Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 ← Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 Archive 123 → Archive 125

Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op

[Original heading: Question] What is the current situation regarding St John?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

He's still dead, AFAIK. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Precisely my point, Citizen Mandruss.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out that only a month ago, editors were asserting that the St John's Church incident would be remembered in 10 years time. Now everyone seems to have forgotten its existence. Yet the article still has an excessively long section on this...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - federal lawsuit [1]. starship.paint (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Lafayette Square clash/operation/forcible removal of non-violent protesters exercising their First Amendment rights? It's very much not forgotten, and the section may get longer still. The clash is under investigation by Congress and the inspectors general of the Interior Department and Justice Department and the subject of civil lawsuits (WaPo). But there's also a pandemic ravaging the country, unidentifiable federal forces in Portland and apparently on the way to Kansas City, Mo., and Chicago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes..all that is true 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
That lawsuit etc isn't mentioned in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
So the section is both too long and not long enough? Renaming this Talk section since you have already started to remove content from the article section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"Too long and not long enough" — which is normal for trivial incidents. In order to explain the significance of this we need to go into inordinate detail. Therefore it's best to leave it out. If the lawsuit was important it should be mentioned, but lawsuits in the US of A are a dime a dozen, so it shouldn't be mentioned and isn't important.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The status quo is to not have the content there. You have helpfully provided examples of other content which is too trivial for this article. The content may not be too trivial for Wikipedia overall, but certainly too trivial for this particular article, given how much is currently contained here. Not everything that is reported by multiple sources is due in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not trivial to include the minimum text that reflects mainstream RS explanation of the significance of the event. Clearly "small" does not bloat the article, but at any rate that's an empty argument as it does not relate to the specific text in question. It would deny any addition of text. Furthermore, when a removal of RS text has been challenged, please do not knee-jerk reinsert it without engaging on the talk page. Consensus appears to be against your repeat removal. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

“Small” fire is neutral. That’s what reliable sources say [2] [3] [4] [5]. It's also what the D.C. police / D.C. fire department said [6] [7]. starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Small" is not neutral in this context. It's an attempt to the fire. The size of the fire is irrelevant. Small fires have a tendency to become big fires if they are not put out. No arsonist is giving leniency because he says he only lit a "small fire".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
"Small" is what all the sources say. Having "fire" without this qualification would be original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Leaving out an adjective is "original research". I've heard it all!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: Your edit copied parts of the first paragraph of the NBC article. Taken out of the context of the article, whose first six paragraphs paraphrased Trump’s speech and also quoted him verbatim, the sentence is saying in Wiki voice that the death of George Floyd sparked riots. Adding half of a verbatim quote from three paragraphs further down is too close to WP:SYNTH for comfort.
Your edit: "In a Rose Garden speech on June 1, 2020, Trump announced he would deploy the U.S. military to stop the riots sparked by the death of George Floyd, "If the city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents."
NBC: As sirens wailed and flash-bang grenades popped across the street, President Donald Trump announced from the Rose Garden that he would use the U.S. military to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd. "I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights," Trump said in the extraordinary address, which was delivered as police fired smoke devices outside to push protesters back from the White House. "We are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country. We will end it now," Trump said. Trump said that governors should deploy the National Guard in great numbers so that they "dominate the streets." "If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them," Trump said, referring to himself as "your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters." He said he was already dispatching "thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers" to Washington to stop the violence that has been a feature of the protests here.
The article uses the word "riot" six times, three times when paraphrasing or directly quoting Trump, once when quoting WH deputy press secretary Deere, and twice when mentioning the LA riots in 1992 (Rodney King). The RS does not use the term to describe the George Floyd protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x ??? Clearly it’s attributed and clearly was said “rioters”, not “protestors”. Also ??? clearly I increased it from a partial quote to quoting the full sentence.
The line is attribution of what President “Trump announced”, as shown in NBC quotations. My “to stop the riots sparked by the death of George Floyd” was for “to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd”. The RS also noted and put in subtitle that President Trump referred to himself as "an ally of all peaceful protesters." The announcement is against rioters and looters distinguished from peaceful protestors. It would be a false attribution or falsified quote, and a misportrayal of RS to alter the word. I will make it more clear by giving it enquoted. If you want to use the claim it is to stop protestors, that needs attribution to who says that’s the intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your argument(s). Your sentence quoted NBC paraphrasing Trump, followed by a verbatim Trump quote from the same NBC cite. That's confusing. CBS News began its report on the speech with this sentence: President Trump said Monday he would deploy the military against protesters if local officials cannot stop violence that has erupted in some areas. No sparks, no riots. Your edit also deleted the Wiki link to mass protests and civil unrest which IMO is important. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x Clearly the NBC article attributed something as what President Trump said the forces were for -- and it was 'riots' and 'rioters and looters'. NBC also prominently (in subtitle and text) said Trump declared himself himself "an ally of all peaceful protesters". So for an article line attributing to Trump -- the wording should be 'riots'. It would be a false attribution or falsified quote, and a misportrayal of RS, to attribute 'stop protestors' to Trump. If a mention of 'to stop protestors' is made, it would need attribution to whoever said that was the intent, or to be said without any (false) attribution to Trump. And I think it would be obvious that attributing to rioters should wikilink to the riots and not to the protests. To wikilink protests as riots would also be wrong - the protests are not riots. Feel free to make the 'Trump announced' attribution to 'riots' or to remove the 'Trump announced' attribution, or other flavor of getting it factly accurate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, try 2 got reverted ... in lack of anything feedback I tried a second time with different edit but the wikilink was disliked, so will try it without wikilink. Just keep it simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
You pretty much plagiarized NBC’s first sentence. Your edit: Trump announced that he would deploy the U.S. military to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd. NBC: Trump announced [] that he would use the U.S. military to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd. If you want to quote a cite paraphrasing Trump, you have to give them credit for the quote. But in this case, why did you replace the original NYT cite with the NBC one? Seems to me that you cherry-picked a source that would enable you to argue that it was Factually what the RS said, of fact Trump said "riots". I replaced NBC with the original NYT cite, added TIME for good measure, and used neutral wording to reflect what the RS reported. While I found mention of "sparking/flaring protests" prior to June 1, "riots" was Trump and his surrogates/supporters' spin up to that point. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x President Trump said it was to stop rioters and looters, as said there and quoted there and in other RS. Any line attributing something to him needs to convey that, feel free to say “rioting” in another way and whether or not to include other items like ‘ally to peaceful protestors’. Again, it would be a false attribution or falsified quote and a misportrayal of RS to portray him as saying the military is to stop “protestors”. If you want to use the claim it is to stop protestors, that needs attribution to who says that’s the intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
p.s. NBC was just the first hit in the Google results. In general, the stories seemed to cover his announcement as (1) to stop rioting and looting if city or state refuses to, and (2) declared himself an ally to peaceful protestors. Then (3) discussions on the Insurrection Act. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should have an RfC on this because clearly there are diametrically opposed views. I would suggest three options: 1. current section; 2. one sentence under 2020 campaign; 3. nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    One sentence under 2020 campaign, @Jack Upland:? Are you acknowledging that the photo op was election campaigning instead of a presidential activity? starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not Trump's press secretary. I just think the campaign seems the best place to put it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Trump doesn't distinguish between election campaigning and presidential activity (in no particular order: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Covid-19

