Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 113

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

Just remove excess citations

If the problem is cite template size, just remove redundant citations beyond what verifies article text. We could separately compile them, because they contain useful additional information and depth and could be published in some other form or their own further reading page. Removing article content on something like the Comey firing, which precipitated the Mueller investigation and all its ramifications is nuts. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If cites are a big problem, strip them out of the article, and create a different page for cites.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a bad idea, why?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that new ideas are necessarily bad, but maybe the idea is never proposed because it violates verifiability and the very reason for having citations. Readers must be able to immediately access the exact cite connected to the exact words, phrases, or sentences. All works with citations, such as scientific literature, does it that way. It is an absolute requirement. That cannot be done if they are located elsewhere, unless there is some new technical solution to make that possible, and I'm not excluding that possibility. Now that would be a new way of thinking that would be cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can't do that if the source is a book.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

? We're talking about articles here, not books. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, we are talking about sources. A source like a book or an article behind a paywall is not necessarily something a reader can "immediately access". See WP:SOURCEACCESS.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In theory, Wikipedia could have a central repository of citations to be referenced inline by articles. The inline referencing part would likely still involve templates, but those templates would be far shorter so post-expand include size would no longer be an issue. While in college, Trump obtained four student draft deferments.<ref>{{excite|1489904}}</ref> In addition, accuracy and professionalism would increase dramatically: Since each citation would only have to be coded once, regardless of how many times it's used site-wide, it would be more worth the time required to make it complete, correct, and clean. But this would be a huge change involving a massive amount of work and a lot of editor re-training – and long-term thinking isn't really a thing at Wikipedia – so it would be a hard sell. If anybody cared to pursue such a thing, the venue would be WP:VPI. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That possibility does sