Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 9 April 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Business career of Donald Trump Donald Trump on social media Trump–Ukraine scandal Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

	Readership
This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020.

Donald Trump is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,332 9,332 Early life and education 3,028 3,028 Personal life 19 5,027 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,685 3,685 Business career 149 35,770 Real estate 4,555 15,954 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,168 6,168 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,323 7,323 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,640 3,640 Media career 3,452 5,115 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,663 1,663 Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690 2016 presidential election 18,469 18,469 First presidency (2017–2021) 632 176,772 Early actions 2,743 2,743 Conflicts of interest 3,367 3,367 Domestic policy 20,661 20,661 Race relations 6,411 6,411 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,086 20,394 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,692 6,692 Foreign policy 2,859 35,965 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,221 4,221 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,456 Initial response 7,681 7,681 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,253 5,253 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,084 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,830 12,830 First impeachment 10,208 10,208 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 23,711 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 8,003 8,003 First post-presidency (2021–2025) 5,018 35,763 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 547 28,363 FBI investigations 5,703 5,703 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 2,969 2,969 Federal criminal indictments 5,378 5,378 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,618 6,618 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 14,636 14,636 Political practice and rhetoric 8,359 47,254 Racial and gender views 9,377 9,377 Link to hate crimes 3,793 3,793 Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 6,114 6,114 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,426 2,426 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,664 Books 3,256 3,256 Journals 8,390 8,390 External links 5,431 5,431 Total 403,797 403,797

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: North Korea in the lead

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

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

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to revisit North Korea

The fourth paragraph of the lede discusses Trump's foreign policy. Undoubtedly, one of his most significant (maybe the most significant) foreign policy actions was opening up relations with North Korea/meeting with Kim Jong Un. The paragraph mentions the killing of Soleimani and recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. In my estimation, meeting with Kim and the apparent détente is more significant than both of those, since it was an overt act to deviate from 70 years of US foreign policy on Korea. I think it certainly deserves a mention in the lede. Ergo Sum 17:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I sort of agree, while noting that the impact of Trump's actions with respect to DPRK were modest at best. How about we remove Jerusalem and Soleimani, and replace it with a brief mention of North Korea and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic? - MrX 🖋 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on WEIGHT of coverage and amount in article, I agree a few words would be appropriate. It seems bigger than Solemani and similar to the Obama normalisation with Cuba. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we can all agree Trump achieved very little with North Korea, except to raise that country's profile and make it seem "equal" with the United States. If we include it in the lead, we should also include how it was a total failure by any metric. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

All countries are equal in the family of nations. TFD (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Hence the quotes around "equal" (see this article for my meaning. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've added two sentences about North Korea to the lede, phrased in as concise a way as possible, since the lede is already long. I also removed mention of the killing of Soleimani. I will update the settled consensus regarding North Korea at the top of this page accordingly. Ergo Sum 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to this addition, based on hardly any discussion and certainly no consensus. It is almost a carbon copy of what was removed previously. It gives woeful, one-sided coverage to a spectacular foreign policy failure. I further object to the false claim of consensus made in these edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's preposterous. Good faith requires you don't ram nonsense through on a one day drive-by "discussion" here. Please self revert the addition to the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've already reversed these edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

How a propos - that is the kind of revert that should be exempt from your daily dose. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the text inserted by Ergo Sum. While some mention of North Korea probably needs to go in the lead, that particular formulation was just bad, since it omitted the key outcome: Trump's efforts to get North Korea to denuclearize were unsuccessful. Neutrality 22:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Include both. The lede is not too long. Many readers only peruse the lede. Include mention of both Qasem Soleimani and Kim Jong-un. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable, please. Drive by? Hardly. 28 hours is not a "drive by" for a talk page of a high-profile article that is watched by 3,000 people and generated discussion; we had three editors supporting and one opposing. I see no alternative proposals to the one I inserted, so please consider this a call for proposed language. I would remind those interested that proposals should neither attempt to glorify or cast in the worst light the subject. I especially emphasize the latter because there are editors (who I need not name) who have a manifest agenda. Ergo Sum 22:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