It looks pretty clear now that we will need to split off this section and create an article like Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic which can go into much further detail and absorb content from other large articles, but with one or two paragraphs in this article to remain. It may be a matter of contention which paragraphs remain in the article, so does anybody have any proposals that could gain some consensus here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nooo, another Trump spin-off article? The section needs to be trimmed. Appears to be somewhat repetitious, and we some of the sources are outdated. Haven't had the time yet to take an in-depth look. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Also, the title reminds me just a tad of Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It always bugged me that the film wasn't called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hatting. NOTFORUM. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maga — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
No, Donald Trump is the lead singer of a garage band called "The COVID-19 Pandemic". Their latest video went viral. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes..it needs to be spun off..it is extremely relevant and it will grow..the Covid-19 virus and the recession will likely be his legacy..why would there not be an article on it ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Because we don't have articles based on what likely we be his legacy. We follow the reliable sources and use to them write articles in compliance with the policies of Wikipedia. If you think it will grow then make a draft. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The section is already the size of a small article, and could clearly be much larger if it was its own article. This isn't because of his legacy, this is because it's a very significant topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and there are more specific articles within. So far, Donald Trump has been the only US President supervising this pandemic. At this point, it's completely redundant. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I said most likely..either way it is an extremely relevant topic..will obviously become more so..it is not redundant..there are a lot of very misinformed people in america as well in denial regarding the virus..I`m guessing a lot of them have no idea the significance of trump`s relationship to COVID-19 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
That is the other large article I was mainly referring to, where content from there can be moved elsewhere. There is far too much content about the federal executive's response to the pandemic and Donald Trump himself. This amount of content is a topic itself, and merits its own article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, give him a bit more time to screw it up further. Meanwhile, we don’t WP:CRYSTALBALL O3000 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with predicting the future. We already have enough content written here in this article and on others to comprehensively cover the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Four observations: (1) The article (pandemic section) needs to have discussion of how his poor pandemic response/lack of leadership is affecting his polls and reelection prospects; it seems Americans are noting the dangers. There are already quality references to this effect, and the effects on the November election results will be substantial (no crystal ball needed). (2) Any break out article will also have to be coordinated with the existing article Presidency of Donald Trump (that article is showing signs of being too long as well) and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. (3) There are likely many such topics that now deserve their own articles. It may make sense to make a comprehensive review of this article, "Presidency of Donald Trump", etc. and coordinate a set of sensible topic articles. I suppose that's "Policies" in the upper right hand Template. (4) When a section of an article is used to create a new article (a natural process), a brief summary is still required in the original article. That will require agreement among editors as to the main points and their wording; could be tough.Bdushaw (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
These are exactly the four points I wish to highlight, and very well said. I would just say that we shouldn't exaggerate or go into excessive detail the assessments of his response to the pandemic and its effects on public opinion, as this should be information better explained in the new article. I would be very grateful if an editor could propose what content would remain in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
All should remain. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of process, in another "break away" article I worked on (Neutron->Discovery of the neutron), we started and developed the new article, then rewrote the old section of the original article as a greatly condensed version of the new article (with a "Main Article" link, of course). So, if the consensus is for a new article, then one could start it by "copy-paste" from the pandemic section, reorganize and develop the new article (a major effort), finally rewrite the section in this original article as a brief summary of the new article, hitting all the main points. Bdushaw (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like the way to go. We would need to start a draft article like Draft:Trump administration response to the COVID-19 pandemic or Draft:COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump administration. This would also absorb content from COVID-19 pandemic in the United States which is focused very much on Donald Trump and his administration for an article broadly about the pandemic in the United States, more than for other country articles, and Presidency of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hummm...worth discussing the title and approach. Your original notion was Draft:Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic which would be a different article than one as expansive as an article on the administration's response. I won't be involved and have no substantive opinion, but the more focused article has an appeal. A variety of sides to the issue come to mind, e.g., do we seek an article paired with this biographical Trump article, or one paired with general government pandemic response? Bdushaw (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not settled on the title either, and the exact scope is always hard to define. I don't think this article can be about all of the government responses to the pandemic, even only the federal government, as much of that is not to do with Trump. However, we clearly can't just make an article that discusses him personally or biographically during the pandemic. The content on the Donald Trump article is really just about how the federal executive branch has responded to the pandemic, with some of Trump's unusual behaviour included as well. It's the same for the other articles about the United States and COVID-19, whenever Donald Trump is mentioned. Very willing to canvass alternative article titles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound...another comment. Having thought about the issue, I am in favor of your original instinct Draft:Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic. There is this article today in the Washington Post today, for example, on how Florida is in trouble because its governor followed Trump, and ignored his own experts. Its all Trump. I've not voted, but I am in favor of a break-away article. I note that the present discussion bears on the above endless discussions on whether covid-19 should be mentioned in the lead (I think so - Trump's mismanagement of the problem is a huge problem for the country, costing thousands of lives; people the world over follow the president and what he says; Trump's mismanagement/misinformation/politicizing the issue/etc is THE issue for the world in 2020). OK pound paid. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a very tenuous link, which should be on the Florida article. This is getting too critical and opinionated of the subject. It can be justified in the lead simply as being the most significant event in the last four years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is opinion; there are an endless number of citations to support this narrative, eg. Time. I do have opinions, to be sure, but as has been pointed out, that does not mean that what gets written is opinion. Part of the process of developing a new article as is under discussion is assembling/processing a large amount of information and distilling that to a succinct, encyclopedic summary. A gray area in Wikipedia standards is the selection of material and its organization can be subjective. I read and watch the news, I see Trump's news conferences, etc. I believe what I described matches what I've learned (and could be supported by citations). It is not by chance that the southern red states have the serious covid problems at the moment. Anyways, I won't be involved with writing the article. (For the record, my reluctance to get too involved is that I spent endless time on Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy back in the day, and don't want to repeat the experience!) Bdushaw (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is absolutely not necessary per WP:CONTENTFORK, since U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic already exists. I've redirected the term there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems fair and in accordance with policy. The task is therefore to work through this article and that one to reconcile the two and use the federal response article, or perhaps a Trump section of that article, as the Main. Much of the material in this article could likely be condensed through that process. Bdushaw (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting off the COVID-19 section, per WP:DUEWIGHT. - MrX 🖋 12:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Trim, don’t FORK. I don’t see a need for it, and seems to me a danger of it being a WP:POVFORK or WP:ATTACK page. There are already articles on the topic, and a bio should be pointing to a larger topic article in order to inform what the topic is and give context of what non-Trump things were. The section here seems overly long with trivia/offtopic but that seems true of many sections and here seems just another spot needing trimming. There’s only two screens worth anyway, so it just doesn’t need a FORK from here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
With the "discovery" of the two articles U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic I believe the original suggestion and the above discussions are moot. I am in favor of closing this Section. In an ideal world the Covid section of this article would be coordinated/synced with those articles. Bdushaw (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above: U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic are enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deployment of federal officers to Portland and other places

Should we have something in the article about the recent, controversial use of federal officers against protesters, most notably in Portland? There is a mention that he said he would do that in the "photo op" section. Maybe we need to expand/refocus that section, so that instead of three two paragraphs about that one incident, it becomes a more general section about the use of federal officers against protesters. Information could be taken from George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon and other places. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I've been thinking about this for the past week or so. If we put it in that section, the name of the section should obviously be changed. - MrX 🖋 14:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
A weak argument could be made for it being more appropriate for William Barr. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Except that Trump announced it, and has repeatedly praised the initiative and said he would expand it. Is it even Barr who is directing it? The officers reportedly come from DHS. But in any case, through his own words, Trump owns it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Very weak. The alternative facts have been debunked thoroughly. Trump owns it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The only reason I mentioned it is that technically I believe the responsibility lies with Bill Barr. He could prevent this from happening, but he has become such a weakened Attorney General he basically does whatever he is told to do. Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Trump has deployed unidentified shock troops to stoke protests and give him a bogeyman to run against. People are being seized from the streets in unmarked vehicles and renditioned to who the hell knows where. How do you even go about processing something like this, let alone trying to provide rational coverage in this BLP? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Huh? It being appropriate here (or on the Trump Presidency page) doesn't exclude it being appropriate on Barr's page (haven't looked at that one in a long time but I will this weekend). A recent op-ed (I forget by whom) said that Trump was looking for a Roy Cohn and instead found his John Mitchell in Barr. Partners in crime, but Trump is the Godfather. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There are only two paragraphs, and "that one incident" is still under investigation and not forgotten ([15], [16]). Who knows, maybe it was the Ft. Sumter of the Trump administration war on civil rights. The general use of federal officers against protesters is a developing story. Let's see where that's headed first before starting to weigh importance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I had been wondering if there was an article on the subject. Here is is: 2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States. That could be our source. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not necessary in this BLP.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is worth some article text. I think we need to follow the RS narratives that are increasingly connecting the dots between various instances of Trump's attempts to project authoritarian para-military control -- border antics, ICE round-ups, etc. The imitation of third world and authoritarian "strong man" dictators is a persistent theme, amply backed by quotes of Trump's own words reported in RS. It's this personal proclivity that is worthy of emphasis in this biography article, while the related policy and legal aspects and/or consequences are more suitable for the articles that focus on the governance of his administration. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Dots connected in these:
Trump is using federal agents as his 'goon squad', says Ice's ex-acting head | US news | The Guardian
'These are his people': inside the elite border patrol unit Trump sent to Portland | US news | The Guardian
less relevant, but also worrying, . dave souza, talk 16:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose in this article. Appropriate in an accounting of his presidency (or a sub-sub-article), but undue in this one-page accounting of his entire life. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please respond to my analysis to the contrary, above. Much of Trump's daily public appearances, statements, and actions are unrelated to governance but are instead projections of a personal counterfactual narrative as to who and what he aspires to be. That is biography worthy and not governance worthy. It's the same problem as saying he has a "strict" immigration policy when he actually has been impotent and ignored the long-established bipartisan consensus as to the underlying problem that e.g G.W. Bush knew needed to be addressed. Instead, Trump has choosen to pursue a harsh and inhumane victimization of asylum-seekers and US resident aliens, for political purposes and likely reflecting personal xenophobic and racially-biased views of the world. SPECIFICOtalk 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I no longer regularly post on the Trump talk pages but I keep them all on my watch list. This issue is something that really jumped out at me as I watched the news coverage of this expansion of federal power, especially as election day draws nearer. I appreciate Melanie's bringing it up and Spec's comments. Hopefully we will cover it as a new development to the Trump presidency. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree 107.217.84.95 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked Mandruss's suggestion that the presidency article would be a better place for this. I have added a section to Presidency of Donald Trump#Response to 2020 protests. If something is to be included here, it could be condensed from that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Do you feel I am mistaken in my reasoning above as to why this is biographically significant? The sources I read (similar to those cited by @Dave souza: describe these actions as being motivated and deployed solely for personal and political purposes of Trump and not as governance or policy-based actions. An encyclopedia should not promote Trump's tenuous or false narrative that these are urgent and legally valid civic interverntions by the federal government. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, re: An encyclopedia should not promote Trump's tenuous or false narrative An encyclopedia's goal should not be to "promote" any viewpoint, but to reflect what sources say. I think that is what we are currently doing. The material I added to the Presidency article does not "promote" any narrative. It does cite the justification for the action offered by DHS, as well as (in more detail because it is more extensive and has received more coverage) the criticisms and lawsuits against the policy. It does not cite anyone's opinion about Trump's motivations for his actions. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
My view is that any notable actions of the Trump presidency should be covered in Presidency of Donald Trump before being considered for coverage in this BLP, and this action in Portland would certainly qualify. Then we can consider a summary here in the appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
According to RS narratives, commentary, and analysis of the deployments: They are so idiosyncratic and so far outside both legal basis, constructive governmental purpose, and historical precedent, that they are at least as much about the man as about the president. I realized, reading MelanieN's reply to me above that I unduly complicated the issue by using "motivated", and we all agree with her point that we as editors must not impute motivations. But RS do that in the context she describes as extensive criticisms and lawsuits. So I do think that Trump's 2020 behavior, which has become increasingly an expression of his personality, does in many cases deserve coverage of RS narratives in this bio article. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You are probably right; nevertheless, I think it is good practice to get it right in the presidency article before summarizing it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
One remarkable development is that in several recent instances, e.g. the Supreme Court ruling on DACA among others, Trump could have been successful in delivering a policy victory to his base. But instead, through incompetence or indifference, the Administration did not parse the issues and legal constraints that would have needed to be addressed. There may have been advisers who tried to get him to do things in a more effective way, or he may have relied on advisers who were so ill-informed or inexperienced that they did not even understand what was required. He could have had a stricter immigration policy, but instead he just had a harsh policy, most of which was effective only as TV and internet showmanship but failed to implement his stated desire to curtail runaway immigration. The Covid response follows a similar pattern. He has chosen these paths, and they define who he is and his biography. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss it belongs more to the Presidency article, but I don't expect that. Seems like the precedent has put lots of other junk here which belongs there, and/or trivial items put here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
How are these deployments trivial ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The deployments belong more to the Presidency article. The trivia is part of the general precedent which seems lots of Presidency stuff winds up here, as well as trivial items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Right now I think it is better suited for the Presidency article as well at the moment. If it gets to be something defining and overshadowing his presidency then I could see something here. Just at the moment I do not think it meets that criteria. PackMecEng (talk)

