Veterans of Foreign War, Trump said, "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." Orwellian? Yes[21]. The absurd notion that Trump has a government website denying Trump used tear gas against Americans protesting the government just so Trump could walk across the street for a photo-op at a church is Orwellian, a lie, propaganda. And the lie starts with Trump's government website falsely claiming that "pepper balls" are not tear gas, but according to the Washington Post [22] the C.D.C. says it is tear gas. I don't know why Trump wants to deny what we saw with our own eyes, but, in the future, if Trump does not want the media to expose his violence against Americans exercising their 1st Amendment right, then he should stop being so violent against Americans. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I know this isn't a vote, but I feel this should be included in Trump's bio because I feel this is who Trump is and who he is belongs in both his bio page and in the Presidency of Donald Trump page. Let me explain what I mean, Trump is an Authoritarian[23] [24]. Not a Republican, but an Authoritarian. So, just as the "Russia's annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine" and Putin using Russian police to attack Russian protesters is within Vladimir Putin's bio page, Trump attacking American protesters with tear gas just to so he can get a photo-op at a church should be in Trump's bio. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for your kind words.  I should have been more clear in my two comments.  My first comment was addressing my "non-support" of the editor's proposition, who began this new section, that we exclude truth based off of Trump's most recent fib, untruth[25], 'it wasn't tear-gas' even though WaPo confirms it was, in fact, tear gas & we saw the tear gas with our own eyes. My second comment was to "support" SPECIFICO's edit. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of this story - I don't think this is a mere passing item in the news cycle that will quickly be forgotten, I think it is a major, pivotal event that completely meets WP:WEIGHT and is totally WP:DUE. It has united Episcopalian clergy in furious denunciation [26], the participation of the Defense Secretary in the photo op resulted in "A former top official at the Pentagon, James Miller, resign(ing)... from his position on a Defense Advisory Board.... his decision was made over Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s participation in President Donald Trump’s photo op in front of St. John’s Church" [27] and is even splitting his conservative evangelical base the photo op was intended to appeal to [28].Smeat75 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, but it needs to be put into the context of the worldwide protests triggered by George Floyd's murder, but arguable resulting from pent up outrage about systemic racism in the U.S. criminal justice system. We should also briefly mention SecDef Esper's break from Trump's position regarding the insurrection act. For those who are concerned about lack of room in the article, I would be happy to start trimming an equal amount of non-biographical material as I have offered before. To those invoking WP:NOTNEWS, please understand the words and intent in the policy you are invoking. To those invoking WP:RECENTISM, I will point you to tens of thousands of sports and concert articles added over the past 19 years. In other words, WP:RECENTISM does not describe something that is in opposition to actual widespread practice. - MrX 🖋 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@Markbassett: Time to self-revert your removal: [29][30] SPECIFICO talk

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

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

Trudeau! Business as usual. Just a day's headline? [31] SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gandydancer In Foreign Policy [32] retired Marine Corps 4-star General John Allen wrote, "One wonders, did Esper and Barr know that hundreds of peaceful U.S. citizens had been attacked by riot police just minutes before, their civil rights massively violated just to set the stage for their picture? Did it occur to them that in posing with the president and the Bible he held in front of a church, ostensibly calling down the authority of God on this cause, they were violating the spirit of one of the most important strictures in America, the separation of church and state? And if federal troops are indeed dispatched into the states to take action against American civilians, where does the Bible and the Christian God figure into the president’s deployment order? The framers of the Constitution intended the separation for a reason, and the commander in chief just trampled it." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

• Include but retitle and refocus somewhat. This one incident should not be a full section and should not be two paragraphs. Instead we should change the section title to something like "Response to George Floyd killing." We should expand the info about his comments and actions. Instead of him floating (but not using) the Insurrection Act, we should say that he ordered National Guard troops from several states, as well as personnel from a dozen federal law enforcement agencies, into Washington, D.C. "Combined, at least 5,800 troops, agents, and officers have taken to the streets of the District." And we should include a couple of sentences, no more, about the St. John’s Church incident. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is neither about the "Killing of George Floyd" nor the "Response to the George Floyd killing." This is about the Trump administration's questionable response to protests and riots over police misconduct since the police-custody death of George Floyd ([WaPo]), over systemic racism ([33]). The protests are about systemic racism. The Trump administration's response, Act 1, was driving peaceful and lawful demonstrators out of Lafayette Square with rubber bullets and teargas so Trump could stage a photo op pawing a Bible. (That's not just some "incident.") Act 2 was Trump threatening to deploy the military, Act 3 is Barr patrolling the streets of D.C. with unidentifiable Bureau of Prisons personnel in riot gear (asked if they were from the Department of Corrections, they replied, "Maybe"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Title of photo op section

Editor ZiplineWhy has changed the title to "Killing of George Floyd" twice now ([34], [35]), both times without the courtesy of explaining their reasons in the edit summary or discussing in the lengthy discussion above. In two edits after the first change ([36], [37]), the editor stated that the section should be expanded to include Trump's condemnation of Floyd's passing, and more information. The editor also added a sentence to the lead [[38]) which has since been deleted. I have reverted to last version prior to the change. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Iconic photo

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

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

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

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

I used the word iconic because that's what your edit summary called the other photo. I can't recall having seen or heard the word used for any of the photos from the outing. There are quite a few others (Trump pawing Bible, Trump looking at Bible—uh—pensively) but the one used most often on TV and as the only one or the first one in print is the one from those 15 looong seconds of Trump the Crusader defending the honor of Bible defiantly held aloft. The NY Times has the best photo IMO (Trump and lamppost framing church marquee sign) but unfortunately we can't use it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Forgot the sources (there are more): NY Times,[39], [40], [41]), [42], [43], [44], [45] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what RS tell us about the event Same song, verse 2,236, and again we see the weakness of this system. Editors can always claim that RS says this or that, and that's never provable or disprovable because nobody can assimilate the entire body of RS on any topic, let alone prove what they've assimilated. Confirmation bias. Which sources – which tiny subset of RS – have you personally read regarding this issue?

This business is largely a numbers contest between editors of different POVs, under the guise of policy-based decision-making. I've cast my effectively-democratic vote and submitted my off-topic but highly relevant meta-rant, and I'll move on now. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Bible

@Gandydancer: It's probably Trump's bible, i.e., a leather-bound copy of the Art of the Deal, but you're right. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

“Is that your Bible?” a reporter is heard asking Mr Trump during the moment. He responded: “It’s a Bible.”

