Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 114

Archive 110

←

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

→

Archive 120

"Chinese virus"

Resolved

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

I would like to add the following to the article:

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back on track

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Unresolved ?

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

Objections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reset

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"President T" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"Donald TRUMP" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

USMCA

Hello,

In the beginning "During his presidency..." paragraph, USMCA should be listed in his foreign policy actions.

Also, USMCA should be described in the body section within his trade policies during his presidency.

§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.230.247 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC on what the Mueller report states

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.

---

Requesting review by previous participants and outside input for this topic. For the Special counsel investigation section, which of these better portrays what the Mueller Report states ? 18:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

a) Original (RFC from archive 106)

The report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" and was knowingly "welcomed" by the Trump campaign under the belief that they would politically benefit from the foreign interference.

b) Current (WP creation as of March 2020 archive 113)

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and it details how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged foreign interference believing they would politically benefit.

c) Proposed (direct quotes per WEIGHT in RS)

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and that the Trump Campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts”.

refs
References

18:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Background: Earlier discussions had been based on some false information, and there was recent concern about the V and attribution being stated as "The report says".

• From 17 October WP falsely presented a phrase as a quote of the Mueller report.
• Previous and recent TALK had it as said by Schumer that Mueller agreed during the Mueller hearing, based on an internet hoax.
• Most editors still liked the phrase and felt simply a removal of quotes made it acceptably supported by combining the Mueller section of the Campaign welcomed wikileaks and a different section about Trump encouraged Russia to produce 30,000 missing emails.
• A minority felt it inappropriate in not attributing Schumer, or using the exact words of the hoax when RS WEIGHT used a different quote, or that the V supported two separate statements but not a WP:SYNTH combination.

Previous archived discussions about "Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged"

• 113 Welcomed and encouraged fails V
• 112 edit request on 5 March
• 110 Too specific and a bit biased
• 108 edit request on 6 December
• 107 Another Mueller lead revisioning
• 106 Preferred description for the Mueller report

Ping to previously involved editors

@ZiplineWhy: @SPECIFICO: @Atsme: @Starship.paint: @PackMecEng: @HaeB: @Mr Ernie: @MrX: @BullRangifer: @K.e.coffman: @JFG:

@Oldperson: @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: @Mgasparin: @MONGO: @Jack Upland: @Mandruss: @Hrodvarsson: @Scjessey: @Atsme: @Steve Quinn: @Ganesha811:

@Wilsonahrens: @EWGeary:

Please provide to survey below and discussion in section below that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• C as proposer. My first choice was to simply follow the V guidance to delete such, but the actual quote in RS previously given as cites (here, here, and here) seems reputable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There's a solid consensus for B already, but the proposer didn't agree with that consensus and so created this totally unnecessary RfC. Recommend it be closed and the proposer be awarded some form of trout for wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: It would be helpful if you linked to said consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Mark already linked to the discussion above, but it's this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  User:Scjessey As I said, that the premise in that discussion was a hoax did not emerge until late. And that discussion really did not include prior consensus editors. I had mentioned taking it to DR at the time as having superior WEIGHT and actual RS, so here we are. Pray proceed to provide reasons of fact and WP guidances in the designated discussion area. I think what the report *actually* said, as *actually* prominent in RS, with WEIGHT, and *not* the words of a hoax is a decent position. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Abort. Although participation was relatively low, the consensus seems clear enough to me in the discussion linked by Scjessey above. Even the uber-reasonable MelanieN called it a "clear consensus", and the purpose of RfC is not to seek a new consensus when you don't like the existing one. WP:RFCBEFORE: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." As involved in the above-linked discussion, I can't close this. As far as I know, any uninvolved editor could do so. Barring that, I think the only way to abort it is by consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If a consensus list entry had been created, I probably would have reverted this immediately upon its creation. The absence of a list entry makes the situation just barely fuzzy enough for me not to pull that trigger. Thus one of the benefits of list entries. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - Ohhhh that’s quite too far, I suggest you retract that. Your numbering items have not and should never block RFC or rediscussion, particularly when circumstances have changed such as a core input being found out to be a hoax. Your list is a record for convenience of past discussions but obviously shows many rediscussion and superceded tags in it. Feel free to constrain your own RFCs to avoid conflict of interest, or to revert edits to the article based on past discussions, but do not represent it as a valid reason to dictate what one can and cannot TALK about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with the call to abort. I regard this as an abuse of the RfC process. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Abort - Discuss first -- then RfC. An RfC is designed to bring more participants to a discussion. As if there aren't enough editors on an article with 2,865 page watchers. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort as improper RfC. The current version B has already been accepted as a VERY solid consensus version, and unless something radical has changed, there is no justification for changing it or for holding another RfC. -- Valjean (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort as improper RFC because there is no indication there is a need for this (See link here). If you want to discuss it, then discuss it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Probably too much to hope for calm discussion, but I feel the phrase 'expected to benefit' is factually a quote, with WEIGHT of cites that explicitly and prominently give it, and that the 'Trump and campaign welcomed and encouraged' is tainted by bad history, WP directives in V say delete, SYNTH, etcetera. 'Trump and campaign welcomed and encouraged' has been acknowledged as factually was a False attribution and knowingly doing what is now unclear attribution and/or asserting a paraphrase seems like it should get a more vehement “Deceptive attribution”. I'm just putting it out there since the news of basis 'Schumer said in hearings' being fake was a late arrival and that many prior involved editors were not in that one. Still hoping to see if with the prior enquote now (after 6 months and 4 tries) shown false and the rationale now shown fake, maybe folks find a edit they like that seems more reputable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is not listing correctly and I'm not sure why. Ping RfC whisperer Redrose64. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed by Redrose64.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the point is of linking to all these archived discussions. Is this challenging the welcome and encouraged statement? If so, then quotes have already been removed and there seems to be agreement that this is a good summation without the quotes. What is the purpose of linking to all these archived discussions? And what specific issues is Markbassett concerned with here? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) There is no phrase 'expected to benefit' in the article, that I can find. And how can that phrase be factually a quote if it isn't a quote. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn the links are to prior discussions of the phrase, both those based on the falsehood that it was in the report, orto the falsehood it was said in the House hearings. Basically giving the background of it was discussed with bad data before, and pings to those in the cited discussions. Despite a few editors having reported it as factually not in the report... it took about 6 months to even get the quote marks removed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mark's assertions seem to be incorrect. "Welcomed and encouraged" is not tainted by bad history according to any of the linked discussions. Nor is citing bad history as WP:V, WP:Synth, or whatever else. According to the above statement, it's true that Mark believes that the phrase 'Trump and campaign welcomed and encouraged' was falsely attributed and an unclear attribution (both at the same time), as well as a vehemently deceptive attribution. There is not agreement with this perception according to the previous very recent on point discussion [6]. I don't think what Schumer said is fake news because this is not supported by RS. In fact, that may be an overgeneralization. Schumer has said a lot so what specifically is fake news? And where is the RS that says so? And do we really have to go over this again?---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm specifically speaking on the tone in which they're written. For instance, were any of Trumps accomplishments highlighted? I see many external links for controversies though. Jackalope-eye (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Jackalope-eye (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to news media. Jackalope-eye (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus to update the lede's content on immigration?

Current part of lede, last consensus in September 2018:

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 update,

During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in multiple versions of travel bans on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, along with migrant detentions, family separations, and the ongoing expansion of fencing at the Mexico border.

Reason: to update other aspects of his immigration policy, and also note that in 2020, we have had further extensions of the travel ban. starship.paint (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea to fold several notable consequences of Trump's immigration policy, which can link to the dedicated article Immigration policy of Donald Trump. Other actions include the attempted repeal of DACA and the visa lottery program. Travel ban is no longer focused on Muslim-majority countries, and it was found unbiased towards religion by the Supreme Court, so the Muslim qualifier should be removed. We have an overview article on various Trump travel bans. My proposed text:

Trump's strict immigration policy resulted in travel bans on citizens from several countries and increased policing of the Mexican border, including migrant detentions, family separations, and expansion of "the wall". Trump intends to repeal DACA and the green card lottery.