Summary of Trump's business career

To summarize Trump's business career in an NPOV fashion I added "Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies." This was changed to "Trump has has many legal affairs." Aside from the typo, I believe the latter is devoid of substance, and would prefer the version that is based on the body of the article. (The word "had" in my version should be "have"). - MrX 🖋 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the typo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The previous wording was clearer and should be reinstated, with the helpful addition of the piped link. "legal affairs" sounds like more bedroom nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with MrX. It's a throwaway sentence and should be thrown away. My immediate reaction was: "Uh, as opposed to illegal affairs?" (I would reject a claim that the wikilink provides clarification, as I reject the notion that a purpose of wikilinks is to clarify the meaning of prose. Wikilinks provide supplemental reading, but they should not be essential to understanding the words.) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone claimed such a notion? SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
During my editing career? Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Diffs or it didn't happen! SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Start here [1] [2]107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mary Trump..Too Much and Not Enough..Chapter 9
  2. ^ Michael Wolff..Fire and Fury..pgs 17-18 35-39 87-89 99-102 239-240 252-253 277-279 298

"Trump has has many legal affairs." - absolutely not, too vague. starship.paint (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What about "Trump has had many affairs that have been subject to legal action"???--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Bzweebl removed it completely. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The text prior to Emir's edit should be restored. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and done. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
MrX's suggested change of "had" to "have" is a separate issue and remains undone. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Shorter seems better. I prefer “Trump has had many legal affairs.” The numeric line seems elevating a single line of the section that is of no particular note, rather than summarising the section or naming any particularly prominent bit. It also seems unclear that most of these are lawsuits *from* Trump et al, so “brought or defended” rather than “had been involved” would be clearer for showing that. Overall though, I think lead shouldn’t go into much detail or extracted lines, so a short abstract line seems better. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

USMCA in Lead

Is there an existing consensus for why the negotiation and ratification of the USMCA is not mentioned in the lead? Unless I’m mistaken, that trade agreement came pretty much entirely from the Trump administration and it seems like a notable enough achievement to be mentioned in the lead. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Basil the Bat Lord There’s no consensus per se. It was discussed, see here in archive 109, and briefly mentioned here] in archive 114. It does seem odd to have some other items in lead and not this, not that it’s much of a BLP topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Undue detail for the lead of this biography, which already places too much emphasis on his presidency. The main article for the presidency is Presidency of Donald Trump, which is not to say I would necessarily support this in that lead, either. That discussion should take place at that talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean, are the leads of biographical articles about Presidents not supposed to contain mention of important achievements of their Presidency? I thought that was expected of these kinds of articles. Or are you saying the USMCA isn't a big enough achievement to warrant being mentioned? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on the president and one size will not fit all. Trump had a long, very public, and controversial life before he ever considered running for president, and this lead should reflect that fact in its proportions of information devoted to both (at least something well short of the current 74% devoted to presidency). While many U.S. presidents were well known before becoming president, it was at least related to their service in elected office; Trump is an unusual animal in that regard. Few people had heard of Obama before he ran for president, so it makes sense for that lead to be dominated by his campaign and presidency. In any case, how does it make sense to include a detail like this in this article's lead before it's included in the Presidency article's lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Move this page to "Donald J. Trump"?

Hi, guys,
Do you think we need to move the page "Donald Trump" to "Donald J. Trump"? I think it is better to be specific. However, I cannot perform this action as the page is protected from persistent vandalism. Admin rights are needed to perform the action. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

See Current Consensus point #12 at the top: The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. Bdushaw (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Link for lead section

Would anyone be opposed to linking Trump family to "his family's" in "He took charge of his family's real-estate business in 1971,..."? --Steverci (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm opposed. "Trump family" is an article "about the ancestral history of the Trump family as a whole" (and a few unrelated Trumps), according to the page. As for "Family of Donald Trump," the article about Trump's immediate family, that would also be misplaced. The real estate company was his father Fred's, E(lizabeth) Trump having died in 1966. "Took charge" - needs to be revisited, that's still the World according to Trump, title or no title. There were some - uh - "wealth transferrals" (see dubious tax schemes) but Fred Trump was still in charge until he descended into dementia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Well that's certainly not reflected in the article, because ~80% of the weight is about Trump, his father and his grandfather, who were both also noteworthy businessmen. But that's probably another topic to discuss. After looking over "Family of Donald Trump", I think this would be a better choice. How is it misplaced? His parents and grandparents both have sections. --Steverci (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Family of Donald Trump would in fact be more appropriate in that context. But we already link it twice in the article for readers who want to learn more about Trump's family. Both links are relatively easy to find when you want them, one in the "Relatives" field of the infobox and the other as the {{Main}} hatnote in the "Family" section. That leaves us with the question of how likely it is that a reader will want to learn more about Trump's family immediately upon encountering that sentence. How important is the target article as supplemental information to that particular sentence about Trump taking over the business? Not very important, in my view. In my opinion a third link to the same article is not warranted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking if the subject came from a notable family, it should be linked. Especially if we don't have to do any rewriting to find a place for it. George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and Franklin D. Roosevelt all have a link to their families in their lead. It also depends on how important that family is to the subject's notability. Trump coming from a family that was already worth over a hundred million dollars is important to the early and business (and probably political too) parts of his life. --Steverci (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Add to campaign section: 

Trump was ridiculed in the media for supposedly making fun of a handicapped reporter Serge Kovaleski, but Trump has also been seen mocking many other people the exact same way long before this "incident". Most video compilations proving this are taken down on a daily basis in order to keep this narrative going, but you can find, for now, him mocking Sen. Ted Cruz, an Army General, and another senator the exact same way. All can be seen in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKThPaPBcU - at 1:25:10. Same as the media did when he was quoted as saying "All Mexicans Are Criminals" what was really said was "Their not sending their best people folks". Mexico does not have any security that stops people from leaving Mexico and coming into the US. So Trump was referencing the criminal element to that fact. The United States has arrested many Mexican citizens for robberies, rape, rape allegations, murder, and other violent crimes. Those people will be deported back to Mexico just to come back and cross the border illegally again. Mexico is not stopping this from happening, that's what his point was. Trump has had nobody ever call him a racist up until he announced his candidacy under the Republican party. In fact most black Americans in entertainment, politics and business loved Trump up until that day. 64.30.93.20 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Political affiliations

In the other political affiliations, the time span registered of the subject being an independent is included in the last time span of him being a republican. Could someone who knows sort this out? Tigre200 (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - The discrepancy was introduced in this 26 July edit and not caught. Thanks for catching it, and I have reverted it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias

The wikipedia co-founder has also stated that this article suffers from extreme bias. It is clearly the most negative article on any president and even attempts to internally 'debate' by offering rebukes by people within the article. Someone needs to look at this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. See also Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Wrong venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not going to be fixed at this article level. The reality is the US academia and MSM have a liberal bias. Wikipedia reflects those sources. Lillyanna2020 (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That's your reality, which is not supported by studies that are as close as we could possibly get to true objectivity in this world. Understand that you have a bias too, being a human, and it strongly affects what you perceive as bias in others.
In any case, we are not going to have such a meta discussion on this page (that's what WP:VP is for), and I would expect it to be collapsed if it continues. Please refrain from going there in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
LMAO. What a joke. I'm just replying to a comment. Butthurt much? Lillyanna2020 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump statements on payroll taxes

QUESTION: Should the following news reference (re "Donald Trump: If Reelected, I will 'Terminate' Social Security" )[1][2] be included in any of the many Donald Trump articles on Wikipedia? - or Not? - not clear about this at the moment - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Trump never said that. The cited source is a partisan website putting words in Trump's mouth. Here's what Trump actually said: [17][3] He proposed cutting the payroll taxes that support Social Security and Medicare. Of course those cuts would weaken SS and MC if alternate replacement funding wasn't included in his proposal. But it is a flat lie, pure scare-mongering, to say that he promised to terminate SS. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As it happens I also saw the LA Times piece earlier today. It also can't be used because it is an op-ed, and it also seriously exaggerates what Trump promised. We could add something to the Political Positions article, based on what he REALLY said, along with some analysis of what the effect would be. Still not appropriate for this article, at least not unless he takes it further and makes the threat to SS more explicit. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Several more, possibly relevant WP:RS news sources, are listed here[4][5][6][7] - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Benesch, Linda (August 8, 2020). "Donald Trump: If Reelected, I will "Terminate" Social Security". SocialSecurityWorks. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Hiltzik, Michael (August 10, 2020). "Column: Following order on payroll tax, Trump threatens to kill Social Security if reelected". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
  3. ^ Romm, Tony (August 8, 2020). "Trump promises permanent cut to payroll tax funding Social Security and Medicare if he's reelected - The president made the pledge after signing a directive postponing payroll tax payments into next year". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
  4. ^ Queally, Jon (August 8, 2020). "Trump Just Admitted on Live Television He Will 'Terminate' Social Security and Medicare If Reelected in November - One progressive critic called the president's promise "a full-on declaration of war against current and future Social Security beneficiaries."". Common Dreams. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
  5. ^ Chen, Stephen (August 9, 2020). "Will Trump Kill Social Security With His Stimulus?". Forbes. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
  6. ^ Associated Press (August 9, 2020). "Trump orders to defund Medicare, Social Security, encroach on Congress' powers, invite challenges". Modern Healthcare. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
  7. ^ Coleman, Justine (August 9, 2020). "Kudlow says Trump 'did not mean that he was eliminating the Social Security tax'". The Hill. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
@MelanieN: Thank you *very much* for your reply - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your reply - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump would be the place. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Yeah, I agree with Emir of Wikipedia. The correct information provided by MelanieN could be placed into Political positions of Donald Trump, since that's a political thing that Donald Trump wants to do. Friend505 10:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia, Friend505, and MelanieN: - Thanks for all the comments - currently busy - in the meanwhile - *entirely* ok with me if anyone wants to add the suggested edit to the Political positions of Donald Trump article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: Moved this discussion to "Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump#Donald Trump statements on payroll taxes" - seems a more relevant location afaik atm - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words and wikivoice

I find myself somewhat confused on the usage of Weasel Words (Unsupported Attribution, e.g., "is characterized as") in the article. My attempt to broker a compromise using such words in a sentence for the lead in the RfC has fallen flat. Yet the sentence in question garnered outrage "not in wikivoice", etc. when it was reverted out. Meanwhile, such words presently exist in the article, e.g. "...characterized...as racist" in the lead and elsewhere (c.f. high turnover in Personnel). I sometimes get the impression that someone like Trump behaves so horribly, that his behavior cannot be properly described in a venue like Wikipedia, since when written down it looks biased. More recently the section on "Controversial comments about women" was edited with such words ("...has been called sexist"; I've since edited it). If sources/citations are given, yet the citations about "sexist" (or whatever) are direct (the "Controversial" section are unequivocal); do we still have to equivocate? Perhaps we might have a discussion to pin down a policy on using such words? What exactly is wikivoice (why do weasel words help it, if I understand correctly)? Without weasel words is it POV? Etc. If someone wants to use "characterized as", perhaps who is doing the characterizing should also be stated? I gather it is not quite a resolved question in Wikipedialand. Bdushaw (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point to discuss, thanks for raising it. Looking at your examples, where such words are used: I see a difference between talking about an opinion or moral judgement ("racist", "sexist") vs. reporting actions (such as "slow to respond" or "minimizing its threat, ignoring or contradicting many recommendations from health officials, and promoting false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing"). People are arguing that he wasn't just "described as" doing those things; he actually, provably did them; so that "described as" is an unnecessary and undesirable weasel word. Similarly, in the article and lead we say "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency" because that is a provable fact; we don't say he "has been described as" making many false statements. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Words such as "sexist" or "racist" do have a moral element, and they are also labels. But they are also words that have a specific meaning (sexist: "characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.") In the "Controversial/women" section, the citations are unequivocal about the word, and I believe they are also straight reporting pieces, rather than opinion pieces (there was an op cit, but I removed it). I hazard that there are no citations that argue that Trump has not been sexist (?). Meanwhile, the statement "The Trump administration has been characterized by high turnover..." should be revised to "The Trump administration has had a high turnover..." by any point of view, yes (I ask generally)? The citation title there is plain. The "wikivoice" issue is that a statement made in an article is made in a voice stating an absolute fact, in strict accordance with all available sources, yes? It seems clear that one dimension here is external politics - a statement made can make someone look bad, hence attract criticism (though the statement be true). Bdushaw (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think "The Trump administration has been characterized by high turnover" needs to be changed; that's a statement of fact or description of reality. It's not "characterized as having a high turnover" meaning "some people describe it this way"; it's "characterized by having a high turnover" meaning "this is what it's been like" or "this is a characteristic of it". See Merriam-Webster: characterize can mean how someone describes something, or it can mean what is distinctively true about something. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
You are right; I misread it ("characterized" on the brain...) Bdushaw (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, Trump is an unforgettable character.#2e Whether or not he is of sound character.#3 That word has a lot of meanings! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Suggesting that something has a high turnover is also a judgement rather than fact, and we should be avoiding judgements on contentious articles. Characterising something as high is still a subjective determination, and this particular detail about Trump's former workplace is almost certainly not within the scope of this article. Onetwothreeip (talk)
It's not subjective or a judgement, it's statistically true - particularly during his first year in office.[18][19][20] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Has it been written in some religious text what constitutes a high turnover? No, it's by definition a subjective measure. All these sources say objectively is that turnover has been higher than other administrations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
So you're quibbling about the absence of the word "relatively", when that word is implied and understood by most readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Per one of the links I posted above [21] the turnover during Trump's administration has been "off the charts" and "breaking records". That sounds a little more definite than "relatively". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mandruss: What do you mean by quibbling? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
After consulting the dictionary it appears a better word may be cavil. My point is that even encyclopedias can say something is hot without defining the word "hot". The word is understood to be relative within the context. The same concept applies here, and the relative nature of the word "high" can be seen in many of its dictionary definitions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Encyclopaedias can use "hot" and "high" when appropriate, of course. Likewise, if someone is extremely high, it would be better to say that this is the highest on record, or the highest since a particular point in time, to fully capture the scale. That would be much better, if applicable, than saying "relatively high". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mueller report summary in lede

Regarding the Mueller Report, the lede says:

"A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia."

The source note, d, however, does not support this sentence. Either the note should be changed or the article should be modified into be consistent with the source. - Anamelesseditor (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"though research shows undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans" Wikipedia should not attempt to rebuke, but rather lay out the information in a neutral manner. I think this is worthy of being removed. It feels unfair to attack a politicans views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Covid-19

It looks pretty clear now that we will need to split off this section and create an article like Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic which can go into much further detail and absorb content from other large articles, but with one or two paragraphs in this article to remain. It may be a matter of contention which paragraphs remain in the article, so does anybody have any proposals that could gain some consensus here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nooo, another Trump spin-off article? The section needs to be trimmed. Appears to be somewhat repetitious, and we some of the sources are outdated. Haven't had the time yet to take an in-depth look. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Also, the title reminds me just a tad of Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It always bugged me that the film wasn't called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hatting. NOTFORUM. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maga — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
No, Donald Trump is the lead singer of a garage band called "The COVID-19 Pandemic". Their latest video went viral. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes..it needs to be spun off..it is extremely relevant and it will grow..the Covid-19 virus and the recession will likely be his legacy..why would there not be an article on it ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Because we don't have articles based on what likely we be his legacy. We follow the reliable sources and use to them write articles in compliance with the policies of Wikipedia. If you think it will grow then make a draft. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The section is already the size of a small article, and could clearly be much larger if it was its own article. This isn't because of his legacy, this is because it's a very significant topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and there are more specific articles within. So far, Donald Trump has been the only US President supervising this pandemic. At this point, it's completely redundant. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I said most likely..either way it is an extremely relevant topic..will obviously become more so..it is not redundant..there are a lot of very misinformed people in america as well in denial regarding the virus..I`m guessing a lot of them have no idea the significance of trump`s relationship to COVID-19 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
That is the other large article I was mainly referring to, where content from there can be moved elsewhere. There is far too much content about the federal executive's response to the pandemic and Donald Trump himself. This amount of content is a topic itself, and merits its own article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, give him a bit more time to screw it up further. Meanwhile, we don’t WP:CRYSTALBALL O3000 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with predicting the future. We already have enough content written here in this article and on others to comprehensively cover the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Four observations: (1) The article (pandemic section) needs to have discussion of how his poor pandemic response/lack of leadership is affecting his polls and reelection prospects; it seems Americans are noting the dangers. There are already quality references to this effect, and the effects on the November election results will be substantial (no crystal ball needed). (2) Any break out article will also have to be coordinated with the existing article Presidency of Donald Trump (that article is showing signs of being too long as well) and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. (3) There are likely many such topics that now deserve their own articles. It may make sense to make a comprehensive review of this article, "Presidency of Donald Trump", etc. and coordinate a set of sensible topic articles. I suppose that's "Policies" in the upper right hand Template. (4) When a section of an article is used to create a new article (a natural process), a brief summary is still required in the original article. That will require agreement among editors as to the main points and their wording; could be tough.Bdushaw (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
These are exactly the four points I wish to highlight, and very well said. I would just say that we shouldn't exaggerate or go into excessive detail the assessments of his response to the pandemic and its effects on public opinion, as this should be information better explained in the new article. I would be very grateful if an editor could propose what content would remain in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
All should remain. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of process, in another "break away" article I worked on (Neutron->Discovery of the neutron), we started and developed the new article, then rewrote the old section of the original article as a greatly condensed version of the new article (with a "Main Article" link, of course). So, if the consensus is for a new article, then one could start it by "copy-paste" from the pandemic section, reorganize and develop the new article (a major effort), finally rewrite the section in this original article as a brief summary of the new article, hitting all the main points. Bdushaw (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like the way to go. We would need to start a draft article like Draft:Trump administration response to the COVID-19 pandemic or Draft:COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump administration. This would also absorb content from COVID-19 pandemic in the United States which is focused very much on Donald Trump and his administration for an article broadly about the pandemic in the United States, more than for other country articles, and Presidency of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hummm...worth discussing the title and approach. Your original notion was Draft:Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic which would be a different article than one as expansive as an article on the administration's response. I won't be involved and have no substantive opinion, but the more focused article has an appeal. A variety of sides to the issue come to mind, e.g., do we seek an article paired with this biographical Trump article, or one paired with general government pandemic response? Bdushaw (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not settled on the title either, and the exact scope is always hard to define. I don't think this article can be about all of the government responses to the pandemic, even only the federal government, as much of that is not to do with Trump. However, we clearly can't just make an article that discusses him personally or biographically during the pandemic. The content on the Donald Trump article is really just about how the federal executive branch has responded to the pandemic, with some of Trump's unusual behaviour included as well. It's the same for the other articles about the United States and COVID-19, whenever Donald Trump is mentioned. Very willing to canvass alternative article titles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound...another comment. Having thought about the issue, I am in favor of your original instinct Draft:Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic. There is this article today in the Washington Post today, for example, on how Florida is in trouble because its governor followed Trump, and ignored his own experts. Its all Trump. I've not voted, but I am in favor of a break-away article. I note that the present discussion bears on the above endless discussions on whether covid-19 should be mentioned in the lead (I think so - Trump's mismanagement of the problem is a huge problem for the country, costing thousands of lives; people the world over follow the president and what he says; Trump's mismanagement/misinformation/politicizing the issue/etc is THE issue for the world in 2020). OK pound paid. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a very tenuous link, which should be on the Florida article. This is getting too critical and opinionated of the subject. It can be justified in the lead simply as being the most significant event in the last four years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is opinion; there are an endless number of citations to support this narrative, eg. Time. I do have opinions, to be sure, but as has been pointed out, that does not mean that what gets written is opinion. Part of the process of developing a new article as is under discussion is assembling/processing a large amount of information and distilling that to a succinct, encyclopedic summary. A gray area in Wikipedia standards is the selection of material and its organization can be subjective. I read and watch the news, I see Trump's news conferences, etc. I believe what I described matches what I've learned (and could be supported by citations). It is not by chance that the southern red states have the serious covid problems at the moment. Anyways, I won't be involved with writing the article. (For the record, my reluctance to get too involved is that I spent endless time on Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy back in the day, and don't want to repeat the experience!) Bdushaw (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is absolutely not necessary per WP:CONTENTFORK, since U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic already exists. I've redirected the term there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems fair and in accordance with policy. The task is therefore to work through this article and that one to reconcile the two and use the federal response article, or perhaps a Trump section of that article, as the Main. Much of the material in this article could likely be condensed through that process. Bdushaw (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting off the COVID-19 section, per WP:DUEWIGHT. - MrX 🖋 12:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Trim, don’t FORK. I don’t see a need for it, and seems to me a danger of it being a WP:POVFORK or WP:ATTACK page. There are already articles on the topic, and a bio should be pointing to a larger topic article in order to inform what the topic is and give context of what non-Trump things were. The section here seems overly long with trivia/offtopic but that seems true of many sections and here seems just another spot needing trimming. There’s only two screens worth anyway, so it just doesn’t need a FORK from here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
With the "discovery" of the two articles U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic I believe the original suggestion and the above discussions are moot. I am in favor of closing this Section. In an ideal world the Covid section of this article would be coordinated/synced with those articles. Bdushaw (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above: U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic are enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
These articles are sufficient, now it's a matter of moving much of the coronavirus content into those articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Real-state business in lead

Can "He took charge of his family's real-estate business in 1971" be changed to "He was given control of his family's real-estate business in 1971" so it doesn't imply usurpation? --Steverci (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to say he "became president of" in 1971, because that's what we say in the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I had considered that as well, but thought using "president" in the lead for any position besides president of the United States would be confusing for some people. After seeing it added, I think it's fine though. --Steverci (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Trump bias, call for review

It's clear to many people I've spoken to that the Donald Trump Wiki page is too politicized. This is harming the entire community because people no longer have faith that the Wiki project is unbiased. This page does not reflect the pages of other presidents. I think we need to comb through every section and eliminate the obvious anti-Trump bias. This is getting out of control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.139.228 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. See also Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1.
(I have shortened your overlong heading from "This entire page is compromised by politically motivated actors. I think we should review the entire page by a panel of people on both sides with equal representation" Headings are not simply the first sentence or two of a discussion, rather they concisely convey its topic.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes please fix this it’s really becoming an issue. Cj7557 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. See also Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Very long

Is the article very long or not? Can we please gain WP:Consensus instead of removing and reinserting the tag. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is. I don't think anybody believes otherwise. I thank all those who have tried to reduce the size of the article, despite conditions forcing its expansion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: It kind of is. However, relative to other US presidential pages, such as Barack Obama or George W. Bush, it isn't that long. These pages are all very long. If someone wants to shorten the article Donald Trump, we should also shorten the other corresponding US presidential articles. Thank you. Friend505 23:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Obama's readable prose size: 82 kB. Bush43: 88 kB. Trump: 122 kB. No comparison. Regardless, (1) decisions about other articles are not made at this article, and (2) such linkages are an impediment to progress by turning large efforts into enormous ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Well, actually, I judged the "length" and "size" of an article based on the scroll bar thingy. If the scroll bar is short, that means that the article is long, and if the scroll bar is long, it means that the article is short. Well, then I guess that we should reduce the size of all of these articles: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, andDonald Trump. However, in general, any "long" article should be reduced in size. Thank you. Friend505 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Barack Obama and George W. Bush are 358 kilobytes and 311 kilobytes respectively, so the Donald Trump article is very large even compared to those. Most articles on US presidents aren't as long as any of these either, as Rutherford B. Hayes is 97 kilobytes, William Howard Taft is 136 kilobytes, and Zachary Taylor is 83 kilobytes. Donald Trump is currently 477 kilobytes, but I'm not opposed to reducing the size of the articles for the two preceding presidents. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's separate the two independent questions.
  • Is the article too long? Its readable prose size is 122% of the size at which the article "Almost certainly should be divided" per the guidance at WP:SIZERULE. Yes, the article is too long. The article's historical file size is graphed here, where the horizontal gridlines represent intervals of 100,000 bytes.
  • Should the article display a {{Very long}} tag? No, editors are well aware of the size problem and the existence of the tag will not make them more likely to address it. No one needs a tag for permission to trim or split the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but the argument against the tag has failed repeatedly. There clearly is not enough awareness of the problem, and awareness of an issue has never been a reason to remove tags. It has been claimed from time to time that editors are aware of the issue, but the article has only continued to become larger in size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
No need to apologize. You are assuming that the tag would have some effect other than to add ugly clutter to the top of the article. That is a faulty assumption in my opinion. But feel free to cite a case where long-standing resistance to article size reduction was overcome by addition of a tag. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The position that tags help to identify and solve problems is not controversial at all on Wikipedia. If it's ugly on this article, then it's ugly on any article, and that obviously shouldn't prevent us from correctly tagging articles or elements of articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't think that adding the tag is particularly helpful, if people are aware of the length problem and are working to shorten the article. The article receives huge numbers of views, and each viewer has to wade past, and ignore, the tag. Bdushaw (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the tag would be helpful, just to remind people of the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Readers should certainly see the tag highlighting the article's problem with length. There clearly is not enough done to shorten the article since it just keeps getting larger and larger. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
This again? No, the article doesn't need a tag to state the obvious. - MrX 🖋 11:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The article very clearly needs a tag to state this obvious fact. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, here's an idea: if we need more awareness among editors but don't want to disturb readers, we have a function that does that: edit notices. Why not make the tag an edit notice? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against an edit notice as well. There's just no reason not to have a tag at the top of the article like we do with every other article that is too long. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It would serve no purpose whatsoever, article length has no effect on the reader, it is a technical issue. If there needs to be an alert for article length anywhere, it could be on this talk page, not in article-space. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
This is completely false, article tags regarding are displayed on the article itself, not the talk page. Article length is of course not only a technical issue as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
There is an economic cost to adding the tag. E.g., The article presently gets about 50,000 views a day. If we suppose each reader takes about 5s to see, read, consider, and disregard the tag, that amounts to about 70 hours/day (to no point). At $50/hr (inc. taxes, benefits, etc.), that's about $3,500/day as a rough cost to the world for adding the tag. I view a "too long" tag as appropriate for quiet, temporarily forgotten articles that need some additional attention...that would not be this article. Bdushaw (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
We can run an experiment...insert the tag for a few days, then add up the number of new editors that step forward to volunteer to reduce the size of the article. (In 3 days, a sample size of 150,000 people!) One can then do a cost benefit analysis...is it worth $3500/day to have no one step forward to volunteer to reduce the size of the article? Bdushaw (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, I see there is no "too long" tag at the top of this talk page. I would be in favor of adding such a tag to this page, if that were possible. Most people coming here have editing on their mind. Bdushaw (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If a tag makes one person devote more time to an important issue, it's worth it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only do I strenuously object to its use on this article, but I would argue we should be getting rid of the {{very long}} template or prohibiting its use in article main space. It serves no useful purpose and distracts the reader with something they don't give a shit about. The focus of such messages should be on the editors, not the readers. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This is really an impossible objection. We use many tags throughout articles, which are just as ignorable if the reader chooses, such as the ubiquitous citations needed tags. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
These "$50/hr (inc. taxes, benefits, etc.), that's about $3,500/day" numbers are arbitrary and irrelevant. There is no monetary value attached to the time spent reading an article. This isn't 1996, we're not using Netscape Navigator over a dial-up. ValarianB (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a good reason for a tag and any other signage that can be used. So many discussions here talk about adding extra text, but they never address the elephant in the room. Anything that could remove this blindspot would be worthwhile.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Was Donald Trump ever a television producer?

Yes! He produced the show, Mark Burnett's The Apprentice.--Laugh338 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

The lines in the end of the introduction claiming that Trump poorly handled COVID 19 should be removed. It is total opinion. He handled it much better than the previous administration handled H1N1. Samplecm (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - From WP:Edit requests: "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2020


In the sentence, "As of 2020, Forbes estimated his net worth to be $2.1 billion", "estimated" should be changed to "estimates". Momo824 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Estimated" is the correct form for something that occurred in the past. - MrX 🖋 11:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: "Estimated" is correct. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Please change Mueller did not indict or exonerate him by removing the exonerate portion because it shows bias in that it is not the job of the Special Counsel of the DOJ to exonerate, only to chose whether or not to indict. Zwickewj (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Donald Trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Draft:Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Donald trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Donald trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Draft:Donald trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Add Category:American people of Scottish descent Dilljl248 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization Talk 03:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done after reviewing the MacLeod component of the subject's heritage. General Ization Talk 03:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: A statement on Trump and Covid-19 in the lead

This RfC has been open for 18 days and has gone for 3+ days now without new comments. I volunteered 2 days ago to close it over at WP:AN and haven't heard any objections.
There is a clear consensus for Q1, that something about Covid-19 belongs in the Lead. It appears to be a unanimous consensus with a little reading between the lines. Most of the disagreement is what to put in the lead, and there is not consensus for Q2 and Q3. Some alternate wordings to Q2 were proposed and voted on, but the amount of participation in this section wasn't sufficient to establish a clear consensus on those or to override the more comprehensive discussion on this page at #COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69).
Moving forward I suggest that editors focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording through a combination of editing and talkpage discussion, making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The statement "Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized as slow. He has been described as minimizing its threat, ignoring or contradicting many recommendations from health officials, and promoting false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." is proposed to be added to the lead.

  • Q1 - Should the lead include a statement on Donald Trump and Covid-19?
  • Q2 - Does the proposed statement adequately summarize the content of the Covid-19 pandemic section of the article, given the severe constraints of brevity?
  • Q3 - Should the proposed statement be added to the lead?

Bdushaw (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

  • There have been three previous extensive discussions of this issue, two now archived (link 1, link 2), and one still active link 3, though at a stand still. The first was a formal RfC, the second has been called an RfC, is closed as such, but it was not actually a formal RfC. The third discussion is extensive, resulting in the proposed text. The process of that discussion is summarized in Summary.
  • The proposed specific statement was derived in that process and is supported by a large fraction of the participants.
  • The proposed statement deviates from the specific statement agreed upon in two ways. (1) I edited it for better English, which seems to have been acceptable. (2) I added "characterized" and "described" to make the statement less absolute. (The difference between "Trump's statements were racist" versus "Trump's statements were characterized as racist".)
  • There is dispute regarding Q1 from some of the participants.
  • While the process distilling the COVID-19 pandemic section down to the proposed statement has been rigorous and extensive, to some the end result was unacceptable. Three possibilities for the impasse may be that external considerations have entered (politics), that the statement does not reflect the text of the Covid-19 section, or that the Covid-19 section has problems.
  • The text of Covid-19 section of the article has been stable, and the text of the proposed statement is well supported by reliable sources (see Summary).
  • The political nature of the article and statement makes the chance of less than good faith influence by editors possible. That should not matter, but please state your opinion clearly, and provide your best reasoning in a brief, clear statement. As you all know, this process is not decided by vote. Bdushaw (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • Support Q1, Q2, Q3: Q1 is an improper question, given the standard guidance provided for the lead. Having read the article text carefully, I find the proposed text is a fair representation of the article text. Given that Covid-19 and Trump's response to it has dominated the news for the past 7 months, a mention of the issue in the lead is essential. One editor noted that by adding something to the lead now, the process of refining that lead could begin. The proposed text seems a good start. Bdushaw (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Addendum: The article today in AP News is consistent with the proposed lead sentence. Bdushaw (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion COVID-19 is kind of a big deal, as has been Trump's reaction to it. The sentences proposed to add are WP:DUE weight and follow WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the wording as proposed, support shorter alternate proposal. I absolutely agree that we need something about COVID-19 in the lead, but I cannot support the "has been characterized as" and "has been described as" language. This hedging improperly distances the encyclopedia from the reliable sources. The reliable sources are unequivocal that Trump minimized the threat, ignored/contradicted health experts' advice, and promoted false information. These facts are difficult, but that does not given us license to equivocate. I support an alternate proposal without the weasel language: "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." This also has the advantage of being shorter, which is better given the constrained space in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 18:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I support inclusion but perhaps you can cut it? "Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized as insufficient." would perhaps be enough.ImTheIP (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    The better word is "response". The two words are not exact synonyms. We can address that now, or if and when the word "reaction" gets into the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the wording as proposed; support Neutrality's shorter alternate proposal as being the NPOV version, and it's supported by a preponderance of high quality sources as thoroughly demonstrated by starship.paint (way) above. WP:WEASEL words are to be avoided and attribution of any sort would violate WP:YESPOV. The previous discussion leans substantially toward inclusion with the options in the table above being the favored language, so I don't really understand the purpose of this proposal. A formal close has been requested for the previous discussion. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ImTheIP's idea I support ImTheIP's idea, since Donald Trump's reaction to the pandemic has been insufficient. But, I think we can drop the "characterized" since this is evident to everyone. You might not think that the fact is evident to White House officials, but they do not display it since they are part of the Trump administration. If they do, Trump might fire them. So, I think the sentence should be changed to the following: "Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has been insufficient." I know it might seem more professional and academic to include "characterized as", but that's just basically redundant according to my description above. Friend505 19:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in part all the foregoing comments. I do not support in principle that the inclusion is too long; it is not: its main shortcomings, as some have pointed out, are that its weasel words are egregious and obtrusive. They also are unnecessary as long as the assertions are suitably cited. A more difficult problem is to avoid discussion without synthesis of cited material, both in the body and to some extent even in the lede. This always is a problem, but in a politically and legally sensitive field such as this, especially in a situation that is as yet far from resolved and is continually aggravated by intransigent partisan militants, it is explosive; remarks that might pass without comment in a less controversial field, would lead to passionate rwars in this article, and I do not see how to prevent them without adequate and appropriate citation (always assuming that we avoid pointless strings of citations). Neutrality's text might or might not be adequate, but with proper citation, something of the sort would be an improvement. JonRichfield (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, the proposed statement is well supported by citations, and a version of the statement annotated by citations from the article can be found in the Summary. Also mentioned there is that this article is not employing citations in the lead, relying on citations in the article. Bdushaw (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
We may be at cross purposes; I just emphasised the importance of citations in context, without asserting that they were insufficient at present. As for citations in the lede, I don't feel strongly about them unless someone starts a niggle. Any article that so much as mentions the Dump really needs to be bulletproof. JonRichfield (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources on slow, below. A repost. starship.paint (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(a) Slow to ramp up testing

NPR: [22] (a) The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing. Only this week has testing become more widely available in the U.S., and kits remain in limited supply ... The CDC has been inconsistent in its reporting of how many people a day are being tested in the U.S., but experts say the number is extremely low.

Guardian: [23] The other country 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 ... (a) It was not until 29 February, more than a month after the Journal article and almost six weeks after the first case of coronavirus was confirmed in the country that the Trump administration put that advice into practice. Laboratories and hospitals would finally be allowed to conduct their own Covid-19 tests to speed up the process. Those missing four to six weeks are likely to go down in the definitive history as a cautionary tale of the potentially devastating consequences of failed political leadership ... Trump repeatedly played down the severity of the threat, blaming China for what he called the “Chinese virus” and insisting falsely that his partial travel bans on China and Europe were all it would take to contain the crisis. If Trump’s travel ban did nothing else, it staved off to some degree the advent of the virus in the US, buying a little time. Which makes the lack of decisive action all the more curious ... The CDC’s botched rollout of testing was the first indication that the Trump administration was faltering as the health emergency gathered pace. Behind the scenes, deep flaws in the way federal agencies had come to operate under Trump were being exposed.

NYT: [24] (a) as the deadly virus from China spread with ferocity across the U.S. between late January and early March, large-scale testing of people who might have been infected did not happen — because of technical flaws, regulatory hurdles, business-as-usual bureaucracies and lack of leadership at multiple levels ... The result was a lost month, when the world’s richest country — armed with some of the most highly trained scientists and infectious disease specialists — squandered its best chance of containing the virus’ spread. Instead, Americans were left largely blind to the scale of a looming public health catastrophe. At the start of that crucial lost month, when his government could have rallied, the president was distracted by impeachment and dismissive of the threat to the public’s health or the nation’s economy. By the end of the month, Trump claimed the virus was about to dissipate in the U.S., saying: “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” By early March, after federal officials finally announced changes to allow more expansive testing, it was too late to escape serious harm.

Kaiser Health News: Both in Washington, D.C., and internationally, health officials had been warning about the dangers posed by COVID-19 since at least January, with some early signals going back to December, when the illness emerged in the Wuhan province of China. (a) Those warnings continued into February, well before the White House began taking serious steps to increase testing and treatment efforts ― a delay that experts said has significantly undermined the national response ... In fact, the president heard warnings about this specific virus from his advisers and the global health community for months. And public health and national security experts had been highlighting the risks for even longer about the threat of some kind of pandemic — even if the details weren’t yet known. Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale. Earlier, more focused testing and sequestering of people with the virus could have mitigated some of the response now required, experts told us.

Politico: [25] he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak ... (a) the Trump administration squandered time bought by the travel restrictions, failing to ramp up diagnostic testing and prepare the health care system for a surge in coronavirus patients.

NYT [26]: (d) The administration also struggled to carry out plans it did agree on. In mid-February, with the effort to roll out widespread testing stalled, Mr. Azar announced a plan to repurpose a flu-surveillance system in five major cities to help track the virus among the general population. The effort all but collapsed even before it got started as Mr. Azar struggled to win approval for $100 million in funding and the C.D.C. failed to make reliable tests available.

TIME: [27] (a) The government’s top infectious-disease -expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, called the feds’ testing program “a failing,” ... Trump brushed aside the mess. Asked on March 13 if he accepted -responsibility for the testing debacle, he uttered seven words that could come to define his presidency. “No,” he said, “I don’t take -responsibility at all.”

(b) Slow to quarantine travelers, (c) slow to implement travel restrictions on countries other than China

CNN: [28] the White House ... timeline is ... heavy on talk, with little immediate action ... key failures from the administration’s fumbling response ... (b) expanded airport screenings ... of travelers arriving from China, didn’t immediately lead to large quarantines. Reuters reported that five days after this announcement, “only a handful of commercial airline passengers” had been quarantined ... (c) even though South Korea and Italy had more coronavirus cases than Iran, they remained exempt from similar travel restrictions until later.

AP: [29] 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 ... (c) Travel largely continued unabated ... A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act.

(d) Slow on acquiring or making medical supplies

AP: [30] (d) After the first alarms sounded in early January that an outbreak of a novel coronavirus in China might ignite a global pandemic, the Trump administration squandered nearly two months that could have been used to bolster the federal stockpile of critically needed medical supplies and equipment. A review of federal purchasing contracts by The Associated Press shows federal agencies largely waited until mid-March to begin placing bulk orders of N95 respirator masks, mechanical ventilators and other equipment needed by front-line health care workers. By that time, hospitals in several states were treating thousands of infected patients without adequate equipment and were pleading for shipments from the Strategic National Stockpile.