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - The Independent. starship.paint (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size limit exceeded

The article exceeds the limit on post-expand include size, again, and has done since mid-day 30 May UTC. Three templates at the end of the article are currently broken, and more will be broken as the article continues to grow. The most recent in the long series of recurring discussions is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mandruss - would you know if manually writing citations would help instead of using “cite web, cite news? starship.paint (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it would. That was discussed in the previous discussion linked above, and was rejected or failed to gain consensus, depending on your point of view. I would still oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  My mistake, it was discussed here at around the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - hmm. Am I right to say that the main problem is the templates (thus, the references), and trimming article text (without touching the references) will not have much change? starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  This limit is 100% about template usage. If you removed everything except templates, PEIS would be unchanged and you would exceed the limit by exactly the same amount. But cite templates are not the only templates used in the article, and some of the templates at the end of article add more to the PEIS than I think they're worth at an article that keeps exceeding the limit. This was discussed in the previous discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - specifically, exactly which templates would you remove? I think all the "Links to related articles" could go. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hard for me to say. As I said in the previous discussion, I've never used any of that "bottom material" in my 15 years as a Wikipedia reader and editor. I just don't need it. No doubt some editors would insist that it's really, really important to have it, some of them because other U.S. presidents' BLPs have it and We Must Be Consistent Or Readers Will Lose All Respect For Wikipedia (WMBCORWLARFW).

  I've just done some experimentation that indicates that the article's two invocations of {{Navboxes}} consume 21.6% of the PEIS limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Count me as someone who finds the bottom navboxes next to useless. Let's just replace it with a link to the template, or invoke the template on a subpage and link to that. Problem solved. - MrX 🖋 02:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good work Mandruss. I'm thinking we need to nuke those two navboxes, unless we use MrX's solution. MrX, I'm not that technically savvy, could you carry out what you suggested so that we may at least observe the results? starship.paint (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would also be in favor of completely removing "Links to related articles". So much of that bottom nav stuff is redundant anyway. I'm going to boldly remove it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  The result after that edit is: Post‐expand include size: 1893639/2097152 bytes -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Removing the bottom navbox made no difference in the Post-expand include size. - MrX 🖋 14:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  That is not accurate. It went from 2097151/2097152 bytes and three broken templates to 1893639/2097152 bytes and zero broken templates. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Totally misunderstood what you were saying, sorry. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you got that result, MrX, or maybe I totally misunderstand what you were saying as well. If you could remove any template without affecting PEIS, it would mean that my entire understanding of PEIS is incorrect, and I would immediately go insane. My temporary test using "Show preview" indicates that the remaining {{Navboxes}} (titled "Leadership roles") costs 161,420 bytes of PEIS, or 7.7% of the limit. After this removal of the other {{Navboxes}}, the article is now at 90.3% of the limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I can't explain it. I fully saved the revision, reopened the article for editing, and did a preview to generate those results. I suppose caching could be the reason for no change to the size, but I doubt it. - MrX 🖋 19:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  The only thing you fully saved was this, which was not a {{Navboxes}}. But even that should have reduced PEIS. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I said I removed the bottom navbox which is exactly what I did. I removed Template:Donald Trump, which is the bottom navbox about the subject of the article. - MrX 🖋 11:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Further testing suggests that a typical cite template (in this article) costs about 1,550 bytes of PEIS. Thus, the "Leadership roles" {{Navboxes}} costs as much as about 104 cite templates and the other one about 188. And, if Scjessey's removal holds, we currently have room for about 130 more cite templates before busting the limit again. If all of my testing and arithmetic is correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss, MrX, and Scjessey: I've also removed the leadership roles navigation box and made a formal proposal below. starship.paint (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the navboxes

In light of the above findings: (1) our article is exceeding the post-expand include size, purely because of templates, which include references and navboxes. (2) The navboxes take up around 290 references' worth of post-expand include size. (3) We've already tried to condense the article, most of the content already has child articles, the latest being: Media career of Donald Trump.

Therefore it is proposed that all navigation templates from the bottom of the article are removed except Template:Donald Trump, as that is the most relevant navigation template to this article. The navboxes removed [46] [47] are those related to U.S. Presidents, 2016 election, the GOP, Time Person of the Year, leading NATO, G8, G20, APEC. starship.paint (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Our actual article content is more important than the navigation boxes. starship.paint (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to first know how much that would reduce the size. - MrX 🖋 11:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you preview a page then "Parser profiling data" at the bottom of the window includes "Post-expand include size". If you preview the navboxes excluding {{Donald Trump}} in [48] from yesterday then it currently says "453,926/2,097,152 bytes". This means these navboxes use 22% of the allowed 2 MB:

{{Navboxes
|list1 =
{{US Presidents}}
{{United States presidential election, 2016}}
{{Republican Party (United States)}}
{{Time Persons of the Year}}
}}
{{Navboxes
|title=Leadership roles
|list1 =
{{Current NATO leaders}}
{{G8 Leaders}}
{{List of Current Heads of State of G20}}
{{List of Current Heads of Government of G20}}
{{Current G20 Leaders}}
{{APEC Leaders}}
}}

Mandruss said "a typical cite template (in this article) costs about 1,550 bytes". That means the navboxes correspond to 453,926/1,550 = 293 cite templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal of navboxes. Replace them with a link to another page, maybe a new page, where they are shown instead. Maybe keep {{US Presidents}} which uses 6,416 bytes. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per analysis by PrimeHunter. As I mentioned before, bottom navboxes have minimal utility. I also support moving them to a subpage and providing a link from this article. The link should probably be a hatnote at the top, or perhaps in the infobox. - MrX 🖋 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. They have never added any value whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. From the perspective of PEIS, the act is hugely consequential and gives us quite a bit of headroom for cites now. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. One could argue that we should remove one {{Navboxes}} now, the other only if and when we exceed the limit again. I would argue that I'm really tired of this problem and neither {{Navboxes}} is really needed. With the two removals, we now have room for ~235 more cite templates and I don't expect us to ever need more than ~1,090 citations. (The difference between 235 and PrimeHunter's 293 indicates that we were well over the limit before the removals.) In other words, this solution finally puts this issue to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don’t like not looking at root issues and seeking other fixes. I believe hitting the limit came up before and we only thinned the over-citing, and did nothing else so here we are again. So my concern is another stopgap will lead to again not doing anything else in restraint or pruning, causing another stopgap each time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  If this is a stopgap, I believe it's the last one, as I said above. Before we hit ~1,090 citations we'll be forced to do something like another spinoff or dramatic trimming, maybe even a complete change in coverage of the presidency per #Current consensus #37 (one can dream). Even now, the article's readable prose is at 111% of the size where the article "Almost certainly should be divided" per WP:SIZERULE. That's the highest tier in the guideline, so we're already off-scale large in effect. We are never going to reach 27% larger than we are now, which is what ~1,090 cites approximates. I sympathize with your feeling that this is an easy fix that enables continued bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - all it takes to overwhelm this article would be four more years, if we continue at this level of coverage. We would have to take an even higher level approach. starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: What do you propose? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  User:Onetwothreeip for approach, that anything start with looking at the issue causes more and have sought more for ideas on improving things. If I recall, the last time this came up it had the same proposal and negative reactions led to pruning the overciting instead. For solutions - I propose that longer term influencing or more radical ideas should get on the table. I will offer two illustrations. First, that #37 get a revisit thread to ramp up it’s effectiveness and to get more restraint guidance / discussion as a longer term influence. Second - radically, to recognize the divide and contention here and just take a Non-overlapping magisteria approach by cutting the article in the middle. Well, not the middle - divide the first 9 screens that cover Donald Trump’s life from the later 25 screens that cover the last couple years of not-biographically notable items. Otherwise, I could offer up multiple nits of behaviours/content to deprecate but those would be for detailed discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Mark, we've found a solution that works. We got rid of some utterly pointless navboxes. Job done.👍🏻 Time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump and North Korea