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 08:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• expansion of "the wall" does not make sense, (1) it implies that "the wall" existed prior to Trump, which it didn't, (2) "the wall" is basically a misnomer, it's a fence, [7], we should not leave that unexplained. What would work is an ongoing expansion of border fencing ("the wall") - because it is not fully built. Regarding DACA and the green card, we should wait until it actually happens. starship.paint (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Starship's update is OK. The JFG proposal fails on several accounts. The "Trump intends to " reads like a campaign tweet, even aside from the misleading statement that the president has the authority to repeal legislation. The Travel Ban was indeed a Muslim Ban and it was only broadened after various revisions in response to being struck down in court. So Starship's text is accurate and readers will wee the details of the subsequent revisions in the linked articles. Finally, the statements that Trump has a "strict immigration policy", or even that he has increased policing of the border are dubious. They read like more campaign slogans. Possibly Starship's version can be further improved, but the JFG text is worse in every respect. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not worth expanding this sentence in the lede otherwise to would likely be WP:UNDUE. We already have a lot to say about Trump besides his presidency. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump's immigration stance and the resulting controversies have generated plenty of coverage over the last three years. A short summary sentence looks DUE to me in the lead section. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair points from starship.paint. Update, keeping it short:

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

I have removed the DACA and visa lottery repeals until they are enacted, if ever. Not a fan of adding the "ongoing" qualifier to the fencing expansion, because it begs the question whether other things in the sentence are also ongoing or have stopped. For all I know, they are all ongoing. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Work on the body first. The header *is* dated info, but this is just muddling it into disagrees with body and internally mismatches. For example, the words *did* update travel ban to “bans”, as there were three ... but the text and links are still just the first one, and there is no body content beyond the first one of 2017. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Revived thread. Participants @Starship.paint, SPECIFICO, Spy-cicle, and Markbassett: and others, could you let me know your thoughts on the latest proposal (dated 06:02, 21 March 2020)? — JFG ^talk 20:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett's statement is reasonable -- that we should work on the body first.

However, my reaction to the latest proposed text:

1. I would need to see strong sources that state Trump has anything that could be considered an "immigration policy".
2. The Muslim Ban was revised to exclude the religious aspect only after the courts compelled it.
3. We need to see strong recent sourcing to verify that enforcement at the border has in fact been increased under Trump. Seems dubious.
4. There's no wall -- don't we know that yet?
5. Pleased to see JFG now acknowledges the family separation atrocities.

Thanks for the ping. Let's do the article text first, per Markbassett. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm still at make body edits first and then see what there is. Having a lede that only mentions the first ban when the body mentions 3 might be just selecting the most WEIGHT one of the 'Muslim ban' to mention as the other two did not get the same level of coverage and court cases. But having a lead that mentions multiples but links to just one and has a body of just one would be lead material appearing out of nothing and/or disagreeing with the body.

As to what to have in that body and then what parts for the lede - well supposedly it would be just the BLP-level significant parts or summary of the main article. And then lede is naming the big items. So I wouldn't be surprised if the lede shortens out "citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision" and chooses instead to mention ", ending the Dreamers program, and efforts to build the Trump wall." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any mention of the non-existent wall, DACA, and green card lottery. I would support adding a few words about family separations and migrant detention. I would support a modified version of the original proposal.

During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in multiple versions of travel bans on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, along with migrant detentions and family separations.

I mostly agree with SPECIFICO's assessment. - MrX 🖋 12:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

War time president

WP:NOTFORUM -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
he is a war time president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:508B:99D6:89FA:3B18:DFB9:745A (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Not sure what you're proposing. Russia has been (and is currently) waging military cyberwarfare against the United States, and Trump has defended it, benefited from it, refused to acknowledge it's happening, and refused to condemn it. Is it that "war" you're referring to? If so, it's a proven, but undeclared, war. Please explain, and preferably provide proposed improvements and the reliable sources for them. -- Valjean (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC) The term "war" is overused IMHO. Was LBJ a wartime president because of the war on poverty? Nixon because of the war on drugs? I think it was VN. This is a nonstarter. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC) He's definitely waging war on anyone who disagrees with him. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Rename of Trump U

The article contains the following sentence which is supported neither by the cited source nor by the main article, Trump University.

After New York State authorities twice notified the company that its use of the word "university" violated state law, its name was changed to the "Trump Entrepreneurial Institute" in 2010.

―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently true, The Trump Entrepreneur Thing. I hate it when they use nouns as adjectives. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I hate it when we say Institute when we should say Initiative. And the cited source doesn't contain the words "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative", either. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

They started with institute if I recall correctly, but then they were afraid that might be illegal like University and changed it after the announcement. Better safe than sorry. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - [8] ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - Thanks for spotting this. But needed a bit different tweak. That CNN election coverage from 2016 cites the 2010 NY Daily News report of a complaint being made in 2010. (As had been done previously) CNN does not say the name was changed in 2010 it just says 'subsequently'. Luckily, the previous line had 3 refs and NYT did say the new name was done in 2010, so I've shifted it down to the line and dropped the CNN. The first line didn't need to 3 refs anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

SARS-2 response appropriate mentality, add?

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

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

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

• I haven't looked for backing RSs, but here is another: Peter Wehner The President Is Trapped; Trump is utterly unsuited to deal with this crisis, either intellectually or temperamentally. March 25, 2020 The Atlantic
• X1\ (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the opening paragraph of the article

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.

---

Suggesting to change the opening paragraph (or sentence) of Donald Trump from:

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.

to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman and politician serving as the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was also a television personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwagungood (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is basically what it used to be before the new consensus wording was established. See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus number 17 above. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I dislike both because of the use of "current". MOS:CURRENTLY. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"...is the (number) and current president" is the way we have customarily handled articles about incumbent presidents. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as is. The existing phrasing is both the ‘norm’ used for sitting presidents, and is the dominant role at this time, plus seems more accurate and better fit to MOS:FIRST. While President Trump is in office, he is not able to conduct previous business or tape The Apprentice. See similar starts for Obama and Bush. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Nothing to change – Trump was not a career politician before he ran for president in 2015, and he is still considered an "outsider" by most politicians, both supporters and opponents. Therefore, defining him as "a businessman and politician" would be misleading. The lead sentence has been debated repeatedly, and its current form has been stable for several years now. Solution in search of a problem. — JFG ^talk 01:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Annual physical

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.

---

I posted a new, three sentence paragraph regarding Trump's 2020 physical, with citations, yesterday. Another editor reverted that. The issue seems to whether the information in that paragraph is important enough to be included in the article. Since that's up to the community, I'm posting the proposed addition here, for others to evaluate.

Here's what I added to the article:

In mid-November 2019, the White House said that Trump had gone to the the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to undergo portions of his annual physical examination. Two days later, the president's doctor said that the visit was a "routine, planned interim checkup as part of the regular, primary preventative care he receives throughout the year". In early March 2020, Trump said that he would "probably" finish his annual examination in the next 90 days.

I think it's clear that the health of a 73-year-old president, running for re-election, is quite important. That's why the first of the three points (sentences), above, was widely reported. The second sentence provides new context for the original story. The third sentence answers the obvious question that readers would have - it's April, so what happened to the physical that normally takes place in January? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

John Broughton, see WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything that's in the news is fit to add here, in such a massive biography. Your speculation about what happened to the physical isn't relevant here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's "routine, planned interim checkup as part of the regular, primary preventative care he receives throughout the year" then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not speculating about "what happened to the physical". Please don't put words in my mouth. As for the second sentence, it's the contrast to the first that makes it newsworthy.