WaPo [31] months of criticism of the Defense Department’s early response to the coronavirus pandemic ... (d) Defense Production Act. President Trump delayed invoking the act, which provides wartime powers that compel private companies to provide needed equipment, until March 18.

TIME: [32] (d) Trump’s team ignored an alarming shortfall of basic medical supplies, like masks, hospital beds and -ventilators—necessary to handle an expected surge of patients requiring -hospitalization—and tussled with governors, who were begging the White House to release federal funds to aid in preparation efforts.

NYT [33]: (d) The number of infections in the United States started to surge through February and early March, but the Trump administration did not move to place large-scale orders for masks and other protective equipment, or critical hospital equipment, such as ventilators. The Pentagon sat on standby, awaiting any orders to help provide temporary hospitals or other assistance.

(e) Slow to acknowledge the threat of COVID-19

WaPo: [34] When President Trump was asked at Sunday’s White House coronavirus task force briefing why he didn’t warn Americans in February that the virus was spreading and implement social distancing earlier, Trump’s response was to go back to late January, when he issued the travel restrictions on Chinese people coming to the United States. In other words: More than two months into this crisis, Trump doesn’t have an answer for why he didn’t do more in this crucial window to prepare the country for the coronavirus. (e) The reality is that behind the scenes in February, according to multiple deeply reported accounts including in The Washington Post, Trump didn’t seem prepared or to want to acknowledge that the virus could ravage the United States.

Politico: [35] (e) WHO declared the coronavirus a global health emergency in late January, at a time when Trump was still downplaying the disease and drawing misleading comparisons to the seasonal flu. Trump himself, who did not declare a national emergency until mid-March, had hailed China’s early response to the pandemic until just a few weeks ago, even as public health experts warned the Chinese government was not completely forthcoming about the novel disease.

TIME: [36] (e) A few weeks after the outbreak began in China’s Hubei province in December, U.S. health officials warned Trump of the seriousness of the threat. But in his first public comments about the virus, on Jan. 22, Trump told the public he wasn’t worried. “Not at all,” he said. “We have it totally under control.” Throughout February, Trump dismissed Democrats’ alarm about the virus as their new “hoax,” blamed “the Democrat policy of open borders” for the pathogen’s spread and insisted that his Jan. 31 decision to restrict travel from China had contained the outbreak ... many of the President’s supporters in the media and Congress echoed his cavalier tone. The disease, meanwhile, continued to spread throughout the country, largely undetected. ... With stocks down 12% and the pandemic fueling a full-blown economic panic, Trump appeared to awaken at last to the severity of the crisis. On March 16, Trump admitted that the virus was -indeed “very bad.”

Politico: [37] a source you provided, MONGO. The guidelines ... were issued with a sense of alarm and a frankness that Trump has not previously displayed ... As recently as Sunday, Trump was telling Americans to “relax” and that the pandemic would pass. And on Monday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow predicted that the outbreak would only impact the economy in the short term — “weeks and months,” he said, not years. But hours later, Trump said the situation was “bad,”

NYT [38]: 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 ... By the third week in February, the administration’s top public health experts concluded they should recommend to Mr. Trump a new approach that would include warning the American people of the risks and urging steps like social distancing and staying home from work. But the White House focused instead on messaging and crucial additional weeks went by before their views were reluctantly accepted by the president — time when the virus spread largely unimpeded. When Mr. Trump finally agreed in mid-March to recommend social distancing across the country, effectively bringing much of the economy to a halt, he seemed shellshocked and deflated to some of his closest associates ... These final days of February, perhaps more than any other moment during his tenure in the White House, illustrated Mr. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to absorb warnings coming at him. He instead reverted to his traditional political playbook in the midst of a public health calamity, squandering vital time as the coronavirus spread silently across the country ... Even after Mr. Azar first briefed him about the potential seriousness of the virus during a phone call on Jan. 18 while the president was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump projected confidence that it would be a passing problem ... And if the president’s decision on the travel restrictions suggested that he fully grasped the seriousness of the situation, his response to Mr. Azar indicated otherwise. Stop panicking, Mr. Trump told him. That sentiment was present throughout February

(f) Slow to wear a mask in public

New York magazine: [39] (f) For the first time since the coronavirus pandemic began, President Trump wore a face mask in public during a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center on Saturday. The stunningly late milestone came 99 days after the CDC recommended, on April 3, that Americans don face coverings at all times in public to stop the spread of COVID-19, which has already devastated the U.S. economy, infected more than 3.2 million people, and killed more than 134,000 across the country. Trump had previously refused to wear a mask in public, and his and his allies’ unwillingness to take the common-sense precaution seriously (after U.S. public health officials initially botched their own mask messaging) has helped make face masks a partisan flash point in the U.S. — to the extent that resistance to mask-wearing among Americans has undoubtedly contributed to the horrifying second surge of COVID-19 in numerous states.

France 24: [40] (f) President Donald Trump finally yielded to pressure and wore a face mask in public for the first time on Saturday as the US posted another daily record for coronavirus cases, while Disney World reopened in a state hit hard by the pandemic. White House experts leading the national fight against the contagion have recommended wearing face coverings in public to prevent transmission of the illness. But Trump had repeatedly avoided wearing a mask, even after staffers at the White House tested positive for the virus and as more aides have taken to wearing them ... The president was a latecomer to wearing a mask during the pandemic, which has raged across the US since March and infected more than 3.2 million and killed at least 134,000.

  • First choice: Neutrality’s proposal, per Neutrality and MrX. Second choice: Bdushaw’s proposal, per Muboshgu. Better than nothing. starship.paint (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we're on the the right track with Neutrality's proposal above, but I think we are missing a key component from the earlier discussion that was well supported. Here's my take on it:

Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was to blame China, minimize the threat, ignore or contradict many recommendations from health officials, and promote false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of content. Support Neutrality's version which removes some of the hedging language (and better reflects RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Q1: Absolutely yes. Way overdue. Q2: I prefer Neutrality’s version. Second choice: a version of the proposed statement that doesn’t say “charaterized” or “described”. Third choice: the proposed statement. Q3: see my answer to Q2. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Bdushaw, ImTheIP, MrX, Neutrality, Friend505, Mandruss, JonRichfield, Muboshgu, Snooganssnoogans, MelanieN, and Starship.paint: Is it possible that none of you has seen my proposed version above, perhaps because it came under all those reposted sources? It is essentially very similar to Neutrality's version, but adds the blaming China part that has broad support in the previous discussion. Perhaps you all have, but I'm just surprised nobody has commented on it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I missed it Scjessey. My concern is that it does not capture the slowness of Trump's response. The ideal version should probably include A through E and I-2 (D, E, and I-2 less strongly) as indicated by the tally in the Awilley section above. That would look something like:

Trump was (A) Slow to address pandemic, while he (B) downplayed the severity, (C) ignored or contradicted health recommendations from officials, (D) promoted unproven treatments, (E) made false claims about test availability treatments, (F) blamed China, (G) began withdrawing the US from the WHO, and (I-2) pushed for opening up economies and schools early.

- MrX 🖋 18:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw it. I didn't comment but I don't support it, because I oppose adding "blamed China" to the lead. Thanks, though. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I don't support MrX's proposed version immediately above, either. Too much detail for the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN and MrX: Thanks for letting me know. I just thought it was weird nobody had responded. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN my version was meant to be an example of what might be included based on at least 7 supports (black and gray text), or at least 10 supports (black text). It was not intended as a specific wording proposal. Any wording proposal should reflect the relative support of each component in the Awilley discussion, otherwise we will be taking three steps back for every two we take forward. - MrX 🖋 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In that case, I support the latest version of Neutrality's language: "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." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Both Neutrality's version and the proposed version for this RfC cover those exact points, as taken from the chart of reactions to the discussion above. The only difference is that Neutrality's version is without the weasels, better written, and more concise. User:Bdushaw, if you are willing to remove the weasels as you have suggested, the result would look exactly like Neutrality's version. And everyone here would be in agreement. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe the version that Neutrality gives is the version most of us had settled on before I inserted the weasel words, thinking it was "softer" that way and more amenable to wikivoice, insofar as I understood that, hence thinking it would be more likely to attain broader support. There seems to be no opposition now to Neutrality's version, certainly not from me. (Part of my puzzlement.) Bdushaw (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose both the proposed wording and Neutrality's proposal but would like to propose an alternative. Per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, we should mention Trump's Jan. 31 action to drastically curtail air traffic from China. I can't support any proposal that ignores that. In response to the Covid-19 crisis, Trump quickly imposed restrictions on travel from China but otherwise reacted slowly. He minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record (and as a note to the closer): The suggestion to include text in the lead section regarding the partial travel sections was decidedly rejected in the discussion above (6 oppose, one weak support, and two supports). The characterization "quickly imposed" is also inaccurate, as fact-checkers note: 38 countries took action before or at the same time the U.S. restrictions were imposed (Washington Post fact-check) and "Most major airlines had already suspended flights to China prior to the announcement on Jan. 31" (Associated Press fact-check). In any case, the travel restrictions were riddled with exceptions and holes (see AP article describing "gaps in containment net"; New York Times article noting that in the 2 months after the restrictions went into effect, nearly 40,000 people traveled from China to the U.S., "many with spotty screening."). Neutralitytalk 04:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: If 38 of the roughly 200 countries took action before or at the same time as the US, that makes the US faster than 80% of countries, and as fast as or slower than the other 20%. Per the same NYT source cited above, roughly 400k people flew from China to the US in January, 2020, versus 40k in the next two months, a rate of 20k per month. So there was a 95% reduction in monthly arrivals. That means Trump's restrictions were both quick (in relation to the average country) and effective in reducing travel from China to the US. Lastly, the proposed text is one-sided. We should follow WP:NPOV: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. The version proposed by User:Neutrality fails to do that.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, Adoring nanny. We are going to consider everyone’s opinion but base the result on consensus, as is Wikipedia's practice. This subject has been discussed for a month now. I initially proposed, way back on July 10, a sentence saying Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he issued partial travel bans for China and Europe, but otherwise minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many health recommendations from officials in his administration, and passed false information to the public about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. As you can see, that included the travel ban. But in the subsequent discussion, the travel ban clause was opposed by multiple people. In the “finding common ground” section above, which was the most heavily edited discussion and should be our basis for determining consensus, the travel ban was choice “K”; it was opposed by 6 people and supported by 3. The chart at “Unofficial !vote tally” is an excellent summary of the comments, so it has been the basis of our proposal going forward. Of course, if the currently proposed sentence is put into the article, that would not prevent you from seeking consensus, here at the talk page, to add travel ban language to the sentence, but it would require consensus to do so. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I am aware that WP:NPOV, regardless of its status as a "pillar" of Wikipedia, is in fact a dead letter. Thanks for your kind note, however. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I've reviewed the Covid-19 section again carefully with a specific eye on the travel restrictions. Aside from the lack of community support for such phrasing, previously noted, I do not find the discussions regarding travel restrictions in the article to be substantive enough for inclusion in the lead, given the constraints of brevity - there are two separate sentences. As per previous discussions, there are many, many possibilities to add that would make for quite a list...that would also make for a lead sentence that would be far too long. Bdushaw (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Scjessey's version, or, failing that, Neutrality's version. (Support Q1, oppose Q2 + Q3.) For Q1, including some mention is obviously far overdo (it's a defining event of his presidency and has completely changed the entire fourth year of it, so I don't see how anyone could legitimately argue for exclusion at this point.) Strenuous opposition to Bdushaw's specific proposal, however, or any variation that hedges with WP:WEASEL terms such as "characterized as" or "described as". If (as in this case) high-quality reliable sources state something as fact, and no sources of comparable weight disagree, we're required to reflect it as fact and not present it as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support all Q#, preferably Neutrality's shorter version. I scanned the previous RFC, it has clearly gone obsolete in the months since it was run. Most countries have managed to control or nearly eliminate Corona, while in the U.S. it has gone out of control worse than almost any other country. Everything is overwhelmingly sourced, and this item will clearly stand as lead-worthy despite the exceptional number of topics competing for that placement. The forecasts current only run to the beginning of Sept, but it looks like the U.S. dead will easily go over a quarter million by the time Trump leaves office. (Regardless of whether he's reelected or not.) Alsee (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