I am responding to comments about North Korea made in the "Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op" section here, because they really have little relevance there. Firstly, to repeat it ad nauseum, the fact that editors think Trump's activities have been a "failure" etc is no reason to exclude the topic from this article. Secondly, we need to have perspective here. The Korean conflict began in 1945, rapidly erupting into the Korean War. North Korea's nuclear weapons program first became a major concern in the time of President Clinton. Its first nuclear bomb test was in 2006, in the time of George W Bush. The history of U.S. diplomacy toward North Korea is rife with failure and frustration. Past sitting U.S. presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, never met with their North Korean counterparts, and yet struggled and ultimately failed to permanently dismantle North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, was accused of essentially giving up on the North Korea nuclear issue, even as he managed to strike a nuclear deal with Iran.[49] It is hopelessly partisan to somehow heap the blame on Trump. I don't believe there is consensus among sources that Trump has failed. What the president currently has to show for his efforts are the toughest international sanctions ever imposed on North Korea; a nonbinding suspension of North Korean nuclear- and long-range-missile tests; a shattered taboo against American and North Korean leaders meeting; a vague North Korean commitment to denuclearization; a semi-destroyed nuclear-test site; and the return of some American hostages and the remains of U.S. soldiers. The crisis with North Korea is less acute now than it was in 2016 and 2017, but the progress is modest and subject to change at any moment.[50] Trump’s strategy at this writing has calmed the situation and reinvigorated the negotiating track by having U.S. and North Korean officials meet at the highest level for the first time in history. He has addressed, at least temporarily, what matters most to U.S. vital national interests—the suspension of North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, whose systems directly threaten the U.S. mainland. It appears unlikely that this would have happened without Trump’s dramatic if unorthodox approach, and through his negotiation the United States is now in a somewhat better position to reduce the threat from North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles than it was when he entered.[51] I am all for the improvement of the article on this issue, but given the fact that the article is oversize, and given the there is a diversity of opinion, and given the many issues that should be considered, especially President Moon's Sunshine Policy, I don't think we can simply sum it up here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you propose we do? Seems to me that the article covers NK accurately. Your lengthy quote from the Council of Foreign Relations PDF was published in April 2019 and says that progress was modest and subject to change at any moment. Quoting your December 19, 2019, Atlantic article source: Although Trump says his friendship with Kim has produced a more peaceful North Korea, the reality, especially of late, has been quite different. Since May, North Korea has tested more missiles than it has in any other year in its history, except possibly 2016, according to the analyst Ankit Panda. It never stopped producing fissile material for nuclear bombs. ... The name-calling is back: Kim is once more “Rocket Man,” Trump a senile “dotard.” Satellites are spotting renewed activity at North Korean nuclear sites, while Kim has resumed testing at a rocket-launch site he had promised to dismantle in 2018. U.S. officials are yet again warning of military options. North Korean officials are proclaiming the days of denuclearization negotiations over. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In this recent Bloomberg article, "North Korea launched two unidentified projectiles off its eastern coast, South Korea’s defense ministry said, a move that comes just after the year anniversary of the failed Hanoi summit between leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump." Also "Talks between the two sides have achieved little since Trump walked out of his second summit with Kim in Hanoi on Feb. 28, 2019." It's basically fail, fail, fail all the way with Trump and North Korea. Christopher R. Hill, who served as a US envoy in the Bush administration in the 6-party talks pushing for NK denuclearization, describes the NK talks as "another foreign policy failure" in Time. So as I have said previously, any coverage we have of North Korea must necessarily include the fact that Trump's talks have all failed and we are basically back to where we were, only now Kim has lots of lovely pictures of him next to the President of the United States that show he is now on an equal footing on the world stage (exactly what he wanted). Oh, and let's not forget Trump's lie about an "armada" heading to North Korea, when in fact the carrier group was heading to Australia, in the opposite direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't get an argument from me but considering how hard it was to reach the current compromise (without lauding Trump for getting his dictator buddy to the photo op negotiation table) what would another discussion accomplish? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, you're reciting facts and views already known to the rest of us, but you are not responding to the point other editors made in that thread above. RS accounts of Trump's actions describe an entertainment/TV show with no policy, no goal, no strategy, no change in NK's behavior, but on the contrary, with disruption of US relations with South Korea and Japan and capitulation to Chinese interests in the region. Overall, the bluster, charade, and "friendship" with Kim -- along with the weakening of US military and diplomatic standing in Asia -- is described not as the result of a failed "policy" but rather as Trump's indifference to the vital interests of the US as defined by 75 years of policy, strategy, and international cooperation. You may support Trump's actions, good for you, but you have no basis to assert they arise from or constitute a "policy" or to scold editors for articulating the mainstream description of Trump's actions. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To Jack Upland You are mistaken. Past US Presidents negotiated formal-binding written Agreements with North Korea. Trump only got a "joint statement" but no formal Agreement.  When Trump signed a non-binding "joint statement" (not an Agreement), the New York Times [52] reported,  Trump  "failed to reach an agreement on how to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs or when to ease United Nations sanctions against the North.  Experts say Trump's joint statement “is the most watered-down joint statement concerning these two nations ever." 

The Washington Post[53] reports, previous U.S. Presidents extracted more concessions from N. Korea than what Trump did, "the denuclearization pledge in the Trump statement is “diluted from the six-party talks provision, and there was no mention of North Korea moving towards complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization, as the administration had hinted."

On testing: May 2019 - March 2020 North Korea tested ballistic missiles - which means they have been ignoring their "joint statement" for over a year - and Trump has done nothing about it. In May 2020 New York Times [54] reports, "Kim Jong-un, convened the country’s top military-governing body, outlining “new policies for further increasing” its nuclear capabilities and promoting top weapons officials."