I posted here on the Talk page to get the reactions of others. So far I've heard that three editors think that none (apparently) of what I suggested is important. I would think that at least the third sentence, as a placeholder, would be worth including. [Since the first physical was in January 2018, the second in January/February 2019, then Wikipedia should have something for 2020, it being April.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should have anything at all about his annual physical, unless something of significance ever comes out of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

John Broughton, you said I think it's clear and that is your speculation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Man visits doctor" isn't relevant for a biography. If it was going to be relevant, it would have to be on some other article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this belongs in a newspaper. Clearly this does not belong in an encyclopedia, unless something later comes of it. O3000 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not worthy of inclusion unless something is unusual. I think we can snow close this now. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say update or at least ask what keeps the routine 2018 checkup in and excludes the routine 2019 checkup ? In both cases he is reported in excellent health for a man of his age, and I'd be inclined to just put in a line that conveys the 2019 checkup. The 'surprise' visit obviously had large outlets report on it so has some WEIGHT, more than that several cardiologists objected to the 2018 cholesterol levels, and that obviously is also now dated info so seems time to say something more. We seem to be giving prominence to The Jerry Springer Show style controversy or WP:GOSSIP here instead of simple WEIGHT, but is that where the article should be left  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree 100% Jackalope-eye (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Why people don't trust media...

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.

---

Here are just a few things I feel are written with bias:

"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."

"A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated him."

Someone with an open mind and capable of being impartial and equitable should edit the Presidents page. I'm fine with what is written so long as the publisher include positive analyses too. I'd encourage them to read both this page and President Obama's. If you don't recognize the disparity then you have no business authoring anything on this site. Jackalope-eye (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you expect the bios of two different people to be similar? They are very different people. And what does this have to do with the media? O3000 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jackalope-eye Donald Trump ≠ Barack Obama. They are different people with different biographies that reflect what the reliable sources say about them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Without addressing the specific quotes at the moment, I will agree that clearly the Trump article lede is written with a negative slant and the Obama article lede is written with a hagiographic slant. And of course the two warrant comparison; they're both living US presidents from the same era. It may just be time to bring in the WP cavalry, since this page tends to be dominated by just a handful of editors, which results in the slant. Ergo Sum 15:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The page has 2,687 watchers, including a multitude of admins. The pages reflect reliable sources, which reflect the enormous differences between the two gentlemen. O3000 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no similarity between Trump and Obama, so of course their biographies will be radically different. Both articles are the collaborative works of hundreds of editors, not "a handful". They represent consensus. No one will be bringing in a cavalry to make Trump look like a hero in this story. - MrX 🖋 15:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ergo Sum...the best way to enact the necessary changes is to take parts and pieces that seem to lack NPOV and violate DUE and draw up Rfcs to bring in new eyes.--MONGO (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Before that, I'd suggest finding a proportional cross section of RS references on specific matters of concern and postingg on NPOVN for feedback. At the least, that would enable the formulation of the most constructive available RfC. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: Favorable, certainly not. Accuracy is the goal. Wikipedia is about standards and precedents. We look to other similar articles that are of good quality (such as Featured Articles) as models for others. Therefore, the same thematic emphases (e.g. weight of foreign policy, economic policy, personality, etc.) and tone especially should be looked to as a model. I agree with Jackalope-eye that it is especially, but not exclusively, the tone department in which this article falls short of NPOV. Ergo Sum 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: To the best of my knowledge, this article is accurate and proportionately reflects what has been written in available sources. I'm not sure what you mean by tone, but I think the 5,899 editors of this article have been extraordinarily retrained in making sure that the documentation of Trump's actions and words are conveyed dispassionately and in an objective tone. Our task is not to cast the subject into an ideal form reflective of the office they hold, even though the subject falls far short of that ideal. We're not here to elevate a brassy reality TV star into a regal statesman. If you would like to discuss specific passages in the article that you think have the wrong tone or emphasis, then we can start having a meaningful discussion. Sweeping generalizations made on the heels of a drive by user who has never improved the encyclopedia are just a waste of everyone's time, and an insult to our earnest work. - MrX 🖋 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

5,899 editors could not be wrong. ~Awilley (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

NO FUN ALLOWED! PackMecEng (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that all you got? - MrX 🖋 19:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is fairly firmly grounded in the primacy of numbers under our current system/practice. Even when we have uninvolved closure, it only rarely goes against the numbers. That being the case, our current system/practice is "a fallacious argument" per that Wikipedia article. We didn't invent this system/practice (and it's certainly not the system/practice I would have invented), we just try to work within it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that does justice to Wikipedia process, imperfect though it may sometimes appear. Argumentum ad populum relates to numbers alone -- the madness of crowds -- but Wikipedia articles are created and honed continuously in a highly structured process of consensus. Vote counting, even when it does, unfortunately, occur, is a small part of that provess. I've recently said something very similar to MrX's initial comment on another article, I forget where. It's unlikely that highly edited and heavily-watched articles get very basic narratives wrong. If they do, the entire Wikipedia project is invalid. We know that's not the case. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO The question here is more of the slanted bias in the writing. But no, having more cooks (editors) is not a guarantee of perfection. Even basic facts are occasionally wrong. Most recently we just saw WP convey for 6 months the fake news that 'welcomed and encouraged' was a Mueller report quote, somehow out of some random persons fictional account of Mueller hearing dialogue -- despite the cites said something else, and the couple of editors who pointed out it wasn't in the report got blown off. I think high-flux and complex articles edited by many are more subject to flaws, not less so, and cognitive bias makes things more open to Murphy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what happened. O3000 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, that isn't what occurred. A simple matter of punctuation was quickly repaired and a pointless subsequent complaint dragged on for 9-15 inches of talkpage. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Absent uninvolved closure, !vote counting is all we have since involved editors can never be objective about strength of arguments. Policy is quite often asserted incorrectly, which is why we can't just count policy assertions to determine consensus. The current system/practice assumes, quite incorrectly in my view, that most editors (1) are well versed in an incredibly complex, vague, nuanced, and self-contradictory body of policy that takes years to begin to master even if you edit a lot and try hard to master it, and (2) are both able and willing to set aside their natural biases when editing Wikipedia. It assumes, quite incorrectly in my view, that the strongest arguments will convince the majority of editors. Due to the severe shortage of qualified editors willing to do uninvolved closures, !vote counting is a HUGE part of the process.

The system/practice is seriously flawed, but it's what we have, and it is not going to be changed on this page. Under our current system of self-selected self-governance, it is very unlikely to be changed anywhere else, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum:, If nothing else, its great to know we can count on this article never being accused of being fancruft. I have no doubt that the details of this article accurately reflect the stories, musings and accusations as provided by the reliable sources.--MONGO (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Trump is not Obama. Non-partisan fact-checkers have found many, many more lies coming from Donald than from Barack. pbp 17:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Jackalope-eye Welcome to WP. I agree there is substantial bias here, partly explained as simply WP is supposed to convey content proportional to the WP:WEIGHT of coverage, and media... is what it is. Otherwise, bias or censorship by editors and admins seems from the WP:VOLUNTEER nature, and yes there is definitely a strong bias explicitly shown in TALK here and editorial actions having dissimilar treatments. *I suggest you do something more than just TALK.* Bias and errors don’t go away just by you generally talking about it. Make some specific edit, proposal, or RFC to improve the article, based on fact and WP policy/guides — and possibly get denounced with threats to topic-ban you just providing evidence of bias, but that too is maybe helpful. And then make another try on something else. WP:AGF of their POV may be such they actually believe the most absurd stuff. For whatever faint praise it’s worth, WP has repeatedly denied this article a “good” rating, and I think there maybe has been modest improvement over time. You might compare the current article to the version during 2016 elections and what Clinton had. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed but that will not help here at all. If consensus goes in one particular direction at Wikipedia, nothing you can do or say will make any difference. That is the way it works here. Sources can be twisted or thrown out depending on the political persuasion of the people doing the editing. It's not just president Trump's article, let's be clear about that. Editing here for 14 years can make one well aware of bias in articles depending on who edits them. It's just the way it is when anyone can edit. There are many good things here but this article is simply not one of them. There are plenty of other things to edit here at Wikipedia that aren't so volatile or politically driven as to be useless. I suggest working on those and just leave this article to the wolves. It'll be 20 years before this article gets treated fairly so as to be useful to students and teachers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that those not agreeing with the consensus are biased. O3000 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yesterday, a new user account was created. The user made seven edits. Six were on this page claiming we are biased against Trump, and claiming the media is not to be trusted, as does Trump. The seventh was a snide remark on Obama’s TP suggesting they have a problem with Obama. This took place over 42 minutes after which the user went silent. This thread is the result. Don't feed the trolls. O3000 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Which is why I originally removed it per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPO, only to have it foolishly restored by Ergo Sum (talk · contribs) so we could all waste our time arguing about this bullshit for the umpteenth time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  The only thing "foolish" is thinking that one can have an impact on the world by creating an article to promote our own points of view. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is why we don't do that. O3000 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course some of us "do that". Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Which ones? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Russian interference & Investigations

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

1a)

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

1b)

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

Deletion:

2a) None

2b)

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

Long-standing version:

3a Investigations)

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

3b Russian interference)

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

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

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

• Basically should the Donald_Trump#Investigations section have

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

and

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

Or should it just have

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

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

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

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

4a)

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

4b)

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

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

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

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

a) Since 4 January 2019

b) Since 20 December 2017

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

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

3b (shorter) Russian interference

Main article: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

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

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

For what is visible to the wp:Reader;

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

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

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

Note: See section #Reverted Investigations hatnote sprawl below, which is directly connected to this discussion. X1\ (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:X1\ - This is the "Russian interference" thread, and I stated the content of hatnotes for the Russian Interference section was too much space of the section and I said best is just ONE link to the main article for the topic, to be at that section. (Nothing there about the thread of what to put onto the Investigations section.) So again, for the Russian interference section ...

3b (shorter) Russian interference

Main article: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Reread this; as your description of 3b is redundantly incorrect. Your's is just a shorter b, not a 3.

I have renamed this entire section to avoid confusion. X1\ (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have, thus far, ignored this thread because I found it hard to follow with my stayed-at-home-for-too-long brain. Now I see some back and forth reversions going on, so I'm going to weigh in. I endorse this edit by JFG. There's no need for the additional links. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey elaborate as to why. You have given no justification. X1\ (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Which part of "there's no need for the additional links" do you not understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump deprecation of the alliance with South Korea

Fresh news and reference on this today. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Really minor. Not rising to the level of inclusion. Ergo Sum 18:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Army officers are not routinely quoted as being devastated by cutbacks in a critical alliance. FYI. You'll need to provide a reasoned basis in addition to a "no". SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I need not. The WP:UNDUE policy is rather self-sustaining. Ergo Sum 20:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering that no article content has been proposed, and that you appear to be uninformed on the longstanding discussion of this issue, I agree that it's just as well you do not comment further. Thanks for your thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE. And - Please don't just post a same-day url from the feed, thanks. Daily bits are more a WP:SPAMMER and WP:LINKFARM thing for your phone, it's not WP:TALK. Sections should be a proposed edit and hopefully after at least a 48-hour waiting period for WEIGHT and vetting to occur. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is common talk page practice, Mark. No text has been proposed. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you stop spamming us then it won’t *be* “common”. I see no edit proposed, and this is NOTBLOG. Again, please don’t just forward us the mornings feed. A bare URL seems inevitably a waste of time... If it wasn’t even worth your time to write anything and it isn’t still in the news 2 days later or looking to make an edit, then it’s just showing us what trivia to EXclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Trump and Moon have stood shoulder to shoulder in their policy on North Korea. They have had several meetings. 2. The pandemic creates an extraordinary situation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

It was a building crisis unlike Trump had previously faced.

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

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

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

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

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

There are similar articles at #SARS-2 response appropriate mentality, add?. X1\ (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to nuclear war with North Korea?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, we had a nuclear war with North Korea? Nobody told me! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Jack, this is the real-world Wiki. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder about that. I mean, it's been March for like 3 months now, am I right? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You know what I mean. People said there was a crisis which could lead to a war with North Korea. I think we should avoid any such predictions.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Real people, or? Who? SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously not remember?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is not about me. I take it you can't answer. SPECIFICO talk 09:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, here are some examples:[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Jack, that's random google links that do not verify what you claim. UNDUE. And off-topic for this section. Waste of time. SPECIFICO talk 09:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Similarly title RS from Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Trump brags about his tv ratings, add?:

• John F. Harris Trump’s Breakdown; Old traits — bluster, defiance, implacable self-promotion — that once worked well now threaten to sink a presidency. Politico.com April 1, 2020

X1\ (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Historically unpopular

Should it be pointed out in the lead that Trump is a historically unpopular president? See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Historical_comparison where his highest approval rating is the lowest in the history of presidential polling, and has never broken 50%. This seems like a notable fact. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

See section 6.1, Approval ratings. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• The partisan divide seems to have more WEIGHT by sources, that might be a preferable note. Recently Gallup notes “The 87-point gap between Republican and Democratic approval in the current poll is the largest Gallup has measured in any Gallup poll to date”. Basically 94% of Republicans approve, 93% of Democrats disapprove, and there just aren’t many open to change. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• פֿינצטערניש, for your analysis of historically unpopular, see How unpopular is Donald Trump? at FiveThirtyEight (regularly updated) and compare (green line) to other presidents since Harry S. Truman (1945-53). Note the Gerald Ford's drop connects to pardon of Richard Nixon. X1\ (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No. We have it in the article, under "Approval rating", but that section is a very, very small part of this article, so the information should not be in the lead - which is to summarize the "most important points". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some 'partisan divide' mention. I agree that 'approval rating' has relatively little BLP effect and low WEIGHT of coverage/content. I google it at maybe 1% of what Donald Trump gets. And it wouldn't work well within the narrative of current lede. But I'm not as sure about 'partisan' - that googles as 3% and seems a backdrop or imputed reason for many of the events - numerous protests, unprecedented 'fact-checking', hostile media, the looking for 'collusion', the doomed impeachment ... as well as how his actions are evaluated on anything from climate change to coronavirus. The place for now seems edits within the body. So do folks think a line should be put in the Approval Ratings section about the partisan divide of that rating ? Or should it be a separate para at the bottom noting a partisan divide generally on all ratings ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Investigations hatnote sprawl

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, the thread above is not 'main' and since it is placed above (although it's later in time) it is not a 'summary'. This thread is about the Investigations hatnote, and my noting the adding hatnotes to make 6 total, striking of all hatnotes, then reverting to all hatnotes with (false) edit comment restoring long-standing... Kind of seemed in need of a TALK thread. The Russians hatnote thread that was then injected above this and tried indenting this one. (I put this back above and undented, now Russians again has been moved above...) But anyway, discussion here is about only the Investigations hatnotes being too many. The Russian thread is similar - the hatnotes take up too much space, 4 lines of about 12 lines of content -- but not about the same spot. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Being there since December 2017 (well over two years) and January 2019 (over a year) is longstanding; my ES is true, not (false). X1\ (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• For the rest of your comment, I found it too muddled to follow clearly. X1\ (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes it was discussed and everyone disagreed with you. It is clear consensus to remove them. Looking at your contribution history, you blindly went to every change I made and reverted it with a nonsensical edit summary. The bad ping line was because I made a bad ping and you have to resign for it to go off. PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Again your synopis of "Timeline spam in see also sections" is incorrect.
• Your bad ping description did not clarify. X1\ (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Your description of my restorations is incorrect, but you did partially correct your chronology from before. X1\ (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• To hopefully clarify what was long-standing hatnotes to the Investigations section from what is not

The long-standing content, shown on 2 March is 4 links

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

It is not the 6 links falsely stated as "long-standing"

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

I trust it is clear that 4 does not equal 6. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See previous comment; 1/2 + 1/2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. X1\ (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This article includes ONE section about Russian interference; it should have ONE hatnote pointing to the main article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. All other sub-articles and timelines are reachable from there. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:JFG - this is the Investigations hatnote (too many) thread. You maybe want to put this comment into the thread about Russians hatnotes (too long 4 lines in a ~15 line section) thread. Someone moved the Russian thread from being below here, so maybe you were in the right place but got left behind. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: - did you wish to make a comment on how many hatnotes the Investigations section should have ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the hatnote to multiple timelines is unnecessary. There is (strangely) no generic article about all investigations into Trump, to which we could point under the "Investigations" section. However, each sub-section on various investigations has its own hatnotes; that's plenty enough. — JFG ^talk 02:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I take that as meaning no ‘further: <timeline>’, a !vote for deleting entirely. I can go with that as matching WP:HATNOTE, especially since those timeline links are within the detailed articles anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's "Cult of Personality"?