As the one making this formal RfC, I would like to highlight that the Request is for comment on a quite specific text. As noted, there has been EXTENSIVE discussion previously; for this RfC, I do not solicit opinions on alternate text. Everyone can do as they like, of course, but as the formal Requester, I request comments on the specific text originally given. As for the hedging (considered as, described as), I agree with those that object to it. There was, however, what seemed to be a strong negative reaction to the original form (Version 3/3a) when it was attempted to be added to the lead (not NPOV, not in wikivoice). I noted such hedging was elsewhere in the lead, and adapted that to the original text. Such hedging language is not redundant; they are weasel words, however. Bdushaw (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not solicit opinions on alternate text. ... I request comments on the specific text originally given Well, you are getting opinions on alternate text. And I hope you will not simply ignore them and rule out all alternate versions, because a yes-no approach will probably just result in "do not use the proposed text". Then will we have to have another RfC, and another, and another? IMO to evaluate this kind of discussion, one needs to evaluate EVERYTHING people say, not simply tally support-or-oppose for one proposal. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I view many of the replies above as answering "yes to Q1-Q3, but lose the weasel words", which is reasonable. Comments that suggest completely new text are not a reply to the RfC, short circuiting the extensive discussion to this point. The process of adding some text on this issue to the lead began in early April; the process up to this point needs to be respected, and, as you say, we need not have endless RfCs. If the consensus view is that the proposed text is unacceptable, then we would likely have to revisit the past discussion and devise an alternate text by consensus. Ultimately, I don't believe the course and conclusion of this RfC, and the statement of the consensus result, is up to me, however. Bdushaw (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The main point here is that people want SOMETHING in the lead. It's way past time for that. Many preferred Neutrality's version over yours, but listed your version as a second or third choice. So if you are insisting on an all-or-none approach to this RfC, it could be closed as inserting your sentence, while allowing discussion (future RfCs perhaps) about rewording it. However I'm not sure that an all-or-none approach would be taken by the closer, whoever that turns out to be. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I see your point. I viewed the RfC has having more flexibility than that, perhaps incorrectly. I am not quite sure what the remedy is, but for the record I will say that I am fine with the answer to Q3 being "yes add the sentence, but remove the weasel words (or otherwise modify it in some way)" as the consensus decision. We really do want to avoid opening up the discussion again to any suggestions; there has already been a long process that does not need to be repeated. Bdushaw (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you are open to removing the weasel words - which you apparently added to your proposal here even though they weren't really evaluated in the earlier discussions. I gather you didn't even like them yourself, but added them thinking they might be a compromise attracting more support. Since that didn't happen, dropping them from your proposed sentence seems reasonable. (I commented further at your new section below about weasel words.) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional proposals for new wording

@Scjessey: Hi, Scjessey, thanks for mentioning my name in your post, so that I would be notified when I login to Wikipedia. So, I partially support both your idea and MrX's idea. Both of you two's information inclusion would be great, but I suggest kind of combining the two and mixing them, like the following:

Trump was slow to address the pandemic, while he downplayed the severity, ignored or contradicted health recommendations from officials, promoted unproven treatments, tried to halt testing, blamed China, began withdrawing the US from the WHO, which he had already started doing before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and pushed for opening up economies and schools early.

Do you think this would be a good idea? Friend505 00:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Friend505: Directionally, yes. However, the portion "...began withdrawing the US from the WHO, which he had already started doing before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic,... seems contradictory, and probably a bit long for the lead. - MrX 🖋 11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: Oh, good idea, MrX. What about the following?

Trump was slow to address the pandemic, while he downplayed the severity, ignored or contradicted health recommendations from officials, promoted unproven treatments, tried to halt testing, blamed China, and pushed for opening up economies and schools early.

Could this be better? Thanks! Friend505 11:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Friend505, I would be fine with something like that. It's pretty similar to other proposals that I support. I think you would probably get pushback on "tried to halt testing". - MrX 🖋 11:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: Well, yeah, Trump did not exactly "halt" testing; practically, he could not do so. However, in a lot of news reports, they've got a Trump speech in which Trump is shouting (which he almost always does when he's in front of a big crowd audience) the following: "Can my people please stop the testing?" And I kind of remembered that he repeatedly shouted that, while the crowd kind of shouted and looked like they were supporting Trump's proposal. I'm not giving an opinion right here about whether or not I like Trump, but that's why I said "tried to halt testing". However, in this link, you can see that the number of tests that the United States conducted decreased from 926,876 on July 24, 2020, which was the highest number of tests conducted in a day, to 711,984 tests conducted on August 9, 2020. This really decreases testing, so if you think that other people will not like "tried to halt testing", than we can change it to the following:

Trump was slow to address the pandemic, while he downplayed the severity, ignored or contradicted health recommendations from officials, promoted unproven treatments, decreased testing, blamed China, and pushed for opening up economies and schools early.

How about this? Thanks! Friend505 11:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm making these proposals for rewording into a new subsection, since this RfC is intended for a yes-no vote on the sentence proposed. Either the original version, a de-weaselized original version, or the Neutrality version could meet the discussion consensus here, since the three versions are identical in what they cover. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

Per WP:RfC participants of an RfC can close that RfC if there is agreement. It seems to me this RfC has answered Q1, Q2, Q3 above, all in the affirmative, with the caveat that the proposed text have the weasel words dropped to read 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. There have been few objections. Much of the recent discussion pertains to other modifications to this text; as we have seen, a potentially endless process and perhaps outside the parameters of the RfC. Could we agree to end this RfC with the addition of this text to the lead, and transfer its subsequent development/modification to the normal discussion process? It has been five days since this RfC was posted, perhaps short, but there has been no significant opposition and the RfC solicited opinions from a wide set of interests (sci,pol,bio). The main issue/questions have been resolved, in my opinion. Bdushaw (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: Don't know if it's too late for an input, but I disagree with the inclusion of "ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials" just because Fauci said Trump initially listened to the NIH recommendations[41] which is the opposite of what that states (Sorry about RS formating I have trouble with that on talk pages) Anon0098 (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of the (dubious) value of the comment, it is in violation of two important processes. Firstly, the issue has already been discussed in a lengthy process as noted in "Notes" above (you did not follow directions). Secondly, as already noted, sentences for the lead are summaries of the content of the article; the comment is not consistent with the content of the article. Bdushaw (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel-UAE deal

Should this be added to this article? Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but definitely not in the lead. - MrX 🖋 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Possibly, but definitely not in the lead, if an agreement is signed, to quote the premature and misnamed Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement article: The Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement, or the Abraham Accord,[1] was agreed to by Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on August 13, 2020. If an agreement is signed. Appears to be conflating the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan and the establishment of diplomatic ties between Israel and the UAE, or did I miss a war between Israel and the UAE? Israel and UAE announced that they would formalize relations they've had (more or less secretely) for years, in business and sports for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Another caveat: Trump's "help brokering" the formalization would have to be well-sourced to make it into this top bio. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

North Korea

@Jack Upland: Your edit summary says that you removed "out of date information." I checked for newer sources, something indicating that the talks are back on or that Kim has announced unilateral denuclearization, but found nothing. What is your source? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that this so-called "out of date information" is vitally important context. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not "vitally important" and it is clearly out of date. This is an excessively long article, and we shouldn't announce what didn't happen, in May or any other month. It is highly unlikely that North Korea would denuclearise unilaterally, so it is not worth noting that it hasn't happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The date was removed by another editor. The North Korea section mentions "complete denuclearization" twice and has a lot of details about who said what when and where (all we're missing are the menus and what the attendees were wearing). Saying that NK isn't budging seems appropriate and well-sourced. I would agree to shortening the section to something like "Trump and Kim met at three summits from 2017–2019 to discuss denuclearization of and lifting of sanctions against North Korea but talks broke down without an agreement." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Space4Time3Continuum2x, I would agree with that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_121&oldid=975591785"