In the 1950s [55], with the help of U.S.S.R and China, North Korea started their nuclear program. North Korea's nuclear program became a 'major' concern for America in 1986, when Ronald Reagan was President. Washington Post [56] reports that in 1986 North Korea started their nuclear program under the North Korea Ministry of Atomic Energy Industry and "formally declared Kim Il Sung’s intention to develop a nuclear weapons program."

Experts say Trump has weakened America's position to negotiate with North Korea. The Washington Post [57] reports, “It’s a victory for North Korea, in having initiated an open-ended, drawn-out negotiation process that ensnares the U.S. into not enforcing sanctions. The question is, will Trump have the fortitude to admit he was duped?” BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

All these arguments prove is there are a wide range of opinions about Trump and North Korea. And if you want to argue that the nuclear weapons program became a major concern in 1986, OK! This only underlines how right I was with my initial comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack, you've given us a fitting summary to your disappointingly unresponsive participation here, "How right I was!" -- That is not really going to mean much to the other half dozen editors who disagree with you. If you do not believe that the NK nuclear activity was a prime threat by 2016, that would at least support your POV. As it is, nothing and no editor have supported your views. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Jack Upland - Agree, editor OR remarks and other posturing aside, not a failure. Factually, President Trump sought talks, visited, talks happened and a few small gestures, worth an wikiarticle Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. Think the article is currently Ok-ish. FWIW, Clinton, Obama, and generally others ... Think NYT probably not a good RS here, not sure of WaPo. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There no doubt that there have been failures, as documented below by reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reuters The failure of U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to secure even a limited deal at their second nuclear summit means any breakthrough now depends on working-level talks that have made little progress since last year.
• AFP the failure of a Kim-Trump meeting in Hanoi in February
• AP The lack of substance and fruitless working-level discussions set up the failure in Hanoi
• AP ... the United States, which has been trying, and failing, to get North Korea back into serious talks
• Reuters failing to agree on a deal to lift U.S. sanctions in exchange for North Korea abandoning its nuclear and missile programs

User:Starship.paint However, this missed all the other RS that have no mention of some part failing, or even offer compliments, or just report facts and skip OPINION. What the article has now seems OK-ish. Thank you for showing the MrX rant with “comically” fail is not supported, but otherwise think your ability to google and filter and look only at ones using the word “fail” is not useful, any more than the descriptive “historic”, “courageous”, “praiseworthy”, etcetera. Try googling with OUT a bias, possibly by date range, and see the other materials. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Trump Meets Kim Jong Un, Steps Foot Inside North Korea
• Singapore summit: Historic meeting between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un
• Trump invites Kim Jong-un to visit US after stepping into North Korea – as it happened
• Trump reaches out to North Korea in bid to resume nuclear talks
• Trump hails Kim reappearance, but North Korea denuclearization prospects bleak

• Markbassett - when you call the Big Three news agencies AP, Reuters, AFP "OPINION" and then bring up the New York Post, I can't help but laugh. Yes, Trump has done many new things, as evidenced in your first to third sources, but the end result, as seen from your fifth source, the most recent, the most reputable, Reuters: prospects for the U.S. efforts to persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize appear as bleak as ever … North Korea has shown no willingness to abandon weapons it sees as vital for defense of the nation and the Kim dynasty … [Trump's] lack of progress in persuading North Korea to give up a weapons program that now threatens the United States. Thanks for making my case. starship.paint (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• On second thoughts, all the "historic", "courageous", "praiseworthy" things done actually makes the lack of progress look even worse. starship.paint (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Thank you for at least acknowledging there are also RS accounts that described President Trump’s actions and events as "historic", "courageous", "praiseworthy" things. And so, the end result in praiseworthy efforts for a difficult situation is slightly more accomplished than was before, some notable more precedents made that had not been made before, and some positive remarks and gestures between the two nations — as you note the most recent of the not-filtered-for”fail” above was Reuter’s which noted “long-range missile and nuclear testing suspended since 2017”. A glass not yet as full as wished is still not an empty glass, and things are definitely better. If President Trump is not yet finished with a long hard task does not despise his starting it as worth pursuing, and having made progress to hand things along improved from where they were is all any President can hope for. A glass not as full as wished is still not an empty glass. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - I took you at your word for those descriptions, Mark (...you know "courageous" was actually Kim's words, not RS right? also I couldn't find "praiseworthy" in your links) starship.paint (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint well, perhaps as a prime participant the Kim quote would be suitable to have Kim, through a translator, called Trump's decision to meet with him a "courageous and determined act." But in general my text said to exclude descriptives, not that they were in the cites later shown. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett - Trump is the first US President to give the brutal, murderous tyrant Kim Jung Un "legitimacy" & to put NK leader "on equal footing with the president of the United States." [58] [59] [60]. For good reason, no other President has ever wanted to give NK leader "legitimacy" nor wanted to put NK leader "on equal footing" to a US president. As the experts (I quoted in my comment above) said [61], "“It’s a victory for North Korea, in having initiated an open-ended, drawn-out negotiation process that ensnares the U.S. into not enforcing sanctions. The question is, will Trump have the fortitude to admit he was duped?” BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:BetsyRMadison you have bad facts, and would maybe be better served to try looking at more diversity of sites that are not so tabloid sensationalist/hyperbolic in expression. Look, Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula is not a bad thing to pursue, and there factually were already lots of prior efforts in the North Korea–United States relations. The Clinton and Carter efforts, or the more recent Obama efforts for example. On a sidenote, those emotionalism expressions don’t come across well. The use of meaningless phrases “equal footing” to a U.S. President, or “legitimacy” seems rather false, as does the portrayal of diplomacy as a gift. Should we take seriously anyone who would portray the leading of NK as somehow equal to leading the U.S.? And who seriously doubts that Kim *is* the leader of NK ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

To Markbassett - It appears you are confusing RS to "tabloids." RS report that Trump elevated the brutal, murderous tyrant Kim Jung Un to be "on equal footing with the president of the United States" and "by staging a high-profile photo-op absent nuclear concessions, was bestowing legitimacy on Kim and undermining global pressure to force the North to accept a denuclearization deal." [62] [63] [64] [65]. From Time Magazine [66], "Kim is not inviting Trump so that he can surrender North Korea’s weapons. Kim is inviting Trump to demonstrate that his investment in nuclear and missile capabilities has forced the United States to treat him as an equal.” Time continues, "Kim will pocket the optics, show his people and the world he is received as a legitimate head of state, and in the end keep his programs intact.”

So yes, Markbassett, we should absolutely "take seriously" RS reporting that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

User:BetsyRMadison Again you have bad facts and short too - this lacks or ignores the full history and diversity of views. Albright went. Carter went. Obama stated he was willing to meet NK (as well as to Cuba and Iran) but didn’t get there. President Trump went and some things were accomplished. The glass is somewhat full and there was never a guarantee of getting everything (or anything) but rather hope in trying something new. The Time article you cite also includes “There’s nothing wrong with meeting, even if the chances of success are exceedingly slim”. This meeting did get the article-mentioned goal of halting nuclear tests (plus no more long range missile tests) so is progress. That there were remains returned, people released, and at least some more moments of nice things being said also seem here. That the California professor Jeffrey Lewis (academic) didn’t think it wise I do note - among others that feel differently - but his view seems not especially prominent nor relevant. His expertise is about weapons after all, not about politics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also question this line of argument in the context of this discussion. It asserts that Trump and Moon should have avoided diplomacy with Kim. On the other hand, we have people who are asserting that Trump has "failed" because North Korea hasn't given up its nukes and that this presents a real danger to the USA. How do we reconcile these two positions? If Trump refused to negotiate, it is hardly likely there would have been progress on disarmament. Does doing nothing about a problem constitute success? Alternatively, is there nothing a US President can do about the issue?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The following text has been inserted into this article: As of May 2020, North Korea has shown no indication that it is willing to unilaterally denuclearize as the U.S. intends for it to. While this is basically true, it has very little to do with Trump. Firstly, this refers to the attitude of the North Korean government. Secondly, no other US president has had success in achieving this. I don't accept it was up to Trump alone to fix this. Bill Clinton had a chance to nip this in the bud. North Korea's arsenal now gives many Americans cause for concern, but at the same time the North Korean government is less likely to give it up now that it has advanced so far. It is hopelessly partisan to blame Trump for a problem that Obama, George W Bush, Clinton etc failed to solve.[67]--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Jack, this comment contains so many hidden assumptions, irrelevant agendas and narratives, and assertions contrary to the consensus on the above thread that it provides no guidance as to how you are proposing to edit the recent article content you cite. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• It’s just a status update on the whole situation. Who said Clinton, Dubya, Obama have no blame? Who said it was up to Trump alone to fix it? Trump tried to solve a problem and it hasn’t been solved yet. The text reflects that. starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• But why do we need a status update? All that happened in May is that Kim turned out to be still alive. It's an unnecessary addition in an article that's over-large. And it's clear from the comments above that several editors think this is a unique failure by Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We heard you Jack, but consensus disagrees. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We need a status update not exactly because Kim is still alive, but because there's no equivalent sentence in the entire article about North Korea (regardless of the date/month/year). Whatever editors think on this talk page is irrelevant - does the article say that only Trump is to blame? I get that this article is long, but consensus has explicitly affirmed that North Korea is important. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

North Korea is certainly more important than a controversial photo op, but I can't see a consensus in the discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland - I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the consensus that North Korea should be mentioned in this article's lede. That would make North Korea important for this article, no? Also, on September 21, 2017, Trump said that his goal was for the "complete denuclearization" [68] of North Korea. I hope that shows you the relevance of North Korea's refusal to denuclearize to this article. starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In response to the recent edits: "improved technology" and "increasingly seen"— too vague. Address to the UN — adds nothing. Cancelling and reinstating summit — too much detail. May 2020 update — unnecessary and unexplained. The big thing missing here is President Moon's diplomacy which started it off. And if you condemn Trump for meeting Kim, you should condemn Moon for going to Pyongyang. Ironically, as people are marching round the world saying "Black lives matter". We are having a rather racially exclusionist discussion here at Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 update — unnecessary and unexplained - come on Jack Upland. I literally explained it to you right above and I even pinged you for that explanation. Address to the UN — adds nothing. - threatening to "totally destroy North Korea" is nothing?! More like nothing would be left of North Korea. And if you condemn Trump for meeting Kim, you should condemn Moon for going to Pyongyang. - Whataboutism and irrelevant to this article. Also, I haven't condemned Trump for meeting Kim. Are you here to WP:Right great wrongs? starship.paint (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant "unexplained" in context of the article. The UN address just echoes the fire and fury comment. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Context matters. Moon met a North Korean delegation at the Winter Olympic Games and then met Kim twice before the Singapore Summit. Trump's meetings with Kim occurred in the context of this South−North diplomacy. Just as they occurred in the context of many other US president's grappling with the same issue. Bill Clinton, for example, support Trump's attempt.[69] But this context is missing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - you've pointed out in this section that this article is over-large. Now you say context is needed. You can't have it both ways. If you want to add context of Korean meetings, fine, go ahead. But former president supports success of summit, not so important IMO, many people have opinions, we can't just list one opinion. "Fire and fury" may be contained, "totally destroy" is not contained. That's the difference. starship.paint (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I can have it both ways! The article is over-large, and in the past I worked on trimming the "North Korea" subsection down. However, if it is possible to expand it, I think what's missing is context. We don't need intricate detail or repetition (a "quotefarm").--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Stick-dropping time, Jack. Disarmament applies to talk pages as well ☮. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

To Jack Upland - regarding your above comment diff [70] - RS reports that Trump says, "I alone can fix it" but he did not fix it. Personally, I think (and always thought) it was childish & ridiculous for Trump to proclaim himself 'fixer of all things,' - but my opinions don't matter here - that is how Trump describes himself & that is what matters.

• LA Times [71] writes, "Trump suffered in both cases by insisting on his “I alone can fix it” approach to the nation’s and the world’s problems. He raised expectations of success in each case and personalized the negotiations, all but dismissing the typical groundwork of advisors — both to persuade Kim to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and ..."
• Washington Post [72] reports that Trump touted his face-to-face with Kim as "an opportunity for him to become a historic president." Trump administration said they expect Trump's face-to-face with Kim "to produce incremental progress, including perhaps arriving at an agreed-upon definition of denuclearization and laying out a timetable for future negotiations for North Korea to freeze its nuclear weapons and missile programs."
• NBC [73] reports, "Trump said that his goal was for the "complete denuclearization" of North Korea."

So, I support this WP article saying, "As of May 2020, North Korea has shown no indication that it is willing to unilaterally denuclearize as the U.S. intends for it to." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Betsy, that is a crushing non-sequitur. The quotations you give suggest we should mention his portrayal of himself as having a historic role, his supposed relationship with Kim, the suggestions of a Nobel Prize etc...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest from North Korea SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What improvements are you suggesting? As I have said before, there are many sources:[74][75][76][77][78].--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Jack Upland you can ignore that -- the lack of text is clue that there was no proposal involved. Bare URL posts are commonly just an OFFTOPIC something pasted in the story du jour. Here a URL out of an NYT feed that is not something really relevant to this discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Demagogue?