For convenience, I include my proposal here: Following escalating tensions, he met with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, in a historic summit in Singapore to discuss denuclearization. The next year, he became the first U.S. president to set foot in North Korea. Ergo Sum 22:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the math 4/3000 editors commented. What distribution would the opinions of the 3000 require in order to make that a 95% estimator of the population? Cogita. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO The correct Latin is cogito. Ergo Sum 22:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, actually I meant "cogita" -- look it up. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would probably be OK with something like the following:

"He became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader, meeting Kim Jong-un three times as part of a failed attempt to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

I dislike the language "to discuss denuclearization" because it glosses over the fact that the negotiations failed; as the sources reflect, it has been almost a year since the last U.S.-North Korea nuclear talk and Kim has resumed weapons testing following a self-imposed moratorium. --Neutrality 23:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right that we should include some mention of the present status of discussions. I don't know if "failed" is the right word since I think it's premature. That seems like a judgment for historians of the future to make. It's probably accurate to describe them as "stalled". What do you think? Ergo Sum 23:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe wording along the lines of "talks broke down"? Neutrality 00:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd support that. Seems accurate and neutral. Ergo Sum 00:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think "inconclusive" is the correct term. Thus far North Korea has not given up its nuclear weapons. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose "inconclusive" because that is not the term that reliable sources generally use to discuss the talks breaking down. Neutrality 14:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would this go in the lead as if it were a policy initiative. RS describe it as an ignorant stunt -- perhaps dangerous or perhaps not -- after the intelligence professionals and Obama personally had warned Trump that Kim was his gravest policy challenge. If it's to go in his bio article, it should reflect the personal aspect of Trump's having dealt with it in this way, not as if he were pursuing a policy and following up on it in a way that had any prospect of success. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead should summarize body, but body does not say anything to the effect of He became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. Otherwise no opinion, except to support removal of a roughly equal amount of less important content if Korea is added. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• I will only support if (1) "inconclusive" OR "talks broke down" is mentioned, AND (2) we remove Jerusalem. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

These quotes are from this excellent article in The Atlantic, that provides a comprehensive overview of all of the US/DPRK relations under the Trump regime. It paints a picture of initial success, missed opportunities, and ultimately failure:

North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons that can threaten the whole world, including the United States and its allies—has not dissipated one bit despite all the diplomacy, and has in fact become more grave.

The story of how Trump’s North Korea policy collapsed is in part one of Pyongyang’s intransigence, obfuscation, and bad faith in talks about its nuclear program, as well as one in which U.S. and North Korean officials misread one another and at times placed too much stock in the rosy messages of the South Korean government, a key intermediary. But it’s also a tale about the American president undercutting his own success. Trump prioritized the North Korean threat, amassed unmatched leverage against Pyongyang, and boldly shook up America’s approach to its decades-old adversary. Yet he squandered many of these gains during his first summit with Kim, in Singapore, and set several precedents there that have hobbled nuclear talks ever since. He shifted the paradigm with North Korea in style but not in substance.

Over the past two years, he has gone from threatening war to boasting that he averted it, from preparing for conflict to canceling military exercises, from being laser-focused on North Korea’s nuclear development to ignoring it, from pressing the North Koreans to enter negotiations by all means to clinging to collapsing talks under North Korean pressure, from denouncing North Korea’s dictator to praising him. Where he once recruited an extensive international coalition to apply maximum pressure on North Korea, he has now reduced his maximum-engagement bid to just two people: himself and Kim.

Any language we consider putting into the article must reflect the harsh reality of Trump's failure in North Korea. His meetings with Kim have achieved nothing, except to elevate the status of Kim on the world stage to an equal footing with the US president. In fact, Kim has played Trump like a cheap fiddle. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are saying that "ny language we consider putting into the article must reflect the harsh reality". Actually, it need not. We're not talking about the article in general; we're taking about the lede. It is sufficient for the lede that we remind the reader that Trump had involvements in relations with North Korea, the killing of Soleimani, and the moving of the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. We only have to touch on these things in the lede. A glancing mention of proper nouns relating to issues with which Trump has had involvement and a little bit of surrounding language is sufficient in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If you exclude the "failure" part, you are effectively excluding the only substantive part of the whole debacle. In that case, it fails to pass WP:WEIGHT, which is why the language was removed in the first place. Please understand there is a long standing consensus that North Korea be excluded from the lead, so we need a compelling reason to overturn that consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