Donald Trump is listed as having a cult of personality built around him in the List of cults of personality. Shall we include this in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Personality cult is one of those terms that has a recognized meaning in academic sources and is also used in a loose way in colloquial speech. Trump hasn't suspended Congress, locked up or killed his opponents, or shut down mainstream media. He doesn't even have an organization. So while you may find sources that say he has a personality cult, they would not be adequate to state it as fact. TFD (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but none of that is part of the definition of a personality cult.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Google tells me that there are 1650 Million pages mentioning Trump - but that only 288 thousand also mention :cult of personality". Something at only 0.017% just isn't prominent enough to mention on this page. It also seems outside the scope of a BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I get something in that range for "trump", which includes Trump, other members of the Trump family, trump cards, any of the various senses of the verb "trump", etc. If you can't make your "evidence" any more precise than that, don't bother as it's largely worthless. Also, try applying that math to a random sampling of other things already in the article. I expect it would exclude at least half of the current article. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Don’t be silly. It’s microscopic UNDUE either way. Yes, one can narrow “Trump” down to “Donald Trump” (‘only’ 430 Million), but that also narrows down the ‘cult’ hits (113 thousand) moving you to an also microscopic 0.026%. Google is imprecise and we could nitpick more about that, but obviously UNDUE by such a margin is obviously UNDUE and “Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all”. Any other hypothetical bit of trivia that slipped in isn’t a reason to add more trivia, it would just something else to exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a cult around every US President. There are more monuments to George Washington than there ever were to Lenin.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I imagine there is cult of personality built around most prominent political figures, with enough RSs to support each case. Does that mean we should include that in these articles? Another controversial question: should these cult of personality claims be included in the lede of the article? why not/yes? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No, although there is a far better claim to his having a "cult of personality" than some of the others mentioned at that link. This is a pejorative term not yet widely enough accepted to put in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What's worse, it's pejoritive in an undefined way. It's more or less meaningless. There will be a better way to express whatever appropriate meaning is intended by these words. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In fact that term doesn't even really apply to the PERSON; it applies to his "cult", in this case the Republican Party. IMO they actually are a cult of personality right now, because they decide what to say and what to believe and how to vote, not on the basis of their longstanding principles, but on the basis of what Trump says and thinks. In effect right now he IS the Republican party, and that's what makes it a cult of personality far more than has happened with previous presidents. But that's about the party, not about Trump himself. As for the argument above that he hasn't suspended Congress or closed down the press, that has nothing to do with "cult of personality"; that's about "Demagogue", where we have so far successfully prevented the term being applied to Trump (or any other living person). -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN Thanks for your input. Would you then say that this is application to Presidency of Donald Trump? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No. For the same reason: This is a pejorative term, not yet widely accepted enough to be putting it in articles. In any case it isn't really about his presidency; it is about his relationship to the Republican Party. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"Concerns about wording of Coronavirus body + new info"

Other editors and I (I've noticed Busstop, Bsubprime and potentially others) have voiced concern about the current wording in the coronavirus body being too politicized and inflammatory. Specific wording is Trump "Over-promised" on the availability of conronavirus tests when he said anybody who wants a test can get one. This is problematic for a couple reasons:

1. Promise is a strong sentiment, and without the affirmation of "I promise" or the accompaniment of similar phrasing (i.e. H.W. Bush's "read my lips") that came out of Trump's mouth at the time, we cannot say that his statement was even intended to be a promise, nor has any RS said so.

2. RS have indicated that this comment was made by Trump impromptu, and medical experts then informed the white house that it would not be a prudent allocation of resources to grant a test to anyone who wants one, but a doctor's prescription would be necessary. Mr. Azar's comments were another instance of officials correcting or clarifying Mr. Trump"

As stated, this has more to do with officials walking back or clarifying Trump's remarks than a promise. The more encyclopedic wording I would propose:

"Trump also issued conflicting statements on the availability of testing for the virus...., afterwards, health officials clarified that testing would be available only to those with a doctor's prescription."

Subsequently in the paragraph that addresses the U.S. slowness of testing there is no mention that one of the reasons for the slowness in developing a test were the stringent requirements of the FDA[16] Additionally, the comparison to testing in South Korea is outdated. Updated RS have noted that the U.S. has done more testing than anyone including South Korea, with the glaring caveat that it lags behind in per capita testing. [17] This portion should be updated to reflect these new statistics.

On a final note there is not a single mention of the stimulus package Trump signed into law, which CNN has described as "historic" and "the largest in history" [18]

I welcome comments and feedback to commence below. Amorals (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump did indeed "overpromise" on tests. Trump held Obama accountable for "if you like your insurance company you can keep it," so it seems perfectly reasonable to hold Trump to the same standard. Moreover, Trump has a long track record of overpromising things and then failing to deliver, such as his own "everyone will be covered" healthcare plan. Finally, Trump only signed the CARES Act. It was written by Congress with no input from Trump himself. To make matters worse, he turned the signing ceremony into a Republican campaign ad after refusing to invite a single Democrat. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump held Obama accountable for "if you like your insurance company you can keep it," so it seems perfectly reasonable to hold Trump to the same standard. If we're going to assert linkages like that (extra-policy), the more "reasonable" one would be to Obama's Wikipedia biography. I don't see that mentioned there. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My point was that Trump (and Republicans) made a big deal out of Obama's phrase. The reason it isn't mentioned in the Obama bio is because the legislation changed significantly after Obama made the statement and before Obama signed the legislation, so it ended up not being biographically significant. Trump's overpromises are, however, a feature of his presidency, according to multiple reliable sources. That makes them biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You can find "multiple reliable sources" that say pretty much anything you want to say about Trump, except that he's female or black (and why would you want to say either of those things?). The bar to clear for wiki voice (for controversial content) is the predominance of reliable sources. At least have the decency to assert that largely unproveable state of affairs. And maybe drop some links for the sake of appearances. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, your point about Obama is irrelevant. To my knowledge the wiki article on Obama does not mention that his “you can keep your private healthcare if you want it” was an “over-promise.” If Obama’s article does say he “over-promised” then please show evidence here. The wording provided by Amorals reads as more encyclopedic to me, and a more accurate representation of the RS in that Trump made a conflicting statement which then had to be walked back by the health experts. Also your argument about he merely signed the bill while Congress did all the work is a tired one that has been parroted by other editors before and been debunked. That’s just the way our American system works. Congress almost always does the heavy lifting on legislation while the President sits back and waits to sign the bill. By your view, any piece of legislation signed by a President could theoretically be excluded in his bio because Congress does most of the hard work Bsubprime7 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If you read the RS links I provided, Trump's statement never was characterized as a "promise" the RS have characterized it as a statement Trump made without consulting the medical experts, which they then had to walk back. Basically a reflection of Trump's lack of medical understanding, and not a broken promise, which is why the wording I proposed is more accurate. Amorals (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's Original Research and is contradicted by the weight of RS reports that tell us he consistently misstated, overstated, or promised things that did not exist. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not Original research at all specifico, links have been provided, please read them. The RS have predominately said that Trump “misstated” and “overstated” as you’ve said but fewer have used “promise”. Honestly, you don’t seem to have any disagreement with Amorals. You’re both expressing the same sentiment, Amorals is just proposing a better choice of wording than what we have currentlyBsubprime7 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for example, RS reported that Trump's said "we will have a million tests in a week" and that a week later he said there were 20,000. That is a report of a false or broken promise. Further, Amorals' links are adverse to the position for which he has cited them. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, that statement you quoted above is not the one in question included in the article. Included in the article, is "anybody who needs a test can get one" and the predominant language of the RS that covered this statement was that Trump contradicted the experts and gave conflicting statements not "over-promised". The RS and overall coverage have not talked as much in terms of "broken promises" as they have about Trump contradicting the experts and the links I have provided prove this case. I also would say that you and I seem to agree that Trump misstated and offered conflicting statements, I am merely offering a more fluid linguistic way to capture this essence present in the RS than what we currently have.Amorals (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In that instance the most fluid way to say it is that he lied. Or falsely promised. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. RS hasn’t spoken in terms of false promises. The RS has described Trump as saying conflicting statements that experts have to walk back. This is different than lying. In the million tests a week example, it’s arrogance, like if someone puffed their chest and said they could run a mile in under 4:00 and it turns out they don’t and can’t do it, do we say they’re “lying.” No. Also, Wikipedia generally shies away from sensationalist wording like “lied” or “false promise” that type of wording works for publications trying to sell papers and engage subscribers. But we’re not a for profit business. Part of our purpose is capture the essence of RS with wording that is more academic and encyclopedic and the proposed wording fits that bill Bsubprime7 (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Amorals Agree - RS do not say “over-promise” - this is OR phrasing that should be changed. RS mostly say “said” or “insisted” or “claimed”, as in “said last Friday that”. There is a much smaller subset later phrasing it “erroneously claimed” or “falsely said”. As these were impromptu remarks, the unexpected statement got some coverage but few gave it credibility much less regarded it as a “promise”. I would prefer that quotefarms here be trimmed, and this non-notable one seems just something to delete. But if the quote is kept, then let’s use the phrasing of the RS cited and not some WP made-up theatrics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a separate section for something in the article that you have a problem with. Just like we've been asking you to. About what’s in the article: well, for starters, Trump absolutely did overpromise. Here are the actual quotes he said: “Anybody that wants a test can get a test. That’s what the bottom line is.” “But as of right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test — that’s the important thing — and the tests are all perfect, like the letter was perfect.” Those sure sound like promises! At the time he said that, there were very strict limits on who could get tested, because the tests were in such short supply. Our cited reference reports several examples. Here is our reference for that statement. They rank it “Pants on fire”, their strongest rating for things that are simply untrue. But. with all that said, thanks for proposing alternate wording. IMO your proposed rewording is almost OK - except it should add “and even with a doctor’s prescription many people were not able to get tested.”[19] Should we show a picture of the long lines outside a Queens hospital, where people waited in line for literally days hoping to get tested? [20] -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. RE On a final note there is not a single mention of the stimulus package Trump signed into law, which CNN has described as "historic" and "the largest in history": The stimulus package is absolutely in the article. Second sentence of the second paragraph, with a link if people want to know more about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN those really don’t sound like promises, IMHO it sounds more like a guy who doesn’t understand how medical experts work and what the testing capabilities were at the time he made the statement. RS also frames it more along these lines than along the lines of broken promises. Even if Trump did “over-promise” this is a more sensationalist wording than what was offered by the editor above. When in doubt I think we should go with the less dramatic wording in an encyclopedia! Also, I notice you did not comment on the updated statistics that were proposed regarding U.S. testing. Since these are just new numbers, I doubt updating them would cause much issueBsubprime7 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object to current statistics on testing, although I'm not sure what the point would be. We have not up to now included any statistics on the course of the epidemic - number of cases, number of deaths, etc. - and I don't think we should start. But if current testing stats are added for some reason, we should NOT remove the statistic about what the level of testing was back when Trump said the testing was available to anyone who wanted it. And if that doesn't sound like a promise to you, I'd make sure get any commitment from you in writing and notarized. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Let’s play along with the idea that it’s a hard promise as you say. Talking in terms of promises is still the more sensationalized and dramatic way to word it. We could get the same message across, i.e. conflicting or contradictory statements were given by Trump, but in a more encyclopedic tone. The disagreement between any of the editors in this rfc including you or myself is not about what the truth is or what the facts are, but merely what is the most encyclopedic way to convey these facts. And it seems like the option offered by Amorals or something similar would get the message across in a less dramatic and encyclopedic way than what we have nowBsubprime7 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN That quote is not a promise. The “Anyone that needs a test - that’s the important thing” is declaring importance, and note the cite is a low-WEIGHT one that does not say “over-promise”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed text as being a poor paraphrasing of what sources have written. I have no objection to changing "over-promised on the availability of testing" to "falsely claimed that testing was available to anyone who wants it", although "over-promised" (or falsely promised) is a faithful paraphrase of what sources have written, for example these ones: [21][22][23]. I do agree that the comparison to South Korea is not really suitable for this article. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose proposed text, for reasons stated above in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Support proposed text. This is an instance of seizing upon a word or phrase and making a Bogeyman out of it. We should tone down the language as may be found in sources to convey the essence of the concern but expressed in non-sensationalistic terms. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Support proposed text. Generally speaking without words of affirmation, “I promise” “believe me” or a good example above of H.W. Bush’s “read my lips”, just plain statements by presidents aren’t labeled as promises. Not to mention, it is isn’t an accurate reflection of the RS. Most of the RS provided by editors describe in paraphrased language Trump’s “conflicting or contradictory statements.” This proposed wording is also much less sensationalized and more encyclopedic. Bsubprime7 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Support with the amendment that MelanieN proposed to me, adding to the end of the statement I originally proposed:

    ...Yet, many would still struggle to get a test even with a doctor's prescription 

It adds another relevant detail and is more reflective of the RS. Trump making statements and then medical experts walking them back has been a more predominant theme in the RS than broken promises. Amorals (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this with the proposed addition. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a plurality of editors who support this change so we will wait and see how many more must voice support before making this change. Also, there seems to be a mistake with new additions "paying down" vs. "playing down". And again, some editors seem hellbent on using dramatic and charged wording. Trump "rejected" calls. More like "disregarded" can we soften the sensationalism and choose our words better please. We're an encyclopedia people. Amorals (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, we use whatever characterization is used by reliable sources, whether we like it or not. Please provide links to sources using "disregarded". Of course you are free to make the same request of editors calling for language you oppose. The talk-to-links ratio throughout this debate is far too high. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose original and modified forms. This OR narrative that Trump did not know he was misrepresenting the availablity of tests, PPE, ventilators, health personnel, etc. is not supported by RS accounts of events. Trump spent hours every day in huddles with his medical adviser and on phonecalls with state and local officials. He knew very well that he was making false statements and Americans relied on those statements, particularly when they were made with the medical advisers and Pence standing alongside him. But as sources report, Trump is easily enraged and quickly retaliates with spiteful and unpredictable actions when those around him fail to corroborate his misstatements. At one televised event, upon questioning from a reporter to Dr. Fauci as to whether a Trump statement had been correct, Trump abruptly stepped forward toward the lectern, ended the show, and turned to the exit door. "struggle w/o a prescription?" That's an awfully indirect way to describe hundreds of people sick and suffering in the cold waiting for tests that, in some cases, they didn't get before they died of the disease. All this euphemism and half truth has been discussed here, and I see no chance of its gaining consensus. If you really want to go for this, start an RfC with 2 choices -- your propsal and nothing. See what the community has to say. If you've never mounted an RfC before, perhaps an editor will help you with the format. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss it is our Wikipedia policy to present how RS characterize, not use verbatim wording. Again we are an encyclopedia, we have the burden to appear more academic in wording than these RS publications do. The new changes made today are rife with mistakes and should have gone through consensus first. In the English language, rejection means “fuck you” pardon my French. It’s an extremely strong sentiment. Does this really best describe RS account of Trump and his health officials. Sounds a lot more like Trumps saying “nah, this isn’t important right now, I’m gonna focus on other things.” (I.e. disregard is a good word). And Specifico we shouldn’t be doing flashy dramatic wording or vivid imagery. Even though people were sick waiting in line, simplify and distill, we’re encyclopedic, and an admin has already voiced support for this wording. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - proposed language over current obviously biased or theatrical fabrication. The proposed seems a WP:V closer paraphrase of what RS say about it, more encyclopedic and informative. The current comes off as exaggeration and partisan speech. I’d also suggest just delete this (and a lot more) from the quotefarms. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(MarkBassett) Feel free to weigh in with this opinion on the RfC below. Apologies there were some formatting issues with the original one.Amorals (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - This puts emphasis on material that is unrelated to Trump. What matters is his actions and words, which plainly communicated to all Americans that they could get a beautiful test if they wanted one. - MrX 🖋 12:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Forbes cuts net worth estimate by a billion

An extraordinary interim revaluation - Forbes reduces net worth estimate from 3.1 to 2.1 billion. Should this be updated in the infobox for an extraordinary event like this? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox, lead, and body. Since the 3.1 number now fails V,[24] it has to be changed. I'll do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Correction. Covered by #Current consensus #5, so requires a new consensus. I'll wait for that and then do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) (Superseded by "Correction to correction", below.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Noticed that and didn't update due to consensus. We could change the consensus as it is an unusual event. I'd lean against precisely because it is an unusual event and there is no way to guess what the world will be like in six months. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Beats leaving unverifiable information IMO. Are you suggesting we use archive for verifiability? That number was expected to be updated annually, and it's currently 13 months old. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good points. No one knows his debt and been reported the family has asked Deutsche for delays in loan payment. May as well use the latest guesstimate. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Correction to correction! Consensus #5 reads, "Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires", so a change would simply comply with that. The 3.1 number is mentioned there as a "currently, by the way". But since we're this far into it, might as well get agreement on that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSE - there is no reason it’s urgent, or even need to be current. The standing of the annual Forbes source is like the approval ratings - the WEIGHT of well-known and long-standing measure. This basis also has the benefit of it can be consistently used. (And is reputable from all the many other pages that use the same basis.). We don’t want to get into this being a question any time random low-WEIGHT guys Opinion shows up, just like we don’t want to list every poll or decide if we should switch to a more recent photo etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Putative net worth drops 33% in a month. Let's look in a day or two and see how this plays into RS reporting on the push to reopen the sports stadiums, hotels, airlines, etc. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s not going to turn this into the Forbes Annual report, any more than it would turn YouGov numbers into the Gallup approval, nor a new photo into the Official portrait. The consensus is on what source to use so the figure is now set on a commonly referred to and well-known reference with WEIGHT. Do not want to shift it into WP doing a perpetual RFC topic of ‘how about this’ some random writer. It seems unlikely to be noted enough for a body remark - no surprise that he like lots of others lost money in the last month - but sure, if it becomes a big story it might go in. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s not going to turn this into the Forbes Annual report - This, which I already linked for you above, says $2.1B. If you click on "VIEW FULL LIST", you get a page with "World's Billionaires List - The Richest in 2020". Ergo, the 2.1 number is from the "Forbes Annual Report" for this year. Consensus #5 is to use it. Are you proposing an amendment to #5, or failing to understand the situation? I can't tell. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss you need to address if you want notice or response out of sequence. I was responding to the proposal as stated and Oppose an ‘extraordinary interim’ and that URL. Your remark at “Since the 3.1 number now fails V,[30]” was not clear and further muddled by the two corrections. I do think V and consensus 5 is not served by the footnote currently there, which mentions and links to things other than Forbes Annual report, but think you meant ‘to explain, a new Forbes list is at [30], but Consensus 5 will have to be separately proposed for update because it specifies 2019.’ Fine, RFC that based on the Annual report. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:V is a Wikipedia policy, so our options are:

• Change it.
• Remove it.
• Use archive for verifiability. I think we would have to then convey that we are deliberately ignoring the recent change. Problematic.
• Violate a core Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This ain't a "poll" or "random low-WEIGHT guys Opinion". It is the source we agreed upon years back. I have no problem with waiting a bit. But, why would anyone call the Forbe's list a "random low-WEIGHT guy's Opinion"? This push back on RS is really becoming tiresome. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly, tiresome is not actionable. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 - the proposal is based on a random low-WEIGHT guys Opinion. “An extraordinary interim revaluation - Forbes reduces net worth estimate from 3.1 to 2.1 billion.”. That’s not the consensus source. Pull it from the Forbes Annual list and fine - but while Dan Alexander May be a fine reporter, and he may be talking the right number, the standard is not him so it’s not appropriate to cite to him. It gets pulled from here http://www.forbes.com/billionaires Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Bingo. As it happens, that's exactly the source that lists him at $2.1B, as I already explained to you above. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Hah, bingo too. We’re doing parallel edits, as similarly I explained just now above. V seems served by having a cite in the Wealth section, the Lead doesn’t need to repeat the cite. But should include in RFC whether to delete the footnote ‘a’. It is extraneous in Lead and Wealth to the value shown, so a bit breaking the consensus to “In the lead section, just write:”, and it is now outdated. I’m not sure if the template needs it’s own notice, or you just edit that whenever. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

V seems served by having a cite in the Wealth section Agreed. It does have a cite, and the target source disagrees with the content by one billion dollars (32%), thereby violating V. I fail to see what the footnote has to do with this issue. Finally, I don't see why you keep referring to "RFC", since an RfC would be highly premature per WP:RFCBEFORE. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss well, the text of consensus #5 doesn’t currently match the lead. But mostly I was reading your “Correction. Covered by #Current consensus #5, so requires a new consensus.” as a RFC although it could be a new thread/subthread stating the new language for the consensus superseding #5. Since #5 is stated specific to 2019 and explicitly states the lead will be “just write: Forbes estimates” but the actual lead is slightly different “As of 2019, Forbes estimated” and a footnote. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The "Correction" was superseded by the "Correction to correction". I thought that was obvious enough, but I am striking the "Correction". As I said in the "Correction to correction", consensus #5 is to use the number from the annual Forbes Billionaires List, updating it as Forbes updates it. The 2019 $3.1B is only parenthetical and does not require a new consensus to update. Are we clear now? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have to update the article with this new information per WP:V. We could also remove the outdated information, but that would not be beneficial. The only objection on this discussion seems to be one random low-WEIGHT guys Opinion. Suggest eat more milkshakes. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the article,[25] consensus #5's parenthetical,[26] and the article's hidden comments related to this estimate, which were misleading.[27] It was never the intent to return to talk every year to ask whether it would be ok to use the new number from Forbes's annual list. Consensus #5 is merely about putting an end to the frequent article updates from Forbes's "real time" estimate. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 13 Trump press briefing

Modified heading per WP:TALKNEW bullet 5. Please keep headings neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's already considerable coverage of Trump's unhinged performance in today's coronavirus press briefing, in which he aired the kind of propaganda video not normally seen in democratic nations. Also mentioned in this source was how Trump had an obviously uncomfortable Anthony Fauci defend the president's actions. It feels like this should be added to the coronavirus pandemic section. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Kinda the opposite of happy "disregarding" of Fauci's dissent. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel we should review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, take a longer-term view, and cease reacting to today's headlines. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. User:Malerooster, this means you. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Scjessey, the only thing "unhinged" is your continued use of this talk page to spew your admitted bias. This is not a forum for that. --Malerooster (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Right there is where the train jumped off the track and derailed the discussion. Malerooster, comment on content, not editors. Sometimes it's best to just be silent. -- Valjean (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Malerooster, "unhinged" is a serious WP:PA. The term was used by an RS, CNN. Also, editwarring, even on a TP, of an article under DS is not a good idea. O3000 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC) O3000—you say "The term was used by an RS, CNN." The definition of "unhinged" should show you that CNN is not a reliable source for the unhingedness that CNN is applying to the subject of the article. You've got to understand that an otherwise "reliable" source is not a reliable source for everything that they articulate or imply. Sources have areas of competence and areas in which they simply are not reliable. We are expected to exercise good judgement. This would be one such area. Their exaggerations have no place in an encyclopedic context. CNN can froth at the mouth but we do not have to repeat all that frothiness. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC) If you don't think that CNN is a reliable source for reporting about Trump, you can take it to WP:RSN. Referring to yesterday's performance as unhinged is moderate, if not restrained. Did you not see it? He verbally attacked a reporter and claimed his authority is total! - MrX 🖋 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC) MrX, we know how influenced you are by your bias, but remember, a lot of Americans saw it very differently than you, just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly echo Mandruss. Ergo Sum 00:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Today's performance was embarrassing to the nation. But, I agree that we should always keep RECENTISM in mind. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Fair point. I was just shocked to see it on C-SPAN today. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump stopped shocking me years ago, right around grab 'em by the pussy. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC) It took that long? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Now, when you say "pussy", Mandruss, do you mean vagina? I'm just asking for purposes of clarification. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC) I was referring to Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape. It was a verbatim Trump quote, so any "meaning" was his, not mine. (Knowing the correct terms for these things, I would never say pussy when I mean vagina. I would say vagina when I mean vagina.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume this is just follow-up from the earlier threads. i agree nothing to add to the article about one day's show. There will be summary articles about the general public media presentation and more importantly the rollout of "opening the country". Pence seemed to suggest they have a legal opinion, maybe from A.G. Barr, that Trump has plenary authority to compel citizens to appear at the workplace on a given date. Remanis to be seen. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I will echo what I wrote on Scjessey's talk page (which was most unwelcome by them). That the initial comment was phrased in a way entirely unconducive to civil, productive discussion. Unabashedly POV and editorialized. Ergo Sum 00:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no qualms about seeming partisan when talking about Trump, but I never edit an article that way. Don't get confused, Ergo Sum. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fauci literally said Trump listened to his and Dr. Birx’s recommendation on mitigation efforts the first time he made the recommendation. Unless we were watching different press conferences, it sounds pretty obvious that we should tone down the “rejection” language. We can’t comment on Fauci’s apparent visible discomfort, as this would be original research and we don’t know if this was because of Trump or the media haranguing him with question after question, probably a combo of both. However, the playing of the video was jarring. It should be added as being propaganda-esque and wholly inappropriate to play during a White House briefing. Amorals (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please post comments in the section relating to the associated article content. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kinda the opposite of happy "disregarding" of Fauci's dissent. Specifico, just responding to words you said on this discussion page first, you may forgotten you said this my bad. Amorals (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that press briefing was especially unhinged[28], even for Trump. The problem is, we could add this and make note that he declared his (constitution-violating) total authority,[29] but that may end of paling into significance after his press conference today, or tomorrow, or the next day. It's impossible to know when you've hit the bottom, when the bottom keeps getting deeper every day. Perhaps it's time to create the article Trump Covid-19 press briefings? - MrX 🖋 15:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, we really don't need that POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not appropriate for this biography. Way, way too trivial and into-the-weeds. As for Fauci's current attempts to placate his difficult boss, I don't think we can take those as overruling the widespread evidence of Trump's early refusal to take the matter seriously. [30] [31] [32] [33] -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, Fauci’s statement was equally about placating his boss as it was clearing his own name with the press, who have over-analyzed and attempted to dissect his every word. Did you see the look he gave the reporter who asked him if he was making this statement voluntarily? It was a super dirty look, the look of someone fed up with the press trying to psycho-analyze or ascribe motivations to him that aren’t there. Regarding evidence that still exists regarding Trump ignoring health officials not named Fauci, I’m not advocating these be removed, but I think certainly a plurality of info and updated info from yesterday suggest that our wording should most certainly be softened a bit. Amorals (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal opinions are not really helpful - there's no way they can support article improvement, so it's best to leave them out -- "did you see the look..." SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. A better read would be that it was the look of someone who didn't want to be put in the awkward position of being forced to defend the narcissist whose inaction has cost thousands of American lives. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC) NOTE: This was supposed to be meant in jest, but it has been taken literally. That's on me, sorry. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Scjessey, you really need to stop spewing your hate speech, it is so ugly and beyond ignorant, even you your ilk. --Malerooster (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey—u r calling the subject of the article a "narcissist whose inaction has cost thousands of American lives". Would that not be a violation of WP:BLP not to mention an instance of soapboxing? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My bad. I had meant it to be a funny comment (deliberately the exact opposite of Amorals's comment to show how ridiculous it was), but it came across as serious. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s not an opinion, that’s just an observation. And I didn’t suggest that as hard evidence for inclusion in the article. I am merely talking in a common sense tone here on the talk page. Since other editors on here clearly have no issue allowing their partisanship to spill over on the talk page occasionally, “defend the narcissist” me deviating with a personal observation should not be an issue. Amorals (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fauci bristled at the suggestion by the reporter that he might not be speaking his own mind freely and independently. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE pay attention to your indentation formatting. SPECIFICO talk

Bus stop, unless you have several sources that verify "bristled...", it does not contribute to our editorial process. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico—I am quoting Fauci and the reporter. Here is the transcript. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You should undo your ex post revision of your statement above, the one to which I had already replied, per WP:TPG. You can explain any changes in a subsequent post. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico—I've undone my "ex post revision". Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico—wouldn't "bristled" be an appropriate term to describe "Please. Don’t even imply that". He was taken aback by the implication that perhaps he was not speaking his mind freely. The reporter asked "Are you doing this voluntarily, or did the president...?" Fauci responded "No, I’m doing it…. Everything I do is voluntarily. Please. Don’t even imply that." Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I asked for multiple published RS that use the word to verify your text above. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico—here is the transcript, but I am not suggesting that the article must contain the word "bristled". Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Bus stop "Bristled" is appropriate and in use at RS. The media arguing is nothing much, but simple Google shows "bristled".

"Bristled" NY Times Dr. Fauci bristled when a reporter asked if he was making the clarifying statement voluntarily, implying that he was put up to it under pressure

"Bristled" The Atlantic He bristled when a reporter asked if someone had compelled him to clarify his position. “Please. Don't even imply that,” he said, shooting a brief a brief and uncharacteristic glare at the reporter.

"Bristled" AP News He bristled when asked if he was trying to clarify his comments voluntarily.

"Bristled" ABC He bristled when asked if he was trying to clarify his comments voluntarily.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Not involved but none of this should be in his biography, there are prenty of other pages where this is much more relevent

. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, ”I asked for multiple RS that use the word” is a ridiculous statement. We’re talking about a single word. Wikipedia is not a vessel where every word must be exactly the same as RS. There is a level of interpretation that’s why it’s run by human editors. If there was no interpretation and every word like “bristled” must be specifically included in RS than we might as well be run by bots who just regurgitate everything it reads from RS like an assembly line. Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The press briefing was incredibly embarrassing -- and scary. Today's wasn't any better with him cutting off funds to WHO and blaming them. But, we can't document every embarrassing moment of his presidency. It's just too much. Let the dust settle. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

One interesting development, from the standpoint of WP editors, is that the reliable source news organizations did a lot of near-realtime fact checking of what turned out to be another false narrative -- this one about the World Health Organization and his administration's failure to act on warnings about the spread of the disease. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

O3000—can you reduce the soapboxing? Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Realize when someone is on your side. That was in no way soapboxing. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not a significant event. One-day notice, low WEIGHT. Today media (at least CBS) was already moving on to cover a different reporter and her arguing with President Trump. Welcome to Jerry Springer reporters - never mind asking about information or news, let's exaggerate up controversy and if there isn't a controversy, just give us a minute to grandstand or manufacture a squabble. Websites mostly just moved to things other than that new spat -- BBC focused on the WHO funding hold for investigations about their handling of China. The April 13 briefing ... not significant WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but are you kidding? I searched “News Trump” and there are literally over a hundred reliable sources talking about this. With near unanimous consensus. Both domestically and internationally. And this has also been over the course of days, not just a “story du jour”, as you put it. If you want to claim that “fake news” is being manufactured, bring a narrative not so easily proved wrong. I seriously doubt your ability to edit neutrally in this subject area after this. Though this is the proverbial straw, it’s a hell of a claim that this narrative is essentially “made up”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)