Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69)

In the lead section at "working to overturn Obamacare", please replace colloquial "Obamacare" with "the Affordable Care Act" 0x004d (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing it to its formal name as we have done in the body of the article (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)), but I would first like to see what other editors think about it. - MrX 🖋 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in question:

Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially ignoring health recommendations from officials in his administration, and then passing false information to the public about treatments, blaming China, and working to overturn Obamacare putting millions of newly unemployed Americans at risk of losing health coverage.

I really don't like the way this sentence is worded. It would be better like this:

Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially ignoring health recommendations from officials in his administration, and then passing false information to the public about treatments, blaming China, and putting millions of newly unemployed Americans at risk of losing health coverage by working to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me 2600:1702:2340:9470:AC44:28A1:B377:F8E6 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that change. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me too. - MrX 🖋 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support and changed. With a link to Affordable Care Act. starship.paint (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not ok. Pure SYNTH of cobbled together items. Its should always be written neutrally if possible so...

Critics have claimed that Trump did not react rapidly enough to reduce the spread of the virus and that he ignored some of the health advisor's warnings. Critics have also claimed that Trump passed along false information about the virus, overemphasizing Chinese culpability.

I would leave out the last item entirely as he is by far not the only proponent of efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act. I know they exist so can we see the references to back up all this? MrX added (maybe this was in earlier?) here with zero supporting references.--MONGO (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: - there's no need to say "critics" when the reliable sources themselves are saying so. starship.paint (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Starship.paint. Attribution to an imaginary group is not justifiable. It is an objective fact that Trump has lied and bumbled his way through this crisis. If I'm wrong, the case will have to be made by showing that a preponderance of current sources make these same attributions. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Six sources that Trump was slow. starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AP When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances. NYT Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action. The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have been foreseen. Kaiser Health News / Politifact: Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale. Politico: The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak. NPR: The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing. Time At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus. starship.paint (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Thank you for collapsing that, but nope this cherry-picking google only shows that gives situation is unclear result - it included (a) “government slow”, as in Congress etc not “Trump”, and (b) demonstrated “critics” claim this, plus (c) did not consider the RS saying otherwise. Such as it being a mix of good and bad - e.g. Politifact saying “slow” is incorrect or BBC descriptions of things gotten right and wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledging the debate over the inclusion of COVID-19 info in the lead section, I believe that "blaming China" lacks specificity and formality. Should the section be reinstated, something like "criticizing the Chinese government's response to the outbreak" or "blaming the Chinese government for their response to the outbreak" would be more appropriate -- 0x004d (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are fair points, but Trump has been blaming China from the beginning. I agree it lacks formality. As for specificity, it's not just that he blamed them for their response, but also that he blamed them for the virus and that he signaled white supremacists in his base by referring to it as the China virus. If there is a succinct way of saying while also being specific, it eludes me. I guess we could leave it out of the lead since it really only has moderate impact compared to everything else (except Jerusalem and DPRK). - MrX 🖋 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX Factual false bits there. Trump has praised, then criticised, and then praised China’s response. And “blame” ... well that’s only some of the later comments but generally considered true, yes? And naming “China virus” initially was common until it was worldwide and Beijing objected — and later can be tied to politically blaming China as much as this theory of him being racist (like his granddaughter doesn’t have a Chinese nanny and speaks Chinese) or it being some supremacist secret handshake. Just stick to the article for LEAD discussions, and skip outside partisan stuff, OK? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Yes, generally Trump has oscillated between adoration and condemnation of China, but I'm not aware he has ever really praised their handling of the pandemic. The virus was originally referred to as the Wuhan virus, as far as I remember. It seems so long ago... - MrX 🖋 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX ??? Not hard to find - googling for ‘coronavirus trump initially praised china’ got me Politico 15 times Trump praised China, CNN The many times Trump praised Bejing, Chicago Tribune Praise, criticism, praise again, Trump praises Xi, Trump hopes you forget he praised China, ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the recently-added COVID-19 reaction in lead section, per two recent RfCs that both reached no consensus. Please do not restore until another discussion reaches a positive consensus. — JFG ^talk 04:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Within the next hour User:SPECIFICO restored this new text,[1] in violation of two RfC outcomes,[2][3] while citing the irrelevant WP:SKYBLUE essay. I can't revert because of 1RR, but I request that admins evaluate the situation. Pinging closers TonyBallioni and S Marshall, and admin regulars on this article Awilley, MelanieN and Muboshgu. — JFG ^talk 05:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm stunned that you would still oppose this JFG, but both RfCs from 6 weeks ago resulted in no consensus. You can't "violate" a no consensus outcome. Trump has been the subject of continuous worldwide coverage for his handing of the pandemic for months. The GOP has tied themselves in knots over it. His re-election prospects are declining as a direct result of it. 135,000 American have died on Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Trump's watch! Trump owns this because he has ignored the crisis, promoted false cures, blamed the Chinese, blamed Obama, lied, made jokes, held maskless rallies, refused to follow his own health agency's advice, tried to overturn Obamacare, roused his base with glorious visions of confederate flags, and failed to invoke life saving policies. Is this "Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump."? Are you standing by your claim that "Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes..."? Are you not aware that the U.S. has 5% of the world population and about 25% of the cases and deaths? As I said, I'm stunned, and a bit appalled that I even have to explain this. - MrX 🖋 10:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

in violation of two RfC outcomes. Umm, how can you violate a no consensus rfc? - Harsh (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Very simply: in a "no consensus" situation affirmed by RfC, the status quo ante prevails. Quoting from our WP:NOCON policy:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

In this particular instance, that means not mentioning the pandemic in the lead section. The first RfC about this topic reached a "no consensus" outcome on 22 May 2020. A few days later, the situation was debated again in an attempt to establish consensus, and a second RfC was closed with this assessment:[4]

This RfC doesn't reach a consensus about whether to mention coronavirus in the lead of Trump's article. It also doesn't reach a consensus about what to say if we did mention it.

Ignoring this outcome, User:MrX boldly added COVID-19 content to the lead section[5] just four days after the RfC close. Then User:SPECIFICO re-instated the content after I had reverted it. Irrespective of any dispute about the content itself, those are in my opinion serious violations of Wikipedia process, unbecoming of those experienced editors. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping, in my opinion two no-consensus RfCs doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in the Lead, but suggests that the best path forward will be trying to find a compromise. That's best done, in my opinion, through a combination of editing and discussion, and is rarely helped along by straight up reverts (removals and reinstatements). Partial reverts are good, smaller refinements are better. It looks like this may be resolved by vote in the next section below, but I disagree with the premise that you must have agreement on an exact wording before it goes in. You just have to have something palatable enough to both sides so it will stick long enough to be tweaked and refined further. The original "version 1" was too POV and a bit SYNTHy. MelanieN's version seems like enough of a compromise that it gives people a good starting point for further tweaks. ~Awilley (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We have to agree and specify the wording before this can go in the lead

I have removed that sentence, pending discussion here and agreement on the wording before it gets readded. Here is the sentence that was recently added and I just removed:

Version 1 Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially ignoring health recommendations from officials in his administration, and then passing false information to the public about treatments, blaming China, and putting millions of newly unemployed Americans at risk of losing health coverage by working to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Personally I don't think we should mention Obamacare - that is a longstanding position of his unrelated to the pandemic. (Yes, I know I agreed to it above, but I didn't really give it any thought at the time.) So I propose the following modified version:

Version 2 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.

Others can propose other versions; please number them and blockquote them. References are not used in the lead but the material must be present and sourced in the article text. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support version 2 as proposed. I think any references to the ACA and the administration's attempts to dismantle it aren't really germane to the pandemic response for now. If that were to change and there were reliable sources to support it, I'm sure that it's something that we can revisit. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support MelanieN's proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN and Scjessey, I strongly oppose version 2 on the grounds that the mention in the lead of "issued travel bans for China and Europe" as undue weight and potentially misleading to the reader, especially insofar as the proposed text implies that this was some sort of counterpoint to the minimization of the threat. Indirect flights were never banned; Trump imposed the China travel restrictions only after 12 nations had already done so, and from January 1 to April, at least 430,000 people traveled directly from China, including nearly 40,000 people who made the trip after the travel restrictions were imposed, "many with spotty screening." I would instead support a version 3 that deletes this clause but is otherwise the same as Option 2:

Version 3: Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he 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.

Neutrality^talk 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. I mainly included the travel bans because that's the one thing he DID do, and he constantly points it out to show he did something. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC) (P.S. I remember a comment at the time: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a wall, everything looks like an invasion." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC) )

@OhKayeSierra and Scjessey: Would you also be OK with Neutrality’s version 3? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: @MelanieN:, a thought on the travel bans: From what I've seen the travel bans seem to be a central part of the arguments of people defending Trump's response. A well-written Lead section should be balanced and fair, something that even people with strong political leanings can read and say, "Meh, I suppose that's fair." We don't want half our readers to smile and pat themselves on the back for being right while the other half gets angry about how biased Wikipedia is. MONGO's generally a reasonable person. Look as his response below, try to understand his point of view, and then try to meet him half way. There's probably an aspect of WP:DUE to it as well. I suspect that most sources analyzing Trump's response would mention the travel ban, even if only to point out that it wasn't a full ban and that the virus had already arrived anyway. I do understand the concern about calling it a "travel ban" but it could conceivably be called something else like a "partial travel ban" or a "restriction on foreigners entering the U.S." or something like that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I still think that (even putting aside the factual accuracy issues I raised above) it's not lead-worthy. Most countries in the world had some sort of travel restrictions; that is typical and expected in a global pandemic. And, as a matter of being an encyclopedia, our job is to accurately reflect the noteworthy facts and circumstances with reasonable, appropriate context; it is not to write articles with the intent of making our readers smile or frown (cf. bothsidesism). The correct way to "go halfway" is to explain what occurred in the body of the article, where we have the space to explain matters accurately in two or three sentences, rather than placing inaccurate or misleading text in the lead section. On a highly trafficked article, we should be scrupulous about this. Neutrality^talk 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV is not about giving "equal time" to the false claims about travel bans that Trump and his supporters made in the face of near-universal criticism from notable experts and RS analysis. That would be false balance. The travel ban thing was nonsense, debunked and rejected far and wide in the context of the six month U.S. experience. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually considered "partial travel ban" as more accurate. I will add it to my Version 2. And Awilley, I hear you about making it balanced. Even though the travel limitations were limited and largely ineffective (since the virus was already here and spreading, we just didn't know it), they are something he did - as opposed to the implication that he did nothing at all. And Neutrality, I disagree that it would be "inaccurate or misleading" to point out that he limited incoming travel from the hotspots. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: The statement "issued travel bans for China and Europe" is misleading because incoming travel by U.S. nationals and their families from those locations was never restricted. If we wanted to say "imposed partial travel restrictions on foreigners traveling from China and Europe" that would be more accurate (but still inappropriate for the lead section, as this is not one of the most important aspects of Trump's coronavirus activities or of Trump's presidency, let alone Trump's entire life). And even that wording would be imprecise because Hong Kong and Macau were exempt from the ban, and I believe the restrictions on incoming travel from "Europe" applied only to the Schengen Area initially, then also the UK and Ireland, which is not the entirety of Europe. The complexity of the details (and the facts that the travel restrictions were very ineffective) is all the more reason why this ought not to be in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 00:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

All of that is covered by the word "partial". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: Certainly the inclusion of "partial" is better than any version without "partial," but I still think most readers would be very surprised to read "partial travel ban" and then thereafter find out that after the ban, 40,000 Americans directly traveled from China to the U.S. and nearly 8,000 Chinese nationals and foreign residents of Hong Kong and Macao directly traveled to the U.S., plus probably additional thousands from Europe, plus additional thousands on indirect flights. This July 4 AP article said the "ban" was "more like a sieve." Under these facts, the term "ban," even as modified by "partial," can't really capture the porousness. I also don't think it was one of the most important aspects of Trump's presidency, let alone his entire life. Neutrality^talk 01:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support version 3. Also I have some affinity for the modified version 3 below (although I would edit it slightly). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I support version 1 as it is more comprehensive..therefore more accurate..there is nothing in it that isn`t true 107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all Not sure why we are only emphasizing the negative, always. Trump restricted travel from China before South Korea did and at the same time as 36 other countries did, but after other countries already had a few days to a week prior and the WHO did not even state this was a world health emergency until 1/30. The timing of the travel restrictions is midway between all. Trump used the War Powers Act (perhaps not as fast as he should have) to force manufacturers to produce more PPE. While slower than one would have liked, the US has now tested many more citizens than any other country per million residents except a few. Its important to note that many countries leadership did not do all they could have in retrospect.[6]. No doubt the Trump adminstration could have done more and sooner. Each of the above choices are playing pin the tail on the donkey without an analysis of whether the Trump administration was worse, better or about the same as other world leaders.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would it be safe to say that you oppose any content in which Trump makes himself look bad? - MrX 🖋 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not emphasizing the negative; we are emphasizing reality. The U.S. is in 23rd place for testing. Trump used the war powers act only after significant hesitation and public pressure to do so, and he used in a very limited way. Hospitals and nursing homes are still getting inadequate PPE supplies, and some are even receiving garbage bag-like PPE without the arm holes! Trump could have done better? How the hell could he have done worse? - MrX 🖋 01:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. is in 23rd place for testing Sure about that? The US actually ranks 7th in daily tests per million. The only countries with significantly higher testing rates have very small populations. [7]--Rusf10 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about that. This source[8] that we have been using throughout our articles covering the pandemic shows the U.S. in 23rd place for tests per 100k people. I'm not certain which part of https://ourworldindata.org/ you are looking at, but the table under the heading 'World map: total tests performed relative to the size of population' shows the U.S. in 15th place for testing, and the source disclaims that it is for "all countries in our dataset" which is different than all countries. The claim "the US has now tested many more citizens than any other country per million residents except a few." is wrong, unless you accept that "few" means "many". - MrX 🖋 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My source actually gives you the source they used for every single country. Yours it does for some but others its less clear. And yes I'm looking at the same exact map as you, click on table below the map and you can sort it. Even if we go with your source, almost all of the countries with higher testing are incredibly small. In fact, the total number of tests done by the United States is greater than the total population of all but two of these countries. It not hard to test everyone when your country's total population is roughly 35,000 people.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked into this further and it seems that this has already been discussed and the consensus is that your source Worldometers.info is Not Reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A consensus of two is not a consensus, but it doesn't matter anyway. Even according the source you cited, the U.S. is not #1 in testing. Not even close. - MrX 🖋 17:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussion I linked to??? More than two people participated and it was previously discussed here and here. CNN even reported on how unreliable the website is [9]. It is undeniable that it is a flawed website. Also, I never said the US was #1 in testing, so don't put words in my mouth. But no matter how you look at it, its pretty damn close. In fact, if we were to look at total tests rather than tests per capita, one could argue (and again I'm not making that claim) it is #1 with over 41 million tests, unless we include China's likely false claim of over 90 million tests [10].--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not even a little bit close. Your source doesn't support your claim that China is falsifying their numbers. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does Still, experts have questioned the accuracy of China’s COVID-19 data. It is widely believed that any numbers released by the Chinese government are false. [11] [12] [13]. And will you acknowledge that worldometer.com is not a reliable source? If I see it appear in article space, I will not hesitate to remove it.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX you left out the context of 23rd (now 22nd) “among 214 countries and territories” - so can be said as “roughly top 10%”, or said ‘above average for Western nations’ or ‘somewhere between the U.K. and Canada’... The Covid-19 testing also shows the U.S. as #2 in total tests — all of these are just stating a measure or POV on the data. I don’t mind worldometer per se, as I disagree with excluding reality of POVs exist, but it’s only one POV among many. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support version 3 for the WP:DUEWEIGHT reasons cited by Neutrality. My second choice would version 1. Several sources have taken note of Trump's efforts to overturn Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis, but I also understand that it may overemphasize the importance of this piece of information. Awilley, how have you determined that the travel ban is one of Trump's more noteworthy actions in his handling of the pandemic? We should not be trying to achieve a balance for the sake of placating readers. Our task is to represent material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @MrX: I haven't determined anything. I just have a hard time imagining a high level secondary source discussing Trump's general pandemic response that goes into enough detail to discuss the downplaying, the contradiction of experts, and the misinformation about drugs and tests, but that fails to mention the travel restriction. I can imagine opinion pieces doing that, or secondary sources focusing specifically on more narrow aspects, but those aren't as useful for determ beining weight as broad secondary or tertiary sources. If you know differently that's fine. I've been wrong before. ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you could cite some RS to support you evaluation of WEIGHT wrt the travel bans. I have not seen any mainstream narrative that they were significant, let alone personally bio-noteworthy like e.g. hydroxychloroquine or declining to invoke the emergency production powers or the botched reopening that now sets the US apart from other nations. Could you share sources? SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem all options at this point...blaming this on China..the travel bans as well as the issue of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act all need to be in...however overall the withdraw from the WHO is much more important 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E0:56B7:F967:14AB (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the WHO withdrawal is significant, but it's difficult to cram everything into one sentence, and if we break it up into multiple sentences the lead starts to get unwieldy. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the IP address makes a decent point. Virtually every country in the world adopted some sort of travel restriction, but only one country has taken steps to withdraw from the WHO. If we are going to mention either one in the lead section, the latter seems far more significant than the former, especially given that WHO withdrawal would affect public health far beyond COVID-19. Neutrality^talk 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support all options, 3 first, then 3-Harsh, then 2, then 1. This is the national crisis of his presidency, with many notable aspects. It is WP:DUE for the lead, and we are way past due not having COVID in. Trump has done much to screw it up, diverging from his own public health officials. starship.paint (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all- The continued attempt to brand Trump a liar by editorializing the lead is unacceptable. The word "false" is used 54 times in this article, but zero times in Obama's article. In Biden's article is is only used twice and one of those times is in reference to something Trump said. This proves that wikipedia selectively "fact checks" since every politician ever has made at least some false statements.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• False equivalency, Rusf10. - [14] "'We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here,' said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian." Note that we do not brand Trump a liar in the proposed sentences - we merely state that he passed false information. Now, if you're disputing that he has passed false information, there is a list: [15]. starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a policy based argument, nor is it based on what the preponderance of sources have written about the subject. I'm confident that it will be rightfully discounted in any evaluation of consensus. - MrX 🖋 12:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not the way things work, my vote doesn't just get ignored because MrX doesn't like it. There is a policy and it's called NPOV, excessive weight has been given to negativity in this article. You're preferred version doesn't even mention the travel bans and asserts Trump "passed false information to the public about unproven treatments" when the effectiveness of hydroxychlroquine is still disputed [16] --Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if you demonstrate that you are unable to correctly apply NPOV, your view will certainly be discounted. Please review WP:NPOV and consider the discussion of it in this thread above and below. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

if you demonstrate that you are unable to correctly apply NPOV Is that a personal attack? I hope not. And who is the arbiter of whether I correctly applied NPOV, you and MrX? I am applying NPOV correctly, those supporting the three options above are not. As per NPOV A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. That is what is being ignored here.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That quote is about using neutral wording, not NPOV content. Please read the entire page. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• User:Rusf10 Good points, that the word ‘false’ is presented an UNDUE number of times. That WP is giving unequal treatment would need to refer to some standard though for any correction - to determine if it should be less white-washing there or less tar-and-feathers here. Also —- perhaps you would want to present article content about the external view of ‘false’, of it being a POV narrative and unprecedented posturing over nits. WP doesn’t need to say the ‘false’ claims as if that is factual or at all important to BLP - it is also a context of being under partisan attack and biased media coverage. To some extent, having it seems just a partisan talking point - something pushed vaguely in every opportunity, regardless of relevance. To some extent it seems just media infotainment selling to a niche - something done by deeply adversarial New York Times and Washington Post and Toronto Sun. Finer discussion of ‘false’ seems more something for the Presidency article, but the frequency here and wording here deserves extra scrutiny and context if it’s going to be said so, so often. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all - The way this text is currently written violates WP:NPOV, like Wikipedia is rendering some kind of judgement of his handling of the pandemic, which is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Obviously COVID should be mentioned in the lead, but written more in a way which summarizes what sources have written about Trump's handling of the pandemic, not passing judgement as it currently is. Just one example, instead of "Trump minimized the threat" write it as "Trump has been accused by health professionals of minimizing the threat" etc. Even just re-wording the sentence like this would help a lot. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Basil the Bat Lord: - there is no WP:NPOV violation if Wikipedia follows the judgment reliable sources. If reliable sources say: “Health professionals accuse Trump of minimising the threat”, it would be a violation if we wrote: “Trump minimised the threat.” But if the reliable sources wrote “Trump minimised the threat”, then there is no WP:NPOV violation. starship.paint (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Basil the Bat Lord: If we are "rendering judgement" that would seem to imply that we are writing things that not found in sources. We do not give attribution when something is widely reported and not seriously contested in other reliable sources, per WP:YESPOV. If there are sources that we should consider that say that Trump has not minimized the threat of COVID-19, would you please point them out? Obviously they should be news sources, not opinion columns. - MrX 🖋 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: - the onus would first be on supporters of the content to provide the sources, as I do so below. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those proposing content, and in this case where RS are saying various things - some say slow on this, some say fast on that, some talk about size and not speed... The policy of NPOV is to present all significant POVs in proportion to their WEIGHT in publications, including the right wing ones and the left wing ones. To just pick one POV or message violates NPOV, and is a false representation of events and dialogue. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed what the sources say about Trump and the virus, I'd say you would be getting off pretty light with "slow". Have you read our article on Coronavirus in the US? A pretty good NPOV treatment. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

10 sources on minimizing or downplaying the threat. starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

NBC News [17] he continued to minimize the problem, implying it was far less dangerous than seasonal influenza. New York Times [18] For weeks, President Trump has minimized the coronavirus, mocked concern about it and treated the risk from it cavalierly. Frontline [19] Right through January, February and March, Trump minimised the threat. Wall Street Journal [20] he has at times seemed to muddle the administration’s message by minimizing risks and dispensing information that was incorrect or contradicted by other officials. The Washington Post [21] Over the past four months, President Trump has regularly sought to downplay the coronavirus threat with a mix of facts and false statements. Politico [22] Trump over the last week has downplayed the virus' resurgence even as his health advisers scramble to contain it. USA Today [23] Trump has downplayed the disease as governors across the country have halted reopenings of their states in an effort to stem a surge in cases. The Hill [24] Trump's repeated downplaying of the coronavirus pandemic is under renewed scrutiny as COVID-19 case numbers rise Fox News [25] President Trump downplayed the threat of coronavirus on Monday, noting that the “common flu” kills thousands of Americans each year and that “life & the economy go on.” Associated Press [26] Throughout the global coronavirus crisis, Trump’s statements have been colored by baseless optimism. Early on, the president downplayed the coronavirus as something similar to the seasonal flu — nothing that Americans should be overly concerned about and something that would quickly pass. His optimistic public comments often didn’t match the reality on the ground or even how U.S. public health agencies were approaching the looming crisis behind the scenes. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for hatting all those - but it's a useless list for the NPOV concern. The question is more have you looked at OTHER views and FOR other views, not can you list the cites of the article of the current view. Or whatever that list was. A LEAD position is giving prominence which may be UNDUE prominence per NPOV, and presenting all significant views in DUE proportion means covering both right and left wing. That is not addressed by a list of the existing cites, or whatever that was came from. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support for option 3, with modification Version 3 (modified) : Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he frequently downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many health recommendations from experts and officials in his administration including epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Fauci , and passed false information to the public about unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine, and the availability of testing. - Harsh (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support that. Dr. Fauci is a highly respected medical expert. - MrX 🖋 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also be OK with Version 3 (modified), if others prefer it to the original Version 3. Neutrality^talk 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Leave out Fauci. This is Trump's biography; there is no reason to name-drop one expert. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1-3 (Harsh's version)-3 (original version)-2 in that order, but any of them would work. The only completely unacceptable options would be omitting it entirely or trying to hedge it. At this point coverage of COVID-19 has come to completely dominate nearly half a year of his presidency, and these versions broadly reflect its tone and content. With regards to people objecting, above, that this summary makes Trump look unduly bad, that's not our call to make - but outside of a relatively tiny bubble of low-quality Trump-loyalist media this is what the vast majority of sources are saying about his pandemic response, and we have to reflect that. Proposed framings like "critics say" are not appropriate when all reliable media is more or less unanimous; it is an WP:NPOV violation to represent facts as opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - see ABC timeline. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you would base your argument on a single news article from April 3(!). April 4-30; all of May; all of June; and July 1-11 also happened. Everything that is in each proposed version is readily supported by numerous sources. - MrX 🖋 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, the ABC timeline itself states that it is a comparison of how New York and the Trump administration responded to the pandemic during the month of March. So we don't have anything from January or February either. starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all - The current wording in the lead section is (in my humble opinion) negative in tone. I accept reliable sources have said Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic and that many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, but the lead doesn't counter-balance any of that with Trump's view of these accusations. I'd prefer either a more concise form of wording in the lead to simply say that Trump has been accused of being slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic or alternatively a brief response from Trump to the accusations. I neither like nor dislike Trump. My concern is that the current wording for the lead in Wiki-voice seems overly negative in tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please review how we define neutrality at WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I've re-read again the WP:NPOV guidelines and in my humble opinion the current wording for the lead section in Wiki-voice seems overly negative in tone. The only edits in the last three years I've actually made to the Trump article itself have been to provide consistent mdy dates. I know that if I make any edit to provide more balance or to give Trump's response to an accusation it will likely be reverted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things Kind Tennis Fan. Trump is not reliable source. I should have to even point that out since we an entire article about it. I'm not hearing any "tone" in the proposed text, but would you please point out something specific that is not found in multiple reliable sources? Vague characterization based on your humble opinion are not useful substitutes for our content policies. Let's see your sources. - MrX 🖋 13:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Coronavirus Task Force consisting of medical experts and nonmedical personnel was set up on 1/29. I have seen numerous references that Trump did not act swiftly enough with a travel ban and that had he done so he could have saved many lives. However, the Trump Administration issued the partial travel ban with China on 1/31 even though WHO stated on 1/30 that while this was an international health emergency, that they did not believe there was any need to restrict international travel and trade and Dr. Fauci stated that he believed at that time that the virus was a low risk in the US.[27] I have seen many sources stating that the Trump Administration did not enforce a lockdown as early as it should have, however the Trump Administration was partly reliant on an October 2019 Johns Hopkins study that analyzed 195 countries and the determination by them was the US was the best prepared country in the world to deal with such a situation, and Trump cited this on February 26th.[28], though this was pandemic response ability, and predates COVID19. The WHO did not even declare the coronavirus a global pandemic until 3/11 and the Trump Administration stressed a stay at home mandate on 3/16 and recommended visiting bars, restaurants and gatherings of over 10 persons be eliminated and to work from home if possible. By March 16 there had been only 88 deaths, and while of course tragic, this was still far lower than annual flu fatalities.[29], [30]. On March 16 it was reported that, "While more than 181,000 people have caught the virus around the world, almost half have already recovered, and the vast majority of cases remain mild." Yet the Trump Administration was moving to stress a lockdown not long after the pandemic was declared.[31], [32].--MONGO (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  @MONGO: - What you did was interpret information from the sources to argue that Trump wasn't slow. However, your personal opinion of whether Trump acted quickly does not trump the sources themselves. The sources say he was slow, on aspects you did not address. (a) Slow to ramp up testing. (b) Slow to quarantine travelers. (c) Slow to implement travel restrictions on countries other than China. (d) Slow on acquiring or making medical supplies. (e) Slow to acknowledge the threat of COVID-19. (f) Slow to wear a mask in public. To defeat sources saying he was slow, you need to provide sources saying he wasn't slow, instead of making your own arguments. starship.paint (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly right. WP:OR does not trump WP:V. - MrX 🖋 18:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Nobody cares whether he was fast or slow or whatever. The mainstream sources, including reports of numerous opinion polls, medical experts, and government officials say he was and for that matter still is slow. Let's wrap this up, MONGO. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy IRL. Will address these issues asap. I gave the dates above to show that those two slow issues mentioned are erroneously reported, as Trump was timely with the known details at those dates.--MONGO (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: - it is not up to you to prove erroneous reporting. It's up to other reliable sources to prove it, and then you simply provide those other reliable sources which have the proof. starship.paint (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• All this talk about the Trump adminstration being slow to distribute testing fails to acknowledge that the CDC wanted to develop its own testing for nationwide distribution and as late as 4/18 the WaPo reported that "Contamination at CDC lab delayed rollout of coronavirus tests". I'm sorry but I do not understand why there is this persistance to ignore other details and assign all blame for the testing kit delays on Donald Trump. Our articles should not be a collection of sticky notes to advocate for a "side". According to the WaPO piece "The troubled segment of the test was not critical to detecting the novel coronavirus, experts said. But after the difficulty emerged, CDC officials took more than a month to remove the unnecessary step from the kits, exacerbating nationwide delays in testing,"[33]--MONGO (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

CDC reports to Trump, Mongo. So that is on him. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all. I'm no fan of Trump, my personal views are quite the opposite. But the sort of opinionated editorializing proposed has no place in a neutral Wikipedia article. Saying he was "slow to react" implies that there was some objective path that he should have taken and that it is a proven fact that he didn't take that optimal path. Really though, the choice of what to do in the early days of the pandemic was far from clear - locking down citizens and businesses and closing borders may seem obvious in retrospect, but it was and is highly damaging to the economy and people's livelihoods, so there was always a trade-off involved. The best way to present this sort of information is to attribute the slowness of the response to the reliable sources that have said that rather than stating it in Wikipedia voice, while also mentioning counterarguments given by Trump and anyone else, obviously using the typical WP:Due weight to balance the two sides and if there are more sources saying he was slow than that he wasn't then we simply include more of those. Let's stick to reporting verified 3rd party information and leave our private opinions at the door please.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You seem to be suggesting that we should ignore WP:YESPOV and attribute facts that are not seriously contested in other reliable sources. You refer to "opinionated editorializing", but by whom? Please explain what the other side to injecting disinfectants is and back that up with some sources like Starship.paint has done. What specifically in the any of the proposed versions is "our private opinions"? - MrX 🖋 12:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Version 4: Trump blamed foreign adversaries and domestic rivals for the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and said that the virus would disappear as if by magic. He publicly undermined scientists, public health experts, and international institutions, adding to the chaos the pandemic was causing. (Did I leave something out?) And then - off to Walter Reed for a photo op wearing a mask, surrounded by men in full dress uniform. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all - factually short when it’s saying as if always against when factually he did change; and as if everything slow when some items were fast, and perhaps more importantly some responses have been yuuuuge! Also just not looking to be good summary of article per LEAD, but instead showing wow I could google 10 sites that say X as if that’s impressive. Plus this everything negative negative is just not informative... Say what WAS done, say what WAS opposed say what RESULTED, not just what critics said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I'm afraid I don't understand most of that. Do you have an argument that is based on Wikipedia policy rather than your own analysis, and would you please back it up with source like Starship.paint did? I'm especially interested in you came up with "critics said". Thank you. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX I already mentioned not following LEAD, the rest ....mmm, saying factually incorrect stuff would be failures of ONUS and/or POV and/or V; saying only selected (negative) items without other items of equal or greater significant coverage would be failure of NPOV. The concern of negative negative complaint list or long runaround to just get to somehow a view being uninformative and seems a failure of ENC and CRITICISM which are only guidance essays and not policy. But it would be nice if we didn’t just dismiss when an article is uninformative and negatives as ‘oh but there’s no actual policy about that’ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

p.s. as to not understanding the post, well I can try again: I oppose all the offerings stated above, including the existing content, as not a good summary for the subtopic or a summarisation for that part of the article. Whether it is existing text shown in block 1, or the revision block 2 stating it as if overturning Obamacare was started after Covid for the purpose of removing coverage or block 3 stating it as what critics have claimed and solely about the criticsism (as opposed to 1 & 2 stating criticisms as if fact), or block 4 removing travel bans because it seems it gave credit to President Trump, all the offered statements are poor.

In general, I feel it is a factually short portrayal to state things as if President Trump is always against something when his position has changed over time, and it is factually short to declare him slow as if everything is slow and as if that is the only consideration when on some items the response was fast and other qualities of the response such as the quantity or size of response were also important.

Also this is just not looking to be attempting to be a summarisation of the article section. While that section has it's own issues and internal contradictions, that section speaks to the awareness starting circa January 2020, partial travel bans as first response, then initial slowness to do advisors, then the first major bill and declaring National emergency in March, then in April some blame-gaming, then in spring (unclearly stated) urging economic activity to resume, then a sidebar about a 2009 program, and last a bit about Coronavirus briefings winding down after a flap about bleach. Instead the debate iseems diverting into showing someone can google up 10 cites about something ad hoc without any stated relevance to an edit or context of how those cites are found or important or will be used in article text. ---

In short, all these lead proposals seem just dancing away without regard to being encyclopedically informative or portrayling the article. I oppose them all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – As the renewed debate above demonstrates, there is obviously still no consensus among editors about, in the words of the RfC closer S Marshall, "whether to mention coronavirus in the lead", and "what to say if we did mention it". Accordingly, I will remove the disputed content on process grounds. No prejudice to later re-instatement if/when a positive consensus for inclusion is reached. — JFG ^talk 06:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone is free to restore the material. We don't count votes, and the "Oppose all" votes lack any real basis in our content policies, and they are not supported by references. They are almost entirely WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all we ought to all know by now how Trump is usually reported in the news. It's almost always negative, even from where we stand now looking back to some of the things he did that were the right call. Take a look how it's handled in the Andrew Cuomo lead "Cuomo received national attention for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic in New York" and in the body there - 3 very short paragraphs. The order directing nursing homes to take Covid patients is the direct cause of death for many thousands. New York City alone has more deaths than CA, FL, TX, LA, MI, and GA COMBINED, but barely a peep about any of that on Cuomo's page. It is not always Trump's fault, and Wikipedia doesn't need to be on some mission to say it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: But do you have an argument that is based on Wikipedia policy rather than your own analysis, and would you please back it up with source like Starship.paint did? Thank you. - MrX 🖋 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah let's try some NPOV on for size and see how it fits. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing against your own position. NPOV is exactly why we have to cover this. It's not a magical incantation that make logic, evidence, reason disappear at will. - MrX 🖋 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the arguments favoring Trump's COVID-19 response here are just astonishing. Mainstream media overwhelmingly describes the administration's response as being nine kinds of crap. Just look at the charts showing new cases and deaths and compare them with literally any other "first world" country, and it is clear the US response has SUCKED. Now the good name of Fauci is being dragged through the mud because some of the things he said earlier in the crisis were not accurate, despite the fact that it is a GOOD THING for scientists to revise their recommendations as new data comes in. It is almost impossible to overstate how badly the Trump administration has handled COVID-19, and blanket "oppose all" statements not accompanied by reasonable alternatives are absolutely useless to this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I'm not sure I follow you with the statistics. If I compare the deaths per million citizens, Belgium, UK, Italy, Sweden, France, and Spain (countries I would consider "first world") all have worse numbers than the USA. Sure raw numbers are higher in the US, but relative to the population it isn't as drastic. The specifically call out the UK, they have ~1/5 the population of the US but ~1/3 of the amount of deaths. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: That's because you are looking at the totally of the numbers. Look at the 7-day rolling averages over the last 2 months and note how the number of cases and deaths in the US are increasing (rather alarmingly, in fact), but that is not the case in most other developed countries. Here's a good source: Our World In Data, but there are many others. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, pictures: charts here. Click on the US and click on Germany, France, Italy and other similar nations. Every day you can find graphs and analysis in the mainstream US media that show that the rest of the "first world" countries have suppressed the surge, while the US is setting new highs daily. Have you read the mainstream coverage of the coronavirus? That is what we are using to write this article and Starship.paint has provided many RS references on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If people want to read mainstream coverage of the crisis, they can do it on sites that deliver mainstream coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to be different from that. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WRONG. Wikipedia articles rely entirely on reliable sources, and when it comes to politics that means most sources are from the mainstream media. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose All - Overall too complicated and messy for the lead that gives undue weight to certain aspects. I have no issue mentioning COVID in the lead, just not in such a nakedly POV way. Honestly the section in this article about it could use a lot of work as well. It has way to much trivia and reads like a news of the day ticker. PackMecEng (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not exactly impartial. It's true that Trump has made many misleading and false statements - I just looked up the phrase "Trump" on Google and the first two things that come up are News headlines - "America shuts down again: choosing reality of Trump's false claims", and "Trump may be no good at leading America - but he's really, really good at lying". Rather damning search results, and not ones you'd want to see as a President with an election coming up. Nevertheless, the way you phrased it leaves too much room for interpretation: the question is, how MUCH did he contradict health officials and make false statements? And the average reader will look at that and be unsure. Trump could've contradicted health officials only very slightly, once or twice, and you just don't know. I think it's just the general feel - it's too general and thus sounds too biased, and that's not what we're trying to accomplish here. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Version 3. We stick to what RS say. The content is clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Focus on the travel bans is undue for the reasons laid out by User:Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose All - Especially since we are talking about the Lead section here. I do not believe the wording "passing false information to the public" is worded in a NPOV way at all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Passing" is not NPOV? Would it be better "Declaring false information"? "Promoting false information"? How would you correct the wording? SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point, 14 editors favor including this material and 10 oppose it. Some editors have not given reasons for support or opposition, but I am more concerning that several editors have opposed for reasons that do not seem to be grounded in policy or by making bare assertions without any supporting evidence. - MrX 🖋 17:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Something of course needs be in the lead on this matter but not the wording proposed so far.--MONGO (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I counted 11 to 11 - but it's hard to count when some of the comments are not the traditional bold support or oppose iVotes. Regardless, the number of iVotes shouldn't matter anyway - it's about the weight of the arguments. Based on what I've read, the exclusions carry far more weight considering the reality and who should be held accountable per Politico, NBC, US News, and local CBS news. There are plenty more if needed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The concerted effort to omit, when the brief mention accurately reflects long-established consensus article text isn't helping improve the article. The text is back in the article now and it should stay there. Naturally, editors are free to suggest improvements. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The concerted effort to include, when the brief mention does not accurately reflects long-established consensus article text isn't helping improve the article. The text is back out of article now and it should stay out. Naturally, editors are free to suggest improvements. --Malerooster (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There are 15 in favor (with the new comment from FeldBum) and 10 opposed.(BTW, it's not hard to count or evaluate consensus in this discussion). Editors like Amura and Atsme have not responded to good faith requests to substantiate their weak arguments. Contrarily, starship.paint has provided a treasure trove of evidence to support every word of the prosed text in each of its forms. - MrX 🖋 22:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Version Two. Seems the fairest and most NPOV. --FeldBum (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Version 3, because it's the truth. To omit this information from the lead would violate basically every tenet of Wikipedia. Calidum 04:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Version 3 per Snooganssnoogans. Mgasparin (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Version 3, which is NPOV and gives due weight to the most important things. But support anything, even option 1 (which I think strays into POV territory) over having nothing at all. I know it's hard to reach consensus here, and I think most people here are not intentionally trying to WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL, but in aggregate, that's the effect. That we still have nothing in the lead on the defining crisis of Trump's presidency at this point reflects a breakdown in our processes.

Mainstream sources for content in dispute

(a) Slow to ramp up testing

NPR: [34] (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: [35] 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: [36] (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: [37] 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 [38]: (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: [39] (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: [40] 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: [41] 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: [42] (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 [43] 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: [44] (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 [45]: (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: [46] 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: [47] (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: [48] (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: [49] 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 [50]: 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: [51] (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: [52] (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.

These sources prove that it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to take a negative view of Trump's handling of the pandemic, because that is the same view of the reliable sources. Amakuru - I refer you to the above, there are far more aspects than just locking down citizens and businesses and closing borders. Would you suggest we incorporate all of these sources given that the article's large size has been flagged as an issue? starship.paint (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work and thank you Starship.paint. This certain undermines all of the "Oppose all" arguments I've seen which can be best summed up as "I don't like it because Trump disagrees, and I'm not taking any questions." - MrX 🖋 12:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for folding those, but again - that one can google up ‘some cites say’ for one POV has been done and disproven before. Just google without the filters and the perfect picture falls apart — other views and more facts get in. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - it's remarkably easy for you to merely claim that I have cherrypicked sources. What's harder is for you to prove that I have indeed cherrypicked. If the POV of my sources is in fact the minority POV, then you should be able to simply match what I did. I provided 15 articles from 11 reliable organizations, covering 6 aspects of Trump's lack of speed during this crisis, you can do the same for Trump's speed - 15 articles, 11 organizations, 6 aspects. This shouldn't be difficult if I actually did cherrypicked sources, you can Just google without the filters, and other views and more facts get in. So, prove it. starship.paint (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint “cherry picked” is your word, and thank you for collapsing the useless lists. But what you need to respond to is that those failed ONUS because they’re not applied towards anything and because one can google up 10 cites for just about every POV, and it is a bit unusable for the thread to just drop in ‘here are some urls’ without context of how gotten and which proposed wording is intended to be cited for what. We’re not going to give 40 cites for any line chosen, and LEAD really should be from body content and cites not an unrelated score of urls. Just umpteen hits at undefined randomness is basically useless and TLDR. There are billions of links on web - saying a number like 10 or 15 as if that is at all significant is just silly, you need to show something like appearance in all POV publications or WEIGHT in millions for a topic, and explain the phrase it is intended to go to. I can equally turn up URLs for say Fauci praised President Trumps travel ban and travel restrictions. That you did an example (or above several) simply does nothing for DUE or OFFTOPIC or picking which particular hit for relevance and information instead of SENSATION or POV. So show a few million hits and maybe you’ve got DUE. Show it from BBC and not just NYT and maybe you’ve got widely said. Show it actually is part of an impact on President Trumps life and you’ve got BLP instead of OFFTOPIC. But showing me just 10 hits from the usual partisan sources NYT et al.... just isn’t anything. Not even showing enough DUE for a ‘critics said’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - you expect WEIGHT in millions, yet you provided only one source, from a source of questionable reliability (see WP:RSP, Townhall is yellow), reporting on a Trump administration member's praise of Trump, on just one aspect of his response. Asking for a few million hits is both nonsensical and unreasonable, because Google hits aren't necessarily reliable sources, and even if they were, I could not possibly check a few million hits for verifiability. Demanding BBC and not just NYT is not even needed, I have the Associated Press, France 24, Kaiser Health News, and NPR. But I will oblige you. Behold, the BBC, as you requested [53]. starship.paint (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint again you did not get the point -- that this dumping unexplained lists of about 10 cites is unusable and just meaningless. You didn't give context of how that was crafted; or which edit wording it was intended to support; or even if those are cites in this article or the other one or intended to be added somehow. You just dumped a load into TALK. thank you for at least hatting it, but of circa one billion hits in Google finding a dozen for any particular POV does not do anything to show it is significant or that other POVs do not exist. Just say what was the point of the list and how you made it and how you intend it to be used -- and if your answer is to show 'only my view is right' then I'll be glad to come back with ELEVEN cites about other view, or maybe 10 cites to places saying silly stuff like that's a chihuahua on his head or he's really the love child of a werewolf. Again, just dropping 10 urls just doesn't ring as if that's a significant portion let alone as all the POVs. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

p.s. ah. On re-looking -- while I did not say "cherry-picking" about this set of collapsed urls, I must admit that I *did* say it about the earlier list of 6. So I think it is reasonable for you to have thought the concern about that set of urls also applied to the these several herds of urls. At any rate, I would appreciate clarification for any such list -- exactly what is it that we're looking at and what is the editing intent of it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

BBC on Trump: "dismissing and downplaying the threat for weeks ... the coronavirus outbreak has required the kind of multi-pronged approach and long-term thinking that seems beyond him." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship.paint (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump's response has been so predictable. He has not changed. He has not grown. He has not admitted errors. He has shown little humility. Instead, all the hallmarks of his presidency have been on agitated display. The ridiculous boasts - he has awarded himself a 10 out of 10 for his handling of the crisis. The politicisation of what should be the apolitical - he toured the Centers for Disease Control wearing a campaign cap emblazoned with the slogan "Keep America Great". The mind-bending truth-twisting - he now claims to have fully appreciated the scale of the pandemic early on, despite dismissing and downplaying the threat for weeks. The attacks on the "fake news" media, including a particularly vicious assault on a White House reporter who asked what was his message to frightened Americans: "I tell them you are a terrible reporter." His pettiness and peevishness - mocking Senator Mitt Romney, the only Republican who voted at the end of the impeachment trial for his removal from office, for going into isolation. His continued attacks on government institutions in the forefront of confronting the crisis - "the Deep State Department" is how he described the State Department from his presidential podium the morning after it issued its most extreme travel advisory urging Americans to refrain from all international travel. His obsession with ratings, or in this instance, confirmed case numbers - he stopped a cruise ship docking on the West Coast, noting: "I like the numbers where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault." His compulsion for hype - declaring the combination of hydroxycholoroquine and azithromycin "one of the biggest game-changers in the history of medicine," even as medical officials warn against offering false hope. His lack of empathy. Rather than soothing words for relatives of those who have died, or words of encouragement and appreciation for those in the medical trenches, Trump's daily White House briefings commonly start with a shower of self-congratulation. After Trump has spoken, Mike Pence, his loyal deputy, usually delivers a paean of praise to the president in that Pyongyang-on-the-Potomac style he has perfected over the past three years. Trump's narcissistic hunger for adoration seems impossible to sate. Instead of a wartime president, he has sounded at times like a sun king. Then there is the xenophobia that has always been the sine qua non of his political business model - repeatedly he describes the disease as the "Chinese virus". Just as he scapegoated China and Mexican immigrants for decimating America's industrial heartland ahead of the 2016 presidential election, he is blaming Beijing for the coronavirus outbreak in an attempt to win re-election. His attempt at economic stewardship has been more convincing than his mastery of public health. A lesson from financial shocks of the past, most notably the meltdown in 2008, is to "go big" early on. That he has tried to do. But here, as well, there are shades of his showman self. He seems to have rounded on the initial figure of a trillion dollars for the stimulus package because it sounds like such a gargantuan number - a fiscal eighth wonder of the world. Trump, in common with all populists and demagogues, favours simple solutions to complex problems. He closed America's border to those who had travelled to China, a sensible move in hindsight. However, the coronavirus outbreak has required the kind of multi-pronged approach and long-term thinking that seems beyond him. This has always been a presidency of the here and now. It is not well equipped to deal with a public health and economic emergency that will dominate the rest of his presidency, whether he only gets to spend the next 10 months in the White House or another five years. The Trump presidency has so often been about creating favourable optics even in the absence of real progress - his nuclear summitry with the North Korean despot Kim Jong-un offers a case in point. But the tricks of an illusionist, or the marketing skills of the sloganeer, do not work here. This is a national emergency, as countless others have pointed out, that can't be tweeted, nicknamed or hyped away. The facts are inescapable: the soaring numbers of the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship.paint (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• How soon we forget: BBC February 1, 2020 - US Health Secretary Alex Azar said "Following the World Health Organization decision, I have today declared that the coronavirus represents a public health emergency in the United States," he told reporters. The information that shows up in a Google search depends on the keywords you use. NYTimes: Surgeon General Urges the Public to Stop Buying Face Masks, NPR: Doctors Say Hospitals Are Stopping Them From Wearing Masks. It goes on and on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a point to posting these outdated sources? They don't seem to really relate to the discussion at hand. - MrX 🖋 22:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's particularly funny given that Trump is STILL claiming COVID19 will just "go away" without a vaccine. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally running “Oppose all” so now what ?

Things above seem to have gotten lots of pushback and diverging into side topics, so I thought it time to open a subthread looking for the now what...

1. Can we agree that response above is generally or commonly running to “Oppose all”  ?

Not to do the !count thing, it just seems to me..... a lot of oppose “all” (unusually broad), does not seem anywhere near any one proposed line favored or a progress for defining need or approach to a consensus edit on even a part-line tweak.

2. If so, then now what ?

I think the original thread and all proposals are toast, and this one can close soon. But maybe there are some items worth note ? Maybe noting what general LEAD principles are of interest, such as edit body first? Or a side discussion worth spinning a new thread for ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

- - - -

No we cannot. Opposing without stating valid policy based reasons and while refusing to respond to good faith questions does not carry much weight. This is not a vote. On the merits, I believe there is rough consensus for inclusion. By the way, would you PLEASE strive for clarity, brevity, and complete sentences in your comments? Thank you. - MrX 🖋 01:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX OK, you're being unclear. Was that 'No' for #1 ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Again..I believe dropping out of the WHO should be a priority 2600:1702:2340:9470:E8B9:764D:AE19:DFE7 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Mark, "Oppose all" is certainly not a consensus takeaway from the above discussion. You yourself have repeatedly urged against putting anything in the lead, but that does not decide the outcome. Discussants here have not agreed on "oppose all," and the proposed wordings are not "all toast". While you have been opposing everything, a lot of people have been discussing options for the wording with a clear intent that something needs to be in the lead. The massive lists of sources provided above by starship.paint (thoughtfully put under hats so as not to overwhelm the article) provide strong support for inclusion. So does the "edit body" material, which as you pointed out needs to be considered when discussing the lead; there is a 9-paragraph section already in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Factually the answers above *did* run to a lot of "Oppose All" -- with that exact phrasing in many cases and the general theme in many more of the discussions also having a strong 'no not that' flavor. The phrasings as shown in proposals seem toasted enough to me, and note the discussion moved along from there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding common ground (Covid)

If this is to be resolved by !vote, it might make sense to try and find which items have the most agreement and which are the most contentious. Here's a list of things that could conceivably be included in a Lead sentence, pulling from the versions and comments above and from the body of the article.

A. Slow to address pandemic

B. Downplayed severity

C. Ignored or contradicted health recommendations from officials

D. Promoted unproven treatments

E. Passed on false information about test availability and/or vaccine timeline

F. Blamed China/media/democrats/WHO

G. Began withdrawing the US from the WHO

H. Worked to overturn Obamacare

I-1. Focused on economic impact

I-2. Pushed for opening up economies and schools early - added by Neutrality

I-2a Pushed for early reopening of businesses and and other activities, leading to a rapid escalation of the pandemic in early summer, 2020. - added by SPECIFICO

J-1. Invoked wartime production act

J-2. Failed to use the powers of the Wartime Production Act, resulting in ongoing shortages of testing capability and medical supplies. - added by SPECIFICO

K. Issued limited (or "partial") travel ban/restriction(s)

L-1. Signed multi-trillion dollar stimulus

L-2. Signed multi-trillion dollar stimulus, making clear that the stimulus was enacted by Congress almost unanimously - added by Neutrality

M. Attribute some of the critical items (For example: "Critics say Trump was slow to address..." or "Trump was widely criticized for...")

N. U.S. had the world's most confirmed active cases and deaths. - added by Neutrality

O. U.S. had roughly X million cases and Y million deaths. - added by Neutrality

P. Shifted responsibility to the individual states - added by Awilley

Please indicate which of the above you think are or aren't notable enough for Lead inclusion based on the body of sources. And feel free to add items to the list, within reason. ~Awilley (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding options I-2, L-2, N, and O. Neutrality^talk 15:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am adding J-2 - failed to use wartime production act powers, resulting in ongoing shortfalls in testing and medical PPP supplies as cases soared. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, why don't you simply close the previous discussion or alternatively audit MrX's assessment of its consensus? SPECIFICO talk 13:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I started this partly based on the complaint that the "oppose all" editors were not offering alternatives, responding to questions, or offering reasonable compromises. diff This isn't something where I expect some admin to make a table and close. My hope was that it would be helpful for the editors themselves to see the points of opposition and common ground. That kind of knowledge is helpful for someone trying to edit a compromise/consensus wording. My other motivation was to help avoid having a close that permanently locks in a wording that 7 out of 20 editors adamantly oppose and had zero input in framing. "Tyranny of the majority" always works when other methods of dispute resolution break down, but it's not the healthiest way of doing things for what should be a collaborative encyclopedia building effort. ~Awilley (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. When editors are simply refusing to collaborate in the face of carefully reasoned evidence and a lot of effort to articulate sourcing and the relation to article content, I don't see any prospect that compromise was on the table. MrX offered a good valid version. It may not be perfect, it may change over time, of course. But nothing would have "locked in" that wording. When we have editors who deny NPOV, falsely argue that RfC's support edit-warring, etc., I don't think we need to consider grand abstractions like "tyrrany of the majority. We don't work on majority. We work on consensus, which was clearly approximated by MrX's edit and could have been modified or improved at any time. To quote an alternative grand principle, Perfect is the enemy of good. When you have editors indignantly and falsely claiming some sort of process abuse while edit-warring, it's usually a tip-off to take a fresh look. Content creators like @Starship.paint: go to a lot of trouble to find sources and policy based solutions. It's demoralizing to them and everyone else to be blocked by editors who offer no such commitment or collaboration in return. Do you see any reasoned argument against the text crafted by @MrX:? Nobody has stated any AFAIK. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred or refused to collaborate. I have offered a viable compromise and neutral version below. Being that this is the greatest crisis Trump has faced in his Presidency, it deserves certainly as much attention as his falsehoods issues and I included his blunders as supported by the RSs.--MONGO (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of anything, MONGO, let alone edit-warring to keep Covid out of the lead. Sounds like you agree it's a non-starter to claim that coronavirus does not belong in the lead. Great! SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing that anyone opposed anything except the wording and tone. Attacking others just because they disagree with your stance is not helpful.--MONGO (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's demoralizing to them and everyone else I'm just curious how you know what's demoralizing to other people, SPECIFICO. Please refrain from presuming to speak for others, as I've asked you to do multiple times before. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• This will repeat some elements of Option 3 above and my comments above, but I:

• support Option A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, which are consistent, continuing themes of Trump's activities during the pandemic and main focuses of the high-quality reliable sources. I believe that most of these options already have rough consensus as reflected above.
• I also support including Option N and O, since I think giving the reader an idea of the scale of the pandemic in the U.S., and how the U.S. performed relative to the rest of the world.
• I strongly oppose Option M since it would not be supported by the sources and would go against fundamental encyclopedia policy, which is that we state facts as facts and we don't need in-text attribution unless a notion is seriously contested.
• I oppose Option I-1 because "focused on economic impact" is vague, but I would support including Option I-2 and Option I-2a because that is far more significant and specific (while also concise). I do understand that I-2 overlaps with C ("Ignored or contradicted health recommendations from officials"), so we would have to finesse it somehow.
• I oppose Option J-1 (Defense Production Act) because it would seem to omit the mention that Trump delayed invoking the Act, which is the most important part of this theme and the continuing focus of coverage (four days ago: "Trump administration's delayed use of 1950s law leads to critical supplies shortages"). A modified version of J could be framed to include this context, but I am neutral, lean oppose on such a version mostly for space reasons.
• I oppose Option K as incomplete/misleading for the reasons I extensively explained above: even after the "travel ban," 40,000 Americans directly traveled from China to the U.S. and nearly 8,000 Chinese nationals and foreign residents of Hong Kong and Macao directly traveled to the U.S., plus probably additional thousands from Europe, plus additional thousands on indirect flights, which is why the hgh-quality sources describe the "ban" as "more like a sieve" with "spotty screening."
• I oppose Option L-1 (multi-trillion dollar stimulus) because it lacks context, which is that the law was enacted by Congress almost unanimously (i.e., on a bipartisan basis); I am neutral, leaning oppose on Option L-2, which would include that key context (lean oppose for space constraints).
• I am neutral on Option H; I think the efforts to undermine/strike down the ACA are important enough to include in some part of the lead, but those obviously didn't occur solely, or even mostly, in the context of the pandemic.

Neutrality^talk 16:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, can you consider striking Option J-2 and proposing a similar Option J-3, changing the text "failed to use the powers of the Wartime Production Act..." to "delayed invoking the Defense Production Act"? I think this is what you meant. Starship.paint is correct that Option J-2 as written isn't accurate. Neutrality^talk 18:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that he announced invoking it but has not used its authority to mandate industrial production. Instead he went on a roadshow of a few companies making supplies and equipment but without using his authority to force pricing production and distribution. Then we continued to hear about states bidding against one another and the shortfall in ventilators and PPE and testing components has persisted to this day. Do we have sourcing that he exercised his emergency powers? SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN says: "19 companies that have received contracts under the Defense Production Act....But experts say it's not enough and that the effort started far too late." Neutrality^talk 18:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

With due appreciation to Awilley for trying to help resolve this, we now have +/- a 12x12 matrix, with rows of content and columns of editors, each cell a (1 or 0). Some editors have insisted that only rows with all ones should go in the lead. Well, per previous discussion and reverting, that's not going to happen. But it is likely to delay any lead content for another month or more. Formalizing this makes it feel more like a vote, when the problem is still just to reasonably summarize the already-existing -- and quite moderate -- article text that was achieved through extended discussion. What are we going to do with dozens or hundreds of votes here? In short, I don't believe that schematizing the talk discussion can resolve the crux of the problem, which is the insistent denials that have tied this up for 5 months. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Some editors have insisted that only rows with all ones should go in the lead. I haven't seen that, but it's counter to the second sentence at WP:CON and therefore irrelevant. Unanimity is never required for anything that I'm aware of, and certainly not for this.
• If there was a consensus on the definition of reasonably summarize in this case, I suspect Awilley wouldn't have seen the need for this subsection. Most of the listed items are present in the COVID-19 section or the rest of the article, and our options are:

• decide which few are the most leadworthy, or
• say nothing in the lead (which would suit me fine).

• We're sorry that necessary process is taking longer, again. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone could ignore the process, but I imagine their edit would not last long on this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, most of us are quite aware unanimity is not required. Tell that to the folks who have edit warred to remove every shred of the solid consensus text from the article. Starting with the initial premature RfC where the abort RfC consensus was disregarded down to the most recent removal of MrX's innocuous text summarizing the article, this process has been broken. It's nonsense to pretend this is normal process of any sort or that it will be resolved with yet more polls and holdouts by those whose views are in the scant minority. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support G and H with Obama care reading Affordable Care Act 2600:1702:2340:9470:200B:8D97:705A:F35B (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Poorly formed question- This cannot possibly lead to a consensus. Giving people nearly 20 different options to piece together a sentence is not going to help and I'm not going waste my time voting on this.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree. I think it's the only possible path to a clear and durable consensus for something in the lead. We do need a certain level of participation for this to work, and I hear that you're not going to contribute yours. Ok. (As for why I haven't contributed mine, I'm not being hypocritical. My long-standing position has been that this article covers too much about the presidency, and that its lead summarizes too much about the presidency. Over all too much emphasis on the presidency, merely because the article has high visibility. Having apparently lost that battle, I usually sit these things out.) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  This section does not supersede the previous and ongoing discussion. Anyway Trump's reaction to the virus is clearly the most personal and idiosyncratic expression of his personality and behavior. It is much more fitting in the bio than most of the presidency-related content already in place. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: Ok, throw me a bone in the form of a link to a reasonably clear consensus for lead language on COVID-19. I think I've been around long enough to know what a reasonably clear consensus looks like, and we can't add anything without one. If there is a consensus, anybody obstructing its implementation is guilty of disruption and should probably be taken to AE instead of your current approach. My guess is that there is no reasonably clear consensus, however, which is why we're here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  My approach?? Not me. Error? Your views on consensus seem to change week to week. Anyway consensus is not unanimity. The nonsense claims of prior consensus to exclude might be AE-worthy if you are so inclined. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Your views on consensus seem to change week to week. - Diffs, please? "No consensus to omit" is NOT the same as "consensus to include", and consensus is required to include any disputed content, particularly in this article's lead. Do you dispute that this content is disputed? Anyway consensus is not unanimity. As I clearly said already. I also said that anybody claiming to require unanimity is full of shit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh. Well after you muck the stall, you will find that what's left is an overwhelming consensus among the remaining. And don't forget this latest round of edit warring to keep the consensus text out was started on the preposterous false pretext that a disruptive RfC, wherein the dominant view was Abort, somehow made the edit war legitimate. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Still waiting for that bone. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with Neutrality on the following points: Support A, B, C, D, E, F, and G / Oppose I-1, J-1, L-1, M / Neutral to H and L-2. As for the rest, J-2 is inaccurate, I believe Trump did use the DPA, although he didn't use it extensively enough or early enough. For K, oppose if described as a ban, because of a misleading impression, there were indeed holes for Americans and some foreigners to arrive, also oppose if it is not clarified that only foreigners were affected. For N and O, not needed in the lead, let's focus on Trump's actions. starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support A-to-G, I-2, L-2, N, and O (if forced to remove 3 of the items I support, I'd remove D,E,F which are lower priority). Given space constraints, I oppose H, J1/J2, and K. I oppose M because it frames uncontested description by RS as criticisms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There was consensus for the text added by @MrX:. It was opposed by a few editors who "oppose all" mention of coronavirus in the lead -- an absurd position -- and one editor who denies WP:NPOV. There's no point in the editors who contributed to the valid consensus text repeating their views here. What's needed is either collaboration (presenting RS to support their view) or a stick-drop from those who deny coronavirus belongs in the lead or would like to chronicle Trump's successes in the matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. Here is the tally from the discussion above:

• 17 Supporting: MelanieN, Scjessey, 0x004d, 2600:1702:2340:9470:*, starship.paint, Harsh, Neutrality, OhKayeSierra, 107.217.84.95, Aquillion, SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, Space4Time3Continuum2x, MrX, FeldBum, Calidum, and Mgasparin. (Most made valid arguments or invoked valid arguments of others)
• 12 Opposing: MONGO, Markbassett, JFG, Rusf10, Basil the Bat Lord, Atsme, Amakuru, Kind Tennis Fan, Mr Ernie, PackMecEng, 121.99.126.230, and MaleRooster. (Some made non-policy-based arguments; several declined to respond to questions challenging their arguments.) - MrX 🖋 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC), Corrected miscount. - MrX 🖋 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest something along the lines of

  After the WHO announced the COVID19 outbreak in China on January 30, the Trump administration issued a partial travel on February 2nd. Trump was slow to address the issues of shortages of personal protective equipment so Democrats urged Trump to invoke the Defense Production Act. Trump supported the bipartisan CARES Act to boost unemployment income for those laid off by the pandemic and to provide relief to businesses. Trump was criticized for a slow response, misleading the public on the availability of testing and treatments and downplaying the severity of the crisis. Polls indicate more than 60% of the electorate believe Trump has been mishandling the pandemic.

  So K, J-1, L-2, A, E, B.--MONGO (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Except that the article cites RS that say Trump was warned in early January and did nothing. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Far too long for mention of a single issue of a highly controversial presidency in the lead of an article that is not specifically about his presidency. Even if he loses re-election and this issue gets the blame for that in RS, we would say in this lead only that, not give details about the issue. It remains to be seen whether the issue will attain that extreme level of importance, approaching Watergate and Monicagate. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  The last line could be removed and it would only be 4 lines. We have 3 dedicated to discussions about his falsehoods. It may be a single issue, but it certainly is the most significant issue of his presidency...and the section it supports is 10 paragraphs of the body.--MONGO (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MONGO not that I'm saying ay or nay for it, but will offer remarks on wording back. For "partial travel on February 2nd" is that "partial travel ban" and the word "issued" would be 30 January, or maybe just 'began travel restrictions by February 2'. The second line seems a subset of the theme in the fourth line. And the fifth line seems unclear - polls are a moving target and not sure what poll was or what was asked. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I-2, N per my earlier comments about WP:DUEWEIGHT evidenced by extensive, persistent coverage in reliable sources. Oppose I-1, K, L-1, L-2 - Strong oppose M per WP:OR - MrX 🖋 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC), 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to also point out that the following nine editors have previously chosen options A, B, C, D, and E by choosing option 3 in the discussion above: Neutrality, MrX, Scjessey, starship.paint, Harsh, Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, Calidum, and Mgasparin. I mention this because their previous choices are still valid unless they change them here. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• A thru G and I-2. I guess? This is a weirdly-formatted survey, and I pray for the admin who comes to close it. ValarianB (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I want a beautifully formatted table of green and red squares by the closer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was going to abstain from this particular section because I thought it was over complicated and wouldn't go anywhere, but it seems I was wrong. Now that MrX has invoked my username and presented my view implicitly, I think I have no choice but to weigh in with specifics. Mindful that this concerns the lead, and must necessarily be concise, I am obliged to make the following choices:

• Strong support of A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
• Support of I-2.
• Neutral on H (probably not the space for it).
• Weak oppose of L-2 because of space.
• Oppose all others for various reasons including WP:WEIGHT for some and WP:OR for some.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't I-2 as added by @Neutrality: better reflect the sources and significance of the premature reopening posture if the text states that the result was a resurgeance, acceleration, and geographic spread of the virus? Pining those who endorsed options I and I-2 @Scjessey, ValarianB, MrX, and Snooganssnoogans: I will add this as I-2a SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The tilting back up of the curve is almost certainly the result of premature opening, and I'm sure sources will support that, but I'm not sure it is the kind of thing we need to put in the lead. Better in the body of the article, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• My thinking was that w/o context, "early" will seem subjective or uncalibrated. We got quite a bit of criticism and discussion about "slow" that may relate to the same issue. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, in general I think the formalities without results are meaningless. Trump appears to favor announcing what sound like bold measures: Travel Ban (a sieve) Wartime Powers (to no effect per CNN) Purchase millions of doses of Hydroxychloroquine (scientific trials found no effect) Withdraw from WHO (one year lag, if it ever happens). Even if these had been significant, they are the kind of policy (or false policy) measures that would go in the Presidency or other articles. On a personal biographical level, the noteworthy factors are his disengagement from the crisis, empty promises, and obstruction of best practices epidemiological policy. These personal actions and choices are suitable for this article. I would omit all the inconsequential or tangential actions, including signing a veto-proof relief bill, passively watching Congress and the Fed do the rescue of the American economy. These are highly personal choices. Not many leaders have acted that way. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Scjessey here. The re-opening and the rapid escalation were partially, maybe even mostly, Trump's doing, but it was also because of governors (especially in the south); young people ignoring social distancing; businesses and local governments failing to take adequate measures, or rolling back measures (e.g. airlines), and so on. I think this is too complex to properly summarize in the lead. The phrase "... and and other activities" is a bit vague. - MrX 🖋 00:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support A-G and I-2a and Oppose H, I-1, I-2, J-1, K-N, P for the table of @MrX: SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• This table does look like a cool visualization. Please see my votes below. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support F, G, I-1 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support K Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support I-2, L-2, P Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral A, B, C, H, L-1, M (would change vote if I knew what was being attributed), O Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose D, I-2a Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose J-1 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose E, J-2, N Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose all - call an RfC, propose a succinct paragraph in compliance with NPOV (which I thought we already did), and get wider community input. Is it possible there may be a mistaken belief that the US government is in full control of the country's healthcare in a crisis, over and above the enumerated powers of POTUS? If you believe it does, read this to better understand that state governments actually possess more power than the federal government in responding to a health crisis. The US does not have the same health care system as other countries in the world, including Canada, the UK, Mexico and most of Europe per List of countries with universal health care. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We're trying to refine the wording. Repeating your !vote from the section above does not aid that process. - MrX 🖋 19:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• This really should be done by way of an article Rfc to bring in fresh eyes, otherwise we have less than a dozen people so far chiming in on a critical issue in the lead of one of our most visited pages.--MONGO (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the 15 of the 20 current proposals with the most votes could be presented in the RfC? Or perhaps something like those with a score of great than -2 or even 0? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's nonsense. We are not sentencing a woman to death here. It is just a summary of established article content. An RfC adding drive-by opinions of editors not familiar with previous article and lead discussions would only prevent ongoing incremental improvement. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are many potential summaries of the established article content, and you keep implying that your preference is the only one that makes sense. Alternatively, you keep implying that your preference already has consensus, but when challenged you fail to produce persuasive evidence of same. Apparently you just want us to take your word for things and recognize your superior judgment in these things. This persistent behavior is not constructive behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I imply nothing. Take a deep breath. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a deep breath and I stand by my previous comment. Thx. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all (seems the consensus) - while there were variations in the opposition, the prior discussion of this thread seemed the proposals 1 2 3 had a consensus of 'oppose' and phrasing of 'oppose all' was commonly said as each one was mostly opposed by folks rather than anything having a consensus. The A B C ... through P are topics and if you're asking are they contentious then I'd have to say it depends on the phrasing and the context. A topic of "slow" is different depending on if the proposed phrase is "initially slow" or "criticized as slow" or "falsely said slow"; and if the context is for a LEAD edit or a body edit, and whether the sole part of the paragraph of has more there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) If you're asking if each is notable enough for the lead then I'll have to say that 'notable' is not an acceptable basis for lead position so oppose all. The basis could be a WP:LEAD summary of body content or a match for WP:DUE prominence by coverage WEIGHT, no other basis would do. Markbassett (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett:

Please don't add "Oppose all" across the board to this chart. We already have the 12 oppose all !votes tallied above. The purpose of this list is to determine specific wording preferred by editors who support something in the lead. - MrX 🖋 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

So either delete the comment or change it, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - Oppose all (seems the consensus) - factually is part of my input. Yes 'none of the above' isn't desired, but that doesn't mean 'none of the above' isn't part of my input - and the above snippet of MrX is a different flavor of intent that seems simply incorrect since this thread isn't yet looking at the "determine specific wording", which was part of why I'm at Oppose all. Where the thread was looking for some sense of what's more or less contentious -- I have explained that depends on the phrasing and position -- and where the ending question of which is "notable enough for Lead" -- I give oppose all because that's not a valid basis for Lead content. While I could try to give some ranking as to what seems body larger or WEIGHT more prominent -- even that wraps into it depends on phrasing and position and would still leave all these selections as 'oppose' for content and conflict reasons. My responses would be 'not X: blah bla bla, it should ask bla beeh bla'.

Although the phrasing topic is not the question asked, that seemed to me an important sidenote to mention and it seems evidenced at F/G and I, J, and L. I also see A as conflicting with or competing with M because of the wording, both being some prominence to a sub-area of criticism and how it's phrased. So !vote is oppose all, but this was somewhat good for eliciting more concerns. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I'm not a big fan of the way this was presented (we need to get better at shutting down launches of major discussions that haven't been sufficiently workshopped; it's almost impossible to abort anything other than the most clear-cut cases, and anyone with ideas on making it easier should go to WP:VPI), here are my views: Support A, B, C, D, E, G, I-2 or I-2a, and L-2 as reasonable due coverage of the defining crisis of Trump's presidency. For L-2, I'd suggest the phrasing Signed a multi-trillion dollar stimulus passed by Congress. Strategically !voting weak support for F, K, N, and P, since these are all true facts, and while I'd personally leave those out for WP:WEIGHT reasons, I think it's essential to get something in the lead at this point so I'm not willing to risk scuttling things by !voting neutral. I object somewhat to N on the grounds that if we're looking to gauge severity, the per capita count is more appropriate. Oppose H, I-1, J-1/J-2, and O, and strongly oppose M. For H: Unless there's news I'm not caught up on (in which case feel free to give me links), Trump's efforts to repeal Obamacare are nothing but lip service at this point. For I-1: it's not really accurate to say he focused on the economic impact, when the main thing driving the economic downturn right now is the prevalence of the virus; the qualifier "tried" would be needed. For J: undue, since Trump hasn't made sufficient use of the act and since it's not notable as the bare expected minimum response. For M: it's unclear which things this would apply to, which makes it a bad addition, but in any case, plenty of these things are facts that shouldn't be attributed as opinions per WP:NPOV's avoid stating facts as opinions, and anything that's merely an opinion doesn't belong in the lead. For O: undue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Chiming in a little late: I absolutely think we need something about the coronavirus in the lead; it’s disgraceful that we aren’t mentioning what will probably turn out to be the most memorable thing about his presidency. I think we can only have a sentence in the lead, or at most two, and it should only include things that are described in some detail and well sourced in the article text. I would include A, B, C, D, E, K, and P. Basically I propose a version of Version 2 from the earlier discussion: Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he issued partial travel bans for China and Europe, but otherwise minimized the threat and shifted responsibility for combating the virus to the individual states. He 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. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Update: After looking at MrX’s chart below (thank you, User:MrX, brilliantly done!) it looks like solid support for A through G and nothing else. Personally I wouldn’t have included F (the “blamed” sentence) as it is less emphasized in the article text that other issues, but seeing A through G as an apparent consensus, I would support a sentence along those lines. Looking at my proposed version above, I would change it to leave out K and P, and instead include F and G. New proposal: Trump was slow to react to the COVID-19 pandemic; he 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. He blamed the pandemic on China as well as Democratic state governors, the previous administration, and the media, and he took steps to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. Note that I reworded the “blamed” section slightly, to reflect what the article text says. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial !vote tally

Here is my attempt at a visual representation of the !votes in this discussion. Feel free to edit the original to add new !votes, or if I've made any errors. I would ask that you consult before making major changes to the formatting. - MrX 🖋 18:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding common ground (Covid) - unofficial !vote tally

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I-1	I-2	I-2a	J-1	J-2	K	L-1	L-2	M	N	O	P
Neutrality	S	S	S	S	S	S	S		O	S	S	O		O	O	O-	O+	S	S
2600:1702:2340:9470:*							S	S
starship.paint	S	S	S	S	S	S	S		O			O	O	O	O		O	O	O
Snooganssnoogans	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	O		S		O	O	O		S		S	S
MONGO	S	S			S									S	S	S
MrX	S	S	S	S	S	S	S		O	S				O	O	O	O+	S
ValarianB	S	S	S	S	S	S	S			S
Scjessey	S	S	S	S	S	S	S		O	S	O	O	O	O	O	O-	O	O	O	O
SPECIFICO	S	S	S	S	S	S		O	O	O	S	O		O	O	O	O	O		O
Emir of Wikipedia				O-	O+	S+	S+		S+	S-	O-	O	O+			S-		O+		S-
Sdkb	S	S	S	S	S	S-	S	O	O	S	S	O	O	S-		S	O+	S-	O	S-
MelanieN	S	S	S	S	S	S	S
Zoozaz1		S	S	S	O	S	S	O	S	S	S	S	O	S+	O	O		O	O
NET TOTALS	10	10	10	9	7	11	11	-3	-4	7	2	-6	-6	-3	-5	0	-6	-1	-2	0

Thanks. Very helpful, and obviously no trivial task. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to ratify the consensus text initially crafted by MrX, possibly with some pointers for additions and tweaks. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't add "Oppose all" across the board to this chart. We already have the 12 oppose all !votes tallied above. The purpose of this list is to determine specific wording preferred by editors who support something in the lead. - MrX 🖋 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems short -- I'm thinking the approach overplayed, not sure you should try this approach ... but will offer a note on completeness for possible help. This seems missing input by RusF near 2600 and my and Sdkb recent remarks immediately above, and mention for views of Harsh, Aquillion, Calidum, and Mgasparin. The list of 10 also seems less than the 29 prior participants (from "17+12" remark). Perhaps view this as a powerpoint (caveat implied) to show this subthread so far but not all of the thread views? Or that this is a sidethread for a feeling of who approves where in the A through P ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a fresh voice might help with this endless discussion. I've looked over the above and am thoroughly confused as to the text proposed for the lead. It strikes me that including all of the options that have the most support (c.f., table) would give a paragraph that may be too long for the lead. A suggestion for a concrete way forward? Start a fresh discussion (close this one; any new editor would likely have no idea how things stand). In the new discussion, have contributors develop 3-4 text proposals for the lead, perhaps in a table - have three people write 3 suggested texts based on this discussion, then let those texts get polished by others (sandbox style; pick the one you like best, fix the bits you don't like) for a few days or a week. Then take a new vote/assessment of the 3-4 developed texts. (I am in general in favor of text outline such as: "Trump denied, was slow, obfuscated, misinformed, then led the country to early reopening, leading to a resurgence of the pandemic by June 2020." This sort of endless process is why I (try to) shy away from political articles like this.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, as you all know, the lead should reflect the content of the article. But the covid section of the article may (should) undergo considerable revision. It makes sense to me that the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the Main article, while this article should employ condensed text from that article. The point being that text for the lead may be aiming at a moving target - it might make more sense to revise/condense the covid section first, then draw on what develops for some good lead sentences. (And I think that Trump urged an early reopening, with several states following that dangerous lead is an important fact.) Bdushaw (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdushaw - welcome, and I agree at least that this should respawn/refocus as it's own thread -- we've gotten a long way from the original topic of whether to mention Obamacare in lead or to say it as 'Affordable Care Act'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 29 July 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)

Moving the link for Trump's presidency

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.

---

Hi there! Currently, the 'Donald Trump' page links to 'Presidency of Donald Trump' in the lead section in the words of 'current president'. Based on my own interpretation of the text as a European, however, this doesn't seem to fit. When reading the article, I would assume 'current president' would take me to an article about the powers of a general incumbent occupant of the White House. But that's actually the 'President of the United States' article. Therefore, I want to suggest the following:

- Moving the link to 'Presidency of Donald Trump' page from 'current president' to 'his presidency' in the 'During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban...' paragraph

- Moving the link to 'President of the United States' page from 'U.S. president' (in the 'He became the oldest first-term U.S. president' space) up to 'president of the United States' in the opening sentence.

It seems to me like a more natural order; giving readers a link to the general U.S. presidency first, and linking to Trump's presidency specifically in the very words of 'his presidency'. Does that make sense to anybody else? Have a great day! :) 2001:4645:E9BB:0:15C6:CBB8:2D86:2EDF (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Per a picture is worth a thousand words, allow me to represent your proposal this way. Let me know if I have it wrong. See also #Current consensus #17 and the recent RfC at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 119#RFC: First sentence.

Current:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States.

He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service.

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.

Proposed:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States.

He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service.

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.

―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The text under "Proposed" is indeed how I meant it. Thank you for providing that helpful visual aid! And oh goodness, I was unaware there had been that much discussion about it. While I personally disagree with the current standing, I am far too much of an outsider to start changing consensus. Wouldn't even know how to start. So in light of that, I'll leave it to the experts and just let this thought of mine be represented in the talk page history. Thank you for answering! 88.95.35.64 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am far too much of an outsider to start changing consensus. Wouldn't even know how to start. You just did. It is not a bad proposal. I'm inclined to support it, but I'll wait for other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support for this sensible proposal per WP:ASTONISH. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. If I recall correctly, one of the main arguments for current president was that the first sentence should link to his Presidency article, and this was the least-bad way to get there. I find the OP's MOS:EGG argument more persuasive, and the worst possible place for an egg is in the first sentence of a highly visible article. The link to the Presidency article can wait until paragraph 4, and readers who don't make it even that far are unlikely to need that link. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  You recall correctly (first). It was followed by an (aborted?) (RFC). This change brings us almost full circle - I didn't bother looking up the removal of the Wiki link brackets around "his presidency" in the third paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  On a different day I might be heard saying this horse is sufficiently flogged (at least for a long while), and I won't argue with anybody who does. I think this one is different for me because (1) I think the status quo is really bad, more so than I realized before, and (2) the OP was refreshingly nice about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Quite so. Another thing that I was struck by was that the OP was not from the United States and so the link decision made even less sense. I live in the US now, but I am from the UK and some of the US-centric approaches to things like this have often baffled me. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Did we just find a lede proposal that we can all agree on? :P May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  LOL. Have we ever all agreed on something? I don't remember that. But a consensus is possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Interesting indeed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the office itself should be linked before tenure in the office per MOS:UL Steverci (talk) 19:51, 23 July 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.

• Oppose for the record per my arguments in April, and particularly object to Steverci's argument that it's better to link to President of the United States first, which very clearly goes against the spirit of MOS:SPECIFICLINK. Is there some rivalry between the editors here and the ones at Presidency of Donald Trump or something? I acknowledge that we have some MOS:EGG challenges, but I really do not understand the reluctance to prominently link to a page that important that many readers likely want. (As some consolation, it's not clear that the link higher up led to that much more traffic for the presidency page, but it's still not good that it's so dwarfed by this one—most readers here are here for information about his presidency, not his reality television career/etc.)

I also have quite a few procedural objections to everything that's happened here. I object to Barkeep's close of the WP:FORUMSHOPPING RfC that was opened less than two weeks after the initial discussion without even linking to that prior discussion/the current consensus item. I object to Mandruss's "representation" of this proposal, which hides how far down the lead the link has been moved. And I object to Starship.paint needlessly cutting off this discussion with an archive box before it got automatically archived. In aggregate, these things make the consensus here less solid than it might seem. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing Wealth-X as source (note a)

Was it discussed whether this is a reliable source or not? The original page is 404, and the archived page sounds like it was written by the Donald J. Trump Foundation (and "John Barron" in elementary school: "Kind of Interests, Passion and Hobbies: Beverages. Description: Trump loves Coca-Cola. He has a red button on the Resolute Desk and when pressed a butler brings him a coke."). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not RS. In fact some of it appears to be "sourced" from this article. Also, pressing the butler is rude. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:USEBYOTHERS includes CNBC, Vox, Barrons, Business Insider, Khaleej Times, South China Morning Post, The New York Times, Fortune, and this book by a university professor. Cool about the butler though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good work there. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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 [54]. 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)

• I just restored the status quo ante these edits (edit summaries in parentheses): ("small" fire isn’t neutral), (Trivial), (Restore narratives of the weight of RS accounts per NPOV), (Far too trivial for this already too large article). How is "small" not neutral when the church's rector and bishop said it was a small fire in the basement? How is the sentence more trivial than, for example, the photo of Stormy Daniels or the cover page of the Mueller report or Trump's His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score? Maybe we should run an RfC on this, per these closing remarks to a previous discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 27 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 [55] [56] [57] [58]. It's also what the D.C. police / D.C. fire department said [59] [60]. 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)

• @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)

• 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)

"Forcibly" kissing and groping women

The article appears to contradict itself, when it says:

In October 2016, two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which Trump was heard bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women, saying "when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab 'em by the pussy."

It says "forcibly" but then immediately quotes Trump as saying "they let you do it". What do you think "they let you" means? 82.31.123.56 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative word or wording to propose as a replacement for "forcibly"? SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some possible alternatives: aggressively, impudently, audaciously, presumptuously. --Steverci (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this is not an edit request as described at WP:Edit requests, I'm converting it to a normal discussion. Edit requests are to be used only for minor uncontroversial changes, and they require specific "change X to Y" language. For anything else, use the "New section" link at the top of each article talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the interpretation in the news media. You would need to provide sources that challenge it. I appreciate that you may have a different interpretation but per no original research we can't consider it. TFD (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I know the RS uses "forcibly" in referring to a lot of Trump's behavior toward women. It's not clear to me that they use it in this specific context; if not, perhaps some rewording is warranted. I don't see any support for the word in the source cited for that sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonconsensual, uninvited, .... -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP's point is that all of those words are inconsistent with "they let you do it". The fact is that some women would let that happen because he was a star (Monica "serviced" Bill only partly because of his charming personality, I strongly suspect). That's not to say they particularly enjoyed it, but he didn't say they did. While most folks would call it inappropriate behavior (in my opinion), that's a moral value judgment and it's not the same as "forcibly". Again, we need RS to associate any of those words with the "grab 'em" statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Clinton`s not president... " They let you do it " is a lie 107.217.84.95 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand. The context indicates that "they let you do it" means "they let you get away with it", IOW "they let you do" things they would not allow non-stars to do. Many of those women don't openly object and report it, and some enjoy the attention. Many may not really like it, but it's "not worth the trouble" to make a scene. Only strongly moral women will object in that awkward situation, and Trump doesn't seem to hang around with them very much.

We know that Trump's point is not entirely true, as there are myriad women who have actually objected and reported his unwanted sexual assaults.

Big stars often "get away with" behavior that "lesser" (IOW normal) people would never get away with (they would be jailed and ruined), and Trump is verbalizing that fact. Great wealth and power generally include opportunities for unhindered debauchery and violations of social norms to those so inclined, as it gives not only opportunities denied to the public, but also the means to squash and cover-up any objections or accusations. -- Valjean (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Most women would object to it...it`s the nature of abuse particularly sexual abuse to be confused and unable to openly object other than being repulsed by the act remove themselves from her assailant and in one form or another say something..anything..which is an objection 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because they don't say "stop" doesn't mean it isn't rape. It is still rape if they are afraid to say anything because of your power and celebrity. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I went bold and changed the sentence to bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent. He's forcing himself on them and bragging about them not hitting him on the snout because he's a star but I don't see justification for "forcibly" in the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

minimizing the contact is height of sexism..that it`s somehow the victim's fault 107.217.84.95 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an improvement, provided "without their consent" is read as "without their prior consent". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Then why not just change it to "without prior consent" and avoid the ambiguity? 82.31.123.56 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Who gives "prior consent" to being forcibly kissed and groped? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

no one 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Forcibly" was removed as not supported in the context of Trump's boast. There is no suggestion of physical force and we should not get into debates about things like power imbalance. We're not talking about child abuse. Anyway, we are all straying too far from the concept of conformance with sources and much of this is improper discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just contemplating what prior consent would look or sound like in a situation like this (self-proclaimed star blindsiding total strangers): "Hello, me big star. May I kiss and grope you?" "Me so flattered, go ahead." Trump was bragging about inappropriate behavior, and then Bush suggested Zucker hug him, and when she did Trump made this smacking sound (at 2:06). Yuck and double yuck but "forcibly" for this incident is neither in the cited source nor any others that I have found. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If someone "let you" do something, then they have sometimes given implied consent but not express (or affirmative) consent. It's tricky, because whether or not there was implied consent depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. But to be on the safe side, I'd propose changing it to something like "bragging about kissing and groping women without their expressed consent". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as reported and discussed in mainstream commentary, "lets you" means that there are no adverse consequences, i.e. she didn't call the cops. That's what it's all about. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Could we see some links to that? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you bring up child abuse ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Because, given the way this discussion was going, I fully expected someone to say, "Yes, no physical force but Trump was more powerful so the women didn't feel they had the power to say no." That's called "power imbalance", and it's a concept that often applies in child sex abuse cases in which there was no physical force. So I pointed out that this is not that. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not presume to speak for the women. Many victims do feel that way. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have solid sources that discuss power imbalance in connection to Trump's "grab 'em" boast (the topic of this thread), I'm all ears. Otherwise, editors need to stick to sources and save the rest for their user talk pages or off-wiki fora. This is not an open discussion about sexism issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it was pointless for you to introduce new age sociology jargon like "power imbalance" into this issue. If you had some reason for doing so, it would need clarification, because it seemed kind of out of the blue.

The sources do support "forcibly" per most of the comments above yours. I think the longstanding text is fine. "Let you do it" means he gets away with it because they do not press their cases. The meaning has been quite clear for a long time. SPECIFICO talk

Per the RS he was insulting, lewd, crude, vulgar, disparaging women - you know, foolish things, locker room banter, according to Trump. Forcibly was used by RS in connection with other accusations but not this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to put it in terms easier to understand for the typical American male. What if he abruptly walked up to you and reached in your vest and grabbed your credit cards? What if he reached in your attaché case and grabbed your stocks and bonds? Without prior consent. That feels like forcibly? That's what the reporting conveyed, IMO. "they let you do it" implies the opposite, otherwise it would not be worth the boast. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Had to think about this for a while. It's not an apt comparison. The equivalent would be Trump bragging about being able to walk up to a woman, steal items out of her purse or attaché case, and her letting him. He did brag that he wouldn't lose any voters (52% of men, but only 39% of women voted for Trump in 2016) if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure if I can add anything of value...but a more apt comparison seems to me to be the Harvey Weinstein scandal. There are all manner of stories of quite disgusting behavior, but a lot of it was not "forcing" and a lot of it was "letting him do it". The general unstated dynamic was that if women did not comply it would be bad for their careers. Weinstein was charged with only a few actual crimes, with the bulk of retribution for his abuse of power coming from the community - ostracized, kicked out, etc. There are few citations that get into explicitly stating what is wrong with this power dynamic (the Lewinsky incident was a little different, since she was infatuated with Clinton at the time, I believe). Trump had similar power with respect to the models/contestants, but unlike Weinstein he has paid no community price for the behavior. Hard to document, but to frame the article discussion to the effect that there could have been nothing wrong, that the behavior wrt to the women could have been innocuous, is wrong. It is not unlike the "lie" problem - to call a statement a lie implies an interpretation of intent (though it be obvious...); to call Trump's behavior "abuse" is similarly an interpretation (though it be obvious...). To be able to make an explicit description of the event as an abuse, one would need citations quoting one of the models or contestants complaining about the incident and how they felt abused, etc. There would be retributions for such statements; have any of the "victims" come forward? It is a fact, however, that this incident occurred within the broad revolution against behavior like this, particularly sparked by the Weinstein scandal (IMO); perhaps worth a mention? Emily's List New Yorker Bdushaw (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, the lead presently includes a statement to the effect that some of Trump's statements are racist. Some of them are also sexist, as has been documented; not sure why racist gets the special call out. Bdushaw (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations: BBC News CNN NBC News/Associated Press Slate Cosmopolitan Bdushaw (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a section on "Racial views," i.e., the "comments and actions that have been characterized both within the U.S. and abroad as racially charged or racist," but there isn't one on sexist comments and actions, i.e., Trump's "history of attacking women by mocking their bodily functions, demeaning their looks or comparing them to animals" (NYT). I don't know if RS have mentioned it recently. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mary Trump`s book does 107.217.84.95 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro change re: Conspiracy theories

Does anyone have an objection to this change- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=968692487&oldid=968614739.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"as well as" should be simply "and". SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

#Current consensus #35. I think it's undue for this lead. The "False statements" section says nothing about promotion of conspiracy theories, probably because they aren't exactly the same thing. The remainder of the article mentions only two examples of promotion of conspiracy theories, birtherism and "Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 election". That's hardly enough to justify the related lead creep (let's spend one-fourth as much time looking for things to remove from the lead as for things to add to it). But I like the addition of "as untrue", a small price for a bit of clarity. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with "hardly enough", as those were two monumental and historic conspiracy theories that are key to Trump's legacy. Also the distinction between rallies and c.t's is exactly why mention of the latter adds meaning for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

The article currently mentions two conspiracy theories (or maybe two and a half if you count Trump's claim that the accusations of sexual misconduct were a conspiracy against him [61]): the "birther" conspiracy theory ([62]) and that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016 election ([63]). I know there are others (including quite a few he made before the 2016 presidential campaign (climate change hoax, vaccines causing autism, asbestos hoax promoted by "the mob," etc.) but the article doesn't mention them.

That's because they have their own article- List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Does the lead sentence following the one you propose to change support the conspiracy theories as well? The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. The "birther" theory was debunked by PolitiFact and Snopes, Ukraine by FactCheck, so maybe.

Count me as undecided. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding the phrase "as untrue"?Hoponpop69 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of them mentioned in the linked page (List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump) have been debunked by factcheckers. To the second point about it being unprecedented-

• LA Times- "Conspiracy theories have been a part of U.S. politics since the country was formed. But today they have enveloped American politics... What makes today’s storm of allegations different -- and impossible to ignore -- is the role of the president in formulating and promoting them."[64]
• CNN- "In any other political universe, it would have been inconceivable that candidates espousing [conspiracy theories] would rise to the top of the Republican field in their respective states. But Trump has ushered conversations that used to occur in the dark recesses of the internet out from the shadows."[65]
• Another CNN article- "[T]he President is giving the imprimatur of the Oval Office to someone who suggests that Trump's past political rivals, the Clintons, could be behind Epstein's fate. As normalized as he's made this kind of insanity, we must all again confront the fact that the President of the United States is fomenting hate, and division, and disinformation."[66]
• The Atlantic- '“We’ve never had a president who trades in conspiracy theories, who prefers lies instead of fact,” Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University and a presidential historian, told me."'[67]Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose putting it in the lead. It hasn't become nearly as widely reported a characteristic as the falsehoods, which are now virtually part of his image and his character. The falsehoods belong in the lead; not the conspiracy theories. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: RE: "as widely reported..." - I disagree with this. The daily falsehoods are widely reported because it seems the press finds new ones to report every news cycle. So every day we get a factchecking article in one of the major RS news outlets and there's the running tally. But among sources that look at the totality of Trump's public image and his political success -- the kind of tertiary evaluation we should reflect in our encyclopedia -- we find the opposite. That is, we have general statements about the day-to-day falsehoods but extended discussion of the two major and remarkably characteristic racially-charged conspiracy theories that were prolonged themes of Trump's and key to his rise in politics. I think the addition of a few words to point to the conspiracy theories reflects due WEIGHT for an overview of Trump-the-man on a par with the thousands of misrepresntations of lesser facts, per WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the subsection "False statements" to "False statements and conspiracy theories", say. A paragraph describing the conspiracies and their nature could then be included in that subsection. (I am still in favor of breaking out "false statements" in the lead as its own paragraph. But haven't the energy to battle for it...) I am also in favor of a new main section to cover these issues - a main characteristic of Trump and his presidency. Social media-False statements-Conspiracies-Undermining the press etc. It is in Public profile now??? Yesterday the thought went through my head that y'all are pretty good at burying the lead... Bdushaw (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to having his promotion of conspiracy theories in the text of the article. I just don't think it belongs in the lead, which was the proposal here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Subsection

To all those opposed of having it in the intro, where should it be linked in the article then? Should it have its own section? Certainly it's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere if it has it's own page.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Public profile section does not have a subsection about Trump's extensive proclivity for conspiracy theorizing, shown in List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. I believe at least a brief paragraph is warranted. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if not the intro, the "Public profile" section is the best place. This could be done either by changing the "False statements" subsection to "False statements and conspiracy theories" or by having a separate "Conspiracy theories promoted" subsection.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ah!... great minds think alike... :) ) "False statements and conspiracy theories", just so. A separate subsection for conspiracy theories would require an assessment as to their number, nature and importance; I don't know enough about them to comment. Bdushaw (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

1988 possible VP

In Don Meacham’s biography on George H. W. Bush titled Destiny & Power, on page 326, it says “He wanted to keep his options open. (Though not totally open: The New York developer Donald Trump mentioned his availability as a vice presidential candidate to Lee Atwater. Bush thought the overture “strange and unbelievable.”) That should probably go into the section titled Political Career when it talks about politics before 2015. LegioV (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable...chronologically it seems appropriate107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

One other thing and this is mostly unrelated..how is it that trump is apparently running unopposed for the republican nomination..I have never gotten that since all this crap started..I am not young..I never once remember an election cycle where even a popular incumbent didn`t have to put up a fight of some kind..why the issue of convention location if it`s a done deal ? That being said if they`re trying to spread the virus it will probably work 107.217.84.95 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Way too minute a bit of trivia for his biography, which this article is. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 26 July 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 ([68], [69]). 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)

Worried about bias

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, and I am a little worried on how Wikipedia is viewed by each side of the political spectrum. Wikipedia seems to face more accusations about liberal bias than conservative. I notice the Donald Trump, Gamergate, and Pizzagate articles all seem to be biased. It calls Gamergate an "harassment campaign", despite being a clear opinion, and Pizzagate "debunked" despite several people holding the opinion that it is not debunked. These articles all contain clearly biased news sources. I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased. Wikipedia should be a place where literally anyone can get information and not have a politically-motivated agenda shoved in their face. I'm a neither left nor right leaning individual who is into politics. I want to get points from each side, not just one. I am worried Wikipedia consists of mostly liberal editors. I would like a more centrist Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for everyone. Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellindahouse (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased." This is completely antithetical to the goals of the project and the idea is based on a flawed analysis of bias, rather than facts. Wikipedia seeks neutrality, not a false balance based on perception. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mitchellindahouse - Welcome. I agree the article is biased, mostly written by critics and heavily based on sources that are critics, and has had many remark about the bias. I figure it as largely due to WP goes by WEIGHT supposed to convey in proportion to the coverage and mainstream media -- is what it is. Plus WP editors here go a bit beyond that in selection bias and phrasing, but then everyone comes with their own Bias. I suggest that if you see something specific and clearly wrong go ahead and make a WP:BOLD edit on that, and be prepared to TALK about it here as it may well get reverted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Change: this was only publicly reported later in January 2019

   to:  this was not reported publicly until January 2019 69.127.210.231 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a forum please

I had to hat a forum like post above and could have done another 1. Can participants here please stick to discussing how to improve the article, rather than making biased observations about the subject and different people related to the same. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your hatting was inappropriate. I was responding to a question about my rationale that the material could go in the Bill Barr article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Except you added your biased crap analysis of the AG, and added stuff about your mental state which wasn't needed. --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)ps, just own it for once Scjessey, geesh.--Malerooster (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, so you hatted it because you disagree with it and you don't like me, rather than a legitimate reason. Got it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No. You don't get to spew your opinion and violate BLP on talk pages under the guise of responding to a discussion. Got it? --Malerooster (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not violate WP:BLP. Verified facts aren't violations. This is clearly some sort of personal problem you have. Nevertheless, I've edited it to make you happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you are not making me happy. Your saying the AG "does whatever he is told to do" is not a verified fact, it is yours and maybe others opinion, but is not needed here. --Malerooster (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Malerooster I thought you were not to make personal attacks ? I`ve been blocked for less 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead 2nd paragraph

In various suggested changes to the lead, sentences have been often proposed that are really too long, for having too much detail in them. The first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph of the lead seem to me to be too long for this reason. I suggest the following revision: "Trump is a native of New York City, and studied economics at the Wharton School. He assumed the family real-estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations into Manhattan." These sentences do not have the usual Cassandra warning about changing them. Bdushaw (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Born in New York.."educated" at Wharton is enough 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)