BS. that's incorrect. And remember this article is Trump's personal biography. The relevance of North Korea to Trump's personal story is as Scjessey has said, and confirmed by the Atlantic source, that Trump dove into the most complex and dangerous issue with disregard for the factors that would determine the outcome, treating it instead as an opportunity for airtime on TV news. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't much care about the multitudinous personal opinions of the successes or failures of the North Korea overture, nor do our readers. They care about what reliable sources, and preferably expert sources, have to say. The Atlantic is a good source, but like most large, contemporary English-language news outlets, it has a perceptible slant. An even better source would be an academic or professional foreign policy source, like Foreign Affairs (quick example) or The Economist (example). Ergo Sum 15:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It is evident what you do not care about. Frankly, you got off to a bad start cramming a false narrative contrary to RS WEIGHT, into the lead. You were called out. Now the ONUS is on you. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I reject that narrative as inaccurate. Onus for what exactly? I do not know, but I'm going to continue working here to hash out a consensus, notwithstanding unhelpful adjuncts. Ergo Sum 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised to see I need to quote you the link to WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: The suggestion that The Atlantic has a "perceptible slant" is laughable and has no basis in fact whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Bases in fact: 1 2 3. This does not mean The Atlantic is unreliable, it means that it's slant should be thoughtfully taken into account. Moreover, please understand that I will refrain from responding to your future pings, as I have already laid out my position below, and your comments strike me as far more polemical than designed to build an encyclopedia. Ergo Sum 21:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

None of those citations you provided are reliable sources, and they are all subjective anyway. "A" for effort though. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey Yes and no. Factually, there is “32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)”. But there is no limitation on reconsidering Consensus. That was from late 2018, when the first events were recentism and only about the first event. Since then the article added mention of a second summit, visit to DMZ, Stockholm talks, travel ban and sanctions, and... 18 months have passed. So someone asking again is OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: North Korea in the lead

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

1. Should the lede paragraph about foreign policy mention the president's dealings with North Korea?
2. Which aspects should it mention, e.g. meeting Kim in Singapore or setting foot in North Korea?
3. How should we describe the current state of affairs? Suggestions have included: "failure", "stalled", "on-hold", or "broken down"
4. Should this be added in place of or in addition to the killing of Soleimani, recognizing Jerusalem, or both?

I think this fairly articulates the debate. Ergo Sum 16:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Process note: This seeks to replace/amend #Current consensus #32. See that item for links to its supporting discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - Think #32 simply missed recording updates after October 2018, or is n/a re denuclearization. There were later NK events and discussions, and long-standing lead from 28 Oct 2018 per 92 included "triggering a trade war with China, and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comments above, if the lead does mention Trump's dealings with North Korea, I think it should (i) say that Trump met Kim three times (I would not mention the specific summits or setting foot in North Korea); (ii) that Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to hold a summit with a North Korean supreme leader; and (iii) that talks on denculearization/restricting North Korea's nuclear arsenal were a "failure" or "unsuccessful" or "broke down." (I would oppose "on-hold" or "stalled" because it implies that talks will be resumed, which is by no means guaranteed). Neutrality 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  We do not imply anything when we say that the talks were inconclusive with no agreement reached on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  "Inconclusive" language is not really the predominant language used by the reliable sources. Neutrality 18:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  But it is plain English. There was a conclusion that was aimed for—the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It has not come to fruition. Therefore it is inconclusive. We are paraphrasing all the time. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  No it is not. "inconclusive" does not mean "not completed". Was U.S. President John F. Kennedy's term inconclusive? SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose NK in lead, Unless all the following 3 points are included: 1) The meetings were scripted for theatrics, but Trump failed to achieve any gains for the US, 2) NK advanced and expanded its weapons program throughout Trump's presidency, and 3) Trump took no other actions to repair the damage from the failed meetings. Indifferent about the other points. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include North Korea in lead. Just a few words part of sentence listing foreign policy actions. (Similar to level of lead note Obama gets for Cuba.). Current state say just facts of simply “sought” or “attempted” so far, e.g. “sought improved relations” or “attempted denuclearisation”. Add to current lead, as edits for Solemani etc. are a different topic. (Although reflecting that current judgement WEIGHT vs. amount DUE has Solemani get 9 words and troop movement gets 15 words seems excessive but does support that the bigger NK story should be here.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose NK in the lead - nothing substantive has changed since the last consensus just over a year ago, so I see no reason to overturn that solid consensus now; however, if we are even going to consider expanding the article needlessly to include Trump's ineffective photo ops with Kim, we must also include the fact that Trump's contacts with North Korea have been a foreign policy failure and an embarrassment to the United States, while elevating Kim's status on the world stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Including North Korea in the lead. Even if Trump was the first U.S. president to meet Kim Jung Yong it shouldn't be included in his biography article because it is recent in this article. There is an article called presidency of Trump, it could be mentioned there. News don't mention Kim Jong-un visit when they talk about Trump's biography and there are no reliable sources that prove that this is significant enough to be in the lead of this biographical article. Regarding the fourth question, I don't have an opinion but I lean towards not including the killing of Soleimani or the recognition.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose including North Korea in the lead. The case has not been made that it is significant in a biographical context. As failures go, it roughly ranks with Trump University and the Trump Foundation in terms of weight. - MrX 🖋 00:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Except that Trump University didn't risk blowing you Americans to Kingdom Come? The NK charade has been called a monumental dereliction of duty. Might be bio-significant for that. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• As stated above, I will only support if (1) "inconclusive" OR "talks broke down" is mentioned, AND (2) we remove Jerusalem. Just mention Trump and Kim met thrice, do not mention Singapore or stepping foot. starship.paint (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support mentioning the fact that Trump met Kim three times.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support so long as clear that the talks did not result in nuclear disarmament by NK. Wording would be similar to Neutrality's suggestion.--MONGO (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per WP:LEAD, oppose any lead content that does not summarize body content. Attend to body first, then lead. To combat further lead creep, oppose any addition to lead without removal of a roughly equal amount of less important content. (Commend the OP's attempt to define the questions and set parameters, but Misplaced Pages editors are cats that refuse to be herded. Pity the editor who undertakes to divine a coherent consensus from this RfC.) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Strike per Jack Upland's comment following.) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note: As far as I can make out, North Korea was added to the lead in October 2018 and was removed on 1 March 2020 (this month). Therefore, I don't think the issue is adding North Korea to the lead; it is keeping North Korea in the lead. The consensus relates to Trump meeting Kim, not including North Korea in the lead. We have discussed this several times. The assessment that the negotiations were a "failure" or "inconclusive" is not a reason to exclude them. Critics have damned Trump for his approach to North Korea, and supporters have praised him. He has suggested that he deserves a Nobel Prize. This is clearly significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  You say The assessment that the negotiations were a "failure" or "inconclusive" is not a reason to exclude them. I agree. And I have suggested that "inconclusive" would be the best term to describe Trump's overtures to North Korea. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  You're right, at the beginning of the month the lead included ...and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization. I expect we're talking about significantly more than nine words here, but I won't quibble about that difference and I'll strike the applicable part of my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Jack Upland Thanks for highlighting it was long-standing content. For reference, I added above a note above near the #32 remark noting this was discussed in archive 92. Other discussions are findable in archives. For reference, this remained in lead until 1 March edit summary "NK was a dud. Certificates of participation are not lead worthy.". As long-standing consensus it could have been simply reinstated, but ... well, now it's in RFC so see what comes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion It’s a key aspect of his Presidency. On the other proposals, I lean towards the word stall as it is more neutral and don’t think those other two points should be removed. ~ HAL333 04:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion Foreign visits to countries are one of the most important parts of being a head of state, and usually the part that a US president has sole domain in. As such, they should get inclusion in the lead based on that alone, especially as this visit was a high profile event. Swordman97 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion: a sitting president stepping foot for the first time in a country long considered a dangerous rival is objectively significant. Can mention the denuclearization did not come to fruition, but with neutral wording like “talks stalled.” Failed or unsuccessful is too speculativeBsubprime7 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
• Support inclusion.

(1) I think Trump's meeting with KJU marked a significant turning point in US-DPRK policy: the choice of engagement. Whether or not it has been successful should not be included. In my opinion, it is irrelevant that it was unsuccessful (if it really was unsuccessful - talks may yet resume, and this will only be possible because of the engagement that is now in place) as long as the Singapore Summit was significant, and too little time has since elapsed in the broader picture of US-DPRK relations to say that it was insignificant.

(2) The decision to engage may still be relevant, even if the specific objectives of the Singapore Summit have not been achieved. I think the stepping into DPRK is less significant; it was a symbolic gesture, for sure, but it was a later marker of the same choice to engage. It is not much more important in my opinion than the Vietnam Summit. I would support choosing one or the other, but not both. My preference is for the Summit, which was not merely symbolic.

(3) "Talks have broken down" is a fair characterisation in my opinion. "Failure" places too much of a judgment on the Summit. In foreign policy, the objectives of a course of action are not always or exclusively its stated objectives, and this is probably especially true for the US-DPRK relationship.

(4) My preference would be for this line to replace the killing of Soleimani in the lead, which was more short-term and largely insignificant in altering the long-term dynamics of the Middle East. The recognition of Jerusalem may yet have a long-term effect. In order of preference: (1) Singapore Summit + recognition of Jerusalem, (2) all three. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It is too soon to call the Trump overtures a failure, as suggested by others. I endorse certain sentiments expressed by Kohlrabi Pickle such as Whether or not it has been successful should not be included and that "talks have broken down" is a fair characterization. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current state of affairs: three photo ops for two egomaniacs and a negotiation that broke down or "resulted in good discussions to be continued" (they weren't ), depending on whose side you want to believe. Everything else the lead mentions on foreign policy had tangible results (In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. During increased tensions with Iran, he ordered the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. He imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.) I don't think the killing of Soleimani belongs in the lead, either, because it's pretty much forgotten by now but photo ops do not belong in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include – Did not come to fruition yet, but was a major departure from the stance of previous administrations, hence DUE. I have no issue with the current wording, but I'm open to discussing changes. — JFG 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Kohlrabi Pickle. Mgasparin (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. In response to your four questions:

  1. Yes. It is clearly significant enough to his overall presidency even if it is a brief mention. It is clearly WP:DUE.

  2. It should probably mention when Trump met him North Korea as he is the first president set foot in North Korea.

  3. Either "stalled"/"on-hold"/"inconclusive". It is too soon to say "failure", etc.

  4. It should probably replace the killing of Soleimani as that was not that significant to his overall handling of the Middle East unlike when he withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  21:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Rough consensus?

I think the following reflects a rough consensus:

Trump met with Kim Jong-un three times, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean supreme leader; denuclearization talks broke down in 2019 without an agreement.

Thoughts? I don't think there's any consensus on whether to remove or keep the Soleimani item, so maybe that could be resolved in a separate standalone RfC. --Neutrality 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest something shorter, in line with the part that was deleted a few weeks ago:

Trump initiated talks with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un towards denuclearization, but negotiations have remained so far inconclusive.

Despite the contemporary coverage, I don't think it's worth mentioning specifically that Trump was the first president to set foot in NK, or how many times he met Kim. Comments welcome. I think we can do without Soleimani, btw; less weight. — JFG 02:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose that. First, it's inaccurate, because Kim "initiated" the meetings, not Trump. (Pompeo in 2018: "Chairman Kim asked for this meeting, President Trump agreed to undertake it"). Second, "so far inconclusive" suggests that there will be a definitive "conclusion," but that isn't how international negotiations work; it is perfectly possible that negotiations will not resume. If a shorter line is desired, I would be fine with:

Trump met three times with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019.