A while ago I gave up editing the article on Francisco Franco as too politically charged for my taste...but I can't help but make an observation about this article. The article goes to great length describing and documenting all the false and misleading statements made by President Trump, but fails to follow through and explain why he does this. President Trump is a demagogue, as indeed the first paragraph of that article describes the president to at T. He does not lie for the sake of lying, or because of some mental or psychological defect, but for several reasons, e.g., energize his political supporters, distract from other dangerous scandals, undermine his opposition, muddy the dialog for political ends, undermine the legitimacy of the press, self aggrandizement, etc etc. The article should explain this. There are ample citations to support the characterization of the president as a demagogue - a NPOV approach could be to say something like: "Numerous pundits have characterized the president as a demagogue...". (Curiously, or not so, there is continued argument as to whether to list the president among the famous demagogues on Demagogue; not listing him is POV, IMO.) If not demagogue, then the article has to at least explain why the president lies so frequently; to not do so is...illogical and pushing a POV. Perhaps those that think the president is not a demagogue can provide the alternate explanations for the extensive pattern lying, often euphemistically called "false statements". Bdushaw (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree a hundred percent..he is obviously a narcissist with delusions of grandeur..except that I believe he has multiple psychological disorders that have made him that way with seeing himself as a demagogue being a result of many other issues..I agree that this needs to be explored and included in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:1C18:AF42:E8EC:3A7F (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There is ironclad consensus against any such label. It's a waste of time to discuss this further. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, let us set aside the label. The question of a discussion of the motivations and aims behind all the "falsehoods" remains. (Which leads us to words that describe a demagogue, a word we have in English for this purpose, but without using that word, the label.) Bdushaw (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We can describe his words and deeds, but I don't see that labels add anything to the description. They are only likely to be misinterpreted. Anyway, they say demagogues are "born not made". SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've agreed with you on the label - no label. But it is still important to describe the president's motives for why he states falsehoods (lies); the context for them, perhaps a matter of explicitly stating the obvious. I've been contemplating the word Gaslighting recently, a concept fairly new to me. Bdushaw (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the mainstream view is that he speaks in ways that get attention and that arouse the sympathies of people who are important to him. That's kind of a separate issue than writing that he says false things that acoomplish those ends, but I'm not sure what really needs to be said to more fully describe him. Maybe think of specific text you would suggest that doesn't label or guess at what's under the hood. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd just add one thought. There has been quite a bit of weaseling and euphemistic language in this and other Trump-related articles. We've danced around wording about racist speech, lies, even his slow and negligent response to the pandemic that a recent academic study found has already cost America tens of thousands of needless deaths. You might consider giving close attention to the wording of this and other Trump-related content in other articles to see whether you find some weasel-worded text similar to the edit I removed this morning. My impression is that there is still room for improvement and more straightforward exposition of RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I've thought about the issue, it is tricky - the main thing would be to find good citations that interpret the rationale for particular patterns of lies. My own instinct is to state things straight up, in black and white, so I get annoyed with "falsehood" when "lie" is more to the point. As a discussion point, what about using "demagogue" as a verb? I am reminded of a presidential debate in the past moderated by Lehrer who, after one candidate described how the other was demagoging, declared "you opponent has accused you of being a demagogue, how do you respond?" (to the obvious annoyance of the first candidate).

Perhaps we can discuss here a particular example to see how we might approach the issue. At the start of his presidency, the president overstated the numbers of the Inaugural crowd...why? Are there citations that explain why? "Guessing" (as you say...a bad approach) he wanted to self-aggrandize, to be greater and more accomplished than he really was, then followed by additional spin and lies to avoid having to admit the initial lie (recalling the ridiculous hurricane danger to Arkansas incident). Is there a way to state the reasons for such a lie that would be appropriate to Wikipedia? I make this not as a rhetorical question; I think it is an error to assume the reader can see the reason for the lie - these lies are NOT innocent (ignorance, oversight, casual misstatements, sloppiness, etc.), seems clear, but for purpose. I would be content if we could find 3-4 examples, say, of such lies for which the motivation or aim of the lie can be briefly stated. Why does the president accuse well-respected journalists of "fake news" endlessly? The master of fake news makes the accusation. One of the verbal attacks on federal judges might be another example that could be explained. I will see what can be found along these lines in reputable citations. Bdushaw (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand "falsehood" vs "lie". The difference is as I say above - what the motivation is. "Falsehood" and other such euphemisms, as in the present lede for example, do not admit an overt intent to deceive. Whereas "lie" does. The most basic question for this forum is whether the article is to state the intent to deceive. I think my own view is clear. Bdushaw (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well we won't know his motivation for his actions for a long time, if ever. But I agree with you there are too many euphemisms and weasels, and I'll just warn you that some editors here will oppose more straightforward language. Before you jump to motivations for lies you could, as you say, start off by taking the entire narrative from Sean Spicer through "just redecorating the bunker last week" and see whether RS warrant calling any of that "lies" or what? One step at a time. I think it's rather clear from the text, but you may want to make it stronger or add mainstream commentary about it. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We have to leave to readers to make up their own minds. In any case, you shouldn't be dishonest about dishonesty. Many people make slips of the tongue, verbal infelicities, faux pas, flatuent tweets, exaggerations, sloppy comments, weaselly remarks, inaccurate claims, ill-informed prognostications, insupportable arguments, selective quotes, evasive responses, questionable comparisons, false rememberings, ignorant outbursts, outrageous metaphors, flimsy prevarications, stonewalling responses, equivocal answers, erroneous ripostes, statistical fudges, fantastical allusions, rhetorical subversions, bombastic utterances, intellectual failures, inappropriate word choices, lies etc. It is difficult to pin down exactly which is which many times, just as it is difficult to pin down what Trump meant by "covfefe". And even if you think you've pinned it down, your comrade in the next stall might not agree. We have to leave to the readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland - could you avoid using "comrade", please? Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, "comrade" is a perfectly acceptable, normal English word. Would you prefer I said "bosom buddy" or "boon companion"?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland - yes, please use those. starship.paint (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack, your comment ignores the central point OP has raised. When the false statements number well into the thousands and are demonstrably beyond any previous American president's, it is false and POV to characterize them with a meaningless recitation of irrelevant nomenclature. Please try to be responsive to the topic at hand. SPECIFICO talk 11:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I am losing enthusiasm for this project given all the flack I am likely to receive, but Jack has illustrated one point I was trying to make - some people can see Trumps "erroneous" statements as just the harmless bumbling of a careless man. That is clearly not the case, and I was searching for a way we could state the purpose of the misinformation. Someone reading the "Falsehoods" section might conclude "So?". I have found the recent statement by Powell that Trump lies CBSNEWS, which crosses an important threshold, as Powell explicitly states. I see even now, some reports put "lies" in quotes. Perhaps this solid citation (and others similar, Politico, CNN, Newsweek) justify a statement on the issue in the "Falsehoods" section. Bdushaw (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I've looked over the article to a large extent, and it is remarkably well written, under the circumstances. I am sticking to my guns on the two editorial points with the lede, given below, but otherwise can't find much to polish up. Bdushaw (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Powell's opinion is just one man's opinion. As Trump points out, Powell is a proven liar himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"just one man's opinion" - hardly so. As you well know, Powell is a Republican, and was a general with lengthy and extensive government experience. The statements he made were widely reported in the media and garnered a reply from the President of the United States. I am not sure you have Trump's reply correct though, here is a citation-Hill; do you have the citation for Trump calling Powell a liar? Such a citation could be useful for the article. Besides, your reply attempts to undermine the integrity of the man, while failing to respond to the substance of the argument. To add to the general theme we are discussing, is this citation-BBC on how Twitter is now adding fact checking messages to the president's Twitter messages (also supporting my suggestion below to include the Twitter use in the lede). The citation includes some statements on how Trump's anti-muslim Tweets served a domestic political agenda. related-BBC Has Trump ever apologized for, or retracted, a misstatement? There is an obvious reality here, stated by Powell, that I wonder how long Wikipedia can continue to skirt around... Bdushaw (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that is the nub of the problem. Powell led the world into war, claiming that Iraq had WMDs and displaying the proof in front of the United Nations. That had far more devastating consequences than any of Trump's falsehoods. Now, maybe Powell wasn't really a liar. Maybe he was a bumbling fool. Maybe he was putty in the hands of that super-intelligent mastermind, George W Bush. Maybe he was just exaggerating. Maybe he was a little boy lost in the fog of war. Etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Powell was a career military man, and it was in his DNA to support his commander in chief or quit. Rice and others did the same, and that hardly equates them to Trump. Now when does this whole thing get folded up per WP:NOTFORUM? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a valid discussion which illustrates that calling someone a liar is a very POV matter. Some apparently excuse falsehoods when they come from a military man... I don't.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Bdushaw and TWIMC - Enough already. WP:NOTBLOG and WP:OR -- the current text resulted from substantial discussion, to approach it from the view of 'I want to say this, so how to go about it' is treading into OR. While I think the lede is too long and already gives an UNDUE amount of text to this, the existence of fact-checking and commentary about it is factual, and there is substantial partisan framing about this area -- but to unpack it more should then get into WP:NPOV of also presenting the positive views in proportion to their WEIGHT. If we go down to the level of detail where your perspective is likely in there somewhere, it is along with many others such as perspectives that he said Truth or that the Media Elite is the bad one here, and the common cynical view of any politicians moving their mouth.... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Markbassett I couldn't disagree with your advice more. To recap: The discussion in this section is not related to the lede, but to the section "False statements". I am sorry that was not clear. There is no OR, but I seek an appropriate discussion concerning falsehoods/lies, as supported by citations. I am attempting to develop an NPOV discussion, supported by citations such as I've given above, giving an explanation for the extraordinary falsehoods from Trump. Above, alternate explanations to "lies" have been stated, but I have not yet found a reputable citation supporting benign explanations. This article has required extraordinary discussion over the changing of a few words, so my intent here is to achieve a consensus as to what to say, before attempting to write in the article directly. To now complain about this discussion going on too long is not logical. Meanwhile the issue we are addressing is a difficult one - see, e.g. Politico, AP, requiring a careful preliminary discussion. Lastly, I had expected that there would be knowledgeable editors here who would have greater knowledge of this subject than me and could provide help and guidance. (So far those opposed to this line of inquiry have provided next to nothing.) If the consensus is that a consensus has been reached on the issue of Trump's misinformation, then I will proceed to add a brief paragraph to the "False statements" section. If that section is to remain unchanged, with no explanations given for the large numbers of misstatements, then I don't see what purpose that section, with its figure, serves - it could be replaced by a single sentence. But there are vast numbers of citations that can be used to support a brief discussion as to why Trump misinforms as he does, and why calling these "lies" can be problematic.

I will comment again that this article vastly underplays the subject of Trump's misinformation and use of Twitter. This is the opposite of undue weight - nowhere near enough weight is given to these factors. They are dominant factors of Trump and his administration - As of 27 May 2020, Trump had made 52,000 tweets BBC, many of them having to do with announcing major policies or personnel decisions (firing people); seriously unprecedented. (If it is 5 min. a tweet, that's 4333 hrs or 180 days spent continuously tweeting!) The non-stop attack on the press as "fake news", by, well, lies, is unprecedented. A reader would not appreciate these factors from this article. Bdushaw (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, it seems to me what I am seeking is for a brief one paragraph summary of some of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump to be included in the "False statements" section. (Still learning the ropes of these Trump articles.) Bdushaw (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Since Trump is clearly not as bad as Powell, I think this is undue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's just an absolutely astonishing statement, Jack. I don't agree with assigning this label to any individual, so I am as opposed as you are, but your claim about Trump being "not as bad" as Powell is just the worst kind of topsy turvy bullshit. Trump's mendacity is on a level we have never seen before in an American president. Even in the deepest, darkest depths of the Dick Cheney's fever dream of war lies we saw nothing as bad as the sort of crap Trump blurts out on a daily basis. And your concern about lies from a military man is laughable given all the lies that have come from Trump's own military men (Flynn, Mattis, Milley, Esper, Jackson, Kelly, to name but a few). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The most important lies of Donald Trump differ significantly from previous presidential lies. Other presidents have [committed] serious lies of policy deception. But the most significant Trump lies are egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts. If there are no agreed-upon facts, then it becomes impossible for people to make judgments about their government. Political power rather than rational discourse then becomes the arbiter. Agreement on facts, of course, does not imply agreement on policies or politics. [...] Trump’s consistent lying has undermined enlightenment epistemology and has corroded the premises of liberal democracy.

James P. Pfiffner, George Mason University [79] starship.paint (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a cogent comment from a "conservative" scholar - should be a very high quality reference and a worhty basis for article text on the matter raised by OP. In the past such comments by conservatives have been rejected by a small number of vocal editors here. Thanks for finding this. Needless to say, Jack Upland's comments on Powell are based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts in the matter of Saddam. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: - Op-ed today, a slightly different perspective on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thx - There are many, many opinion pieces in the major newspapers/media that speak of "lies". I've wondered what their status is insofar as an article like this is. I suppose if they are countered by equal opinion pieces from the other side (but false equality - the opinions on the nature of Trump's statements from the Trumpist side do not appear in my searches, but I'll keep a closer look out) they would be ok. One pundit says this, another says that, let the reader decide? Bdushaw (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NPOV, in particular the WP:WEIGHT section. As I've said, I think labels such as "demagogue" are not helpful, but neither are euphemisms and false balance. I encourage you to keep trying to find better text. I hope other editors will contribute. I would not pay attention to snide or obviously uninformed opinions. Nobody is likely to take them seriously, and it's not necessary to respond to them. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason that Colin Powell's lies to the UN were worse than Trump is that his lies led to the Iraq War with half a million deaths and continued instability in the region and a heightened terrorist threat around the world. Trump — as far as I know — has perpetrated anything on that level. Many of Trump's falsehoods, such as claiming his grandfather came from Sweden, are basically harmless. Saying that other military men make false claims is true, but I don't see how that gets Powell off the hook.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop calling Powell a liar. Next time may get you blocked. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop with the straw men. Nobody has proposed that this article say that Trump's lies are the worst lies ever told. We have a persistent and long-standing consensus, here and throughout the project, that RS says Trump's chronic lying is a serious problem, and that's where the discussion ends. Your comparisons are irrelevant and are becoming disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored consensus "Trump was slow..."

I have restored the arduously and exhaustively discussed wording "Trump was slow" and removed the overnight change to the weasel attribution of "slow". Anyone who wishes to review the talk archives should bear in mind that users Amorals and Bsubrpime are blocked sockpuppet accounts. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not doubt you, but could you link to the past discussion(s)? Just so we have it all on the table in case there's opposition. ValarianB (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It's in the edit summary when I restored the language. I didn't realize it would not appear as a link there. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

User:ValarianB - Not slow - disputes happened on this, see archives 117 RfC: Coronavirus in the lead and 116 Criticism as slow failing V. People have criticized President Trump for downplaying the threat, yes. But it hit disputes over wording it as something complained of versus as an objective fact -- or just a unrealistic wishful thinking re perfection &/or partisan slam. And then whether that leads to describing the evolution of greater attention and success in what areas. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Slow, Markbassett. You can deny it, but the sources say so. starship.paint (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. NPR: The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.
6. 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.

... and the public agrees [80] Nearly two-thirds of Americans say President Donald Trump was too slow in taking major steps to address the threat to the United States. Please don't again only point to the China travel restriction. He was slow on many other things, as the AP wrote above, and therefore overall slow. starship.paint (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

US economy entered into a formal "recession" in Feb 2020

The article should make note of that.[81] It's obviously of long-term encyclopedic value to note in a president's bio whether a "recession" began under his tenure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree..I thought there already was one 2600:1702:2340:9470:1C18:AF42:E8EC:3A7F (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the article should include that in February 2020 the US entered into a formal recession. Maybe something along the lines of: 'February 2020, "marked the end of the longest expansion in the U.S. since at least 1854." The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that "the unprecedented magnitude of the decline in employment and production, and its broad reach across the entire economy, warrants the designation of this episode as a recession, even if it turns out to be briefer than earlier contractions.” On January 31, 2020, the Stock Market plummeted [82] 600 points. In March 2020 U.S. states began restricting activities and closing facilities.' That's just a suggestion, but the beginning of a recession should be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first three years in office. This ended in February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a recession.

added. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead revision discussion - false or misleading statements

So I went to clean up some of the text in the lede and saw all manner of Cassandra warnings...holy crackers! Obviously this must proceed in microincrements. Here is a proposed change. The lede presently has: 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. What I would like to say is: (In a new, separate paragraph) Often employing the social media platform Twitter, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Justifications: the use of Twitter and misinformation is one of Trump's salient features. I believe Twitter ought to be mentioned, and the issue is important enough to warrant a separate paragraph. I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been. Since we can't use the "L" word, I propose "misinformation", or otherwise "errors in the statements"; as you see, if we can't use the English language fully, the wording gets awkward. I have also contemplating adding a sentence such as: This misinformation serves to promote his public image or political agenda. (I likely won't be with this article long...this sort of political cesspool is not my thing.) Bdushaw (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is #Current consensus #35.
• I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been. Discussion of that point can be found at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 95#Alternative wording #3. It never really went anywhere, we were already struggling for consensus on anything, and the current text is what we ended up with. Notably, nobody suggested "misinformation". Now, absent all the other complication, I might support that change. I would like to see other reactions.
• Otherwise, I think what we have is sufficient for the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - the text currently in the lead is perfectly satisfactory, and has been stable for quite a while. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think for a #item Mandruss wants an RFC -- and I would propose instead shortening it to suit the DUE weight and per LEAD since this just isn't much of the BLP article. Down to perhaps the first part Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. and let the fact-checkers or whoever details be covered down in the article body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  If I want an RfC, it will be because someone seeks to modify an RfC result, not because there is a "#item". Not all consensus list entries represent RfC results. I might support the single-word change statements->misinformation without another RfC, but nothing more substantive than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede revision discussion - America First

I suggest a change in the lede sentence from: 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. Suggestion: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued a populist agenda termed America First, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Justifications: the language America First agenda is misleading and potentially POV. It is an agenda, and it is termed "America First". That Trump has adopted populism is already established; here is an example. Seems to me the NAFTA renegotiation is important enough to include in the lede in this context. Bdushaw (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - we already mention "populist" in the lead, which is a debatable label anyway. "Nativist" would be more accurate, but honestly I think the existing language is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Without staking out a position on the central issue here, I have to note that this comparison you are making between populism and nativism is a non-sequitor: neither label is a subtype of the other, nor are they in any sense mutually exclusive. One can be nativist and populist in their policies, nativist but not populist, populist but not nativist, or neither nativist nor populist. So I can't see how 'nativist' being an accurate description for Trump (if there was a consensus that he is) informs at all on the question of whether or not to describe him as populist. They are descriptors regarding two entirely different political dimensions and the inclusion of one has no real significance to the appropriateness of the other. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that nativist and populist are not the same. My aim was to include a word that describes the nature of the agenda, however, not the man. I've been thinking of the word "label" - true, use of such words as a label, to cubbyhole someone or something, is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, we do use words to describe the nature of things succinctly; it is the English language. So I modestly object to the tendency to dismiss such words as a "label". Populist, nativist, protectionist, nationalist, null, ... agenda? Bdushaw (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How about instead of In foreign policy, Trump has pursued a populist agenda termed America First... we simply write Trump has pursued a foreign policy called America First...? My main concern was the phrase America First agenda. Bdushaw (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Nativist would be better..it`s more specific therefore more accurate 2600:1702:2340:9470:EC0D:8815:2C75:346 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comments - the lead should be based on article topic and content - here as BLP is not really the place to go into Presidency too much, and the content doesn't have much so doesn't support going on about in the LEAD something disconnected from the BODY. Minor notes...

- Against calling the policy 'populist' as not accurate -- and it is already said in the prior paragraph about Trump, no need to be redundant

- 'termed' is awkward and unneeded, it comes across as if something said or a word made just for that

- America First agenda in the current should be shown as it is - wikilinked to America First (agenda)

- I'm OK with the addition of NAFTA

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You`re twisting it your way..trump is the definition of a nativist..he has a problem with Hispanics who just happen to be indigenous..Muslim immigrants..pretty much anyone who he doesn`t consider an American 2600:1702:2340:9470:C598:BF51:6C5C:DBD7 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)