--Neutrality 02:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see a consensus for inclusion above. It's roughly 50-50, and don't forget we're talking about overturning an existing consensus for exclusion. This seems premature at best. Including anything about Trump's meetings with Kim without acknowledging the spectacular failure of the talks and the elevating of Kim's profile on the world stage (what Kim was trying to achieve by playing Trump) would be ridiculous. Either the whole hot mess goes in, or none at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I don't think "we're talking about overturning an existing consensus for exclusion". As discussed above, the mention of North Korea in the lead was longstanding content until it was recently removed without consensus. As discussed before, I don't think we should refer to the "first" because this makes the lead look like a baseball card. It's also not that simple. Carter met Kim Il Sung, and Clinton met Kim Jong Il, but after their terms in office. Madeleine Albright, however, met Kim Jong Il when she was Secretary of State. We shouldn't make out that Trump's actions are more unprecedented than they are. I don't really understand Neutrality's comment that "it is perfectly possible that negotiations will not resume" etc. Yes, it is, but it is also perfectly possible that they will resume. I don't see what was wrong with the original wording, "and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization". I think words like "inconclusive" and "broke down" should only be used in retrospect. What we have seen is a series of events. Talks in Hanoi broke down. Talks in Sweden broke down. Have negotiations overall "broken down"? Not as far as we know. It's simply too early. The phrase "broke down" is too definitive. And "inconclusive" is unnecessary verbiage. It's like saying "as at April 2020, Trump was still alive". No, we report the amazing breakthrough when it happens. We don't report that the amazing breakthrough hasn't happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Broke down" is the language used by the reliable sources. For example: WSJ: "denuclearization talks with North Korea have broken down"; Fox News: "broke down when the U.S. side rejected North Korean demands for broad sanctions relief"; NYT: "U.S. Nuclear Talks With North Korea Break Down in Hours"; AP: "diplomacy broke down at a Trump-Kim summit last February." "Broke down" doesn't mean irrevocably broken down, so it is accurate language irrespective of what ultimately happens. I would oppose (and I think the consensus is against) any language (such as "so far" or "inconclusive" or both) that would give the reader the inaccurate impression that talks are ongoing. Neutrality 22:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's overstating things to refer to "negotiation". There were photo ops, mutual blustering, and lunches. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: How about "talks"? I made the change above. Neutrality 23:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I thinks talks would be an accurate description of the events; I'd support it. If people want to read further about what actually happened at those talks, the more specific articles should cover that. I think you also have to mention the denuclearization bit as the purpose of the talks; otherwise, the significance of the talks are unclear to the read. Ergo Sum 23:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we talk to this, we have to say that Trump said we have nothing to worry about any more, and that NK said they will not denuclearize. This is the problem with editors that want to add things out of context. NPOV basically means we report all or nothing. That is the choice. O3000 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, how about "meetings" -- at least we know there were meetings. I'm uneasy about a short reference to this, for the reasons we've all discussed. It's just not clear what happened and whether it's significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in others' mouths, so correct me if this is wrong. But, it seems that most here are open to the inclusion of: 1) the talks/meetings (meetings works just as well for me), 2) purpose (denuclearization or something along those lines), and 3) outcome (language TBD). Is that fair? It seems that we're getting pretty close to solid language on (1). Ergo Sum 00:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have sourcing to support that the purpose was arms reduction. The dominant RS reporting is that for Trump it was a charade and for Kim it was to distract from the acceleration of his arms program. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we think it was true or not, I think most RS reported that both Trump and Kim said the talks, especially the later ones, were had to discuss nuclear weapons/denuclearization. Ergo Sum 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Erm, is this how this is supposed to work? Are we voting on what we individually perceive that most RS says? I realize that nobody can link to "most RS", but we could link to considerably more than none. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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:--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

1. Used to Meeting Challenges With Bluster and Force, Trump Confronts a Crisis Unlike Any Before. March 21, 2020 NYT

Russian interference & Investigations

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

1a)

1b)

Deletion:

2a) None

2b)

Long-standing version:

3a Investigations)

3b Russian interference)

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)

4b)

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)

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 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 02:38, 8 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)

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. -- 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

1. Samuels, Brett (2019-11-16). "Trump undergoes 'portions' of annual physical exam". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-04-01.
2. LeBlanc, Paul (November 18, 2019). "Trump's doctor releases memo on President's health after surprise weekend hospital visit". CNN. Retrieved 2020-04-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
3. Leonardi, Anthony (2020-03-03). "Trump says he will 'probably' finish his annual physical in 'next 90 days'". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2020-04-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

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

Historically unpopular

Should it be pointed out in the lead that Trump is a historically unpopular president? See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Mention of coronavirus in lead, take 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be in the lead, but "was present" is so meaningless it might as well be left out. How about something like "The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, and its spread in the United States became the major focus of his attention during that year." Feel free to tweak this, but something along these lines seems called for. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

  LOL — JFG 02:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 01:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages process, imperfect though it may sometimes appear. Argumentum ad populum relates to numbers alone -- the madness of crowds -- but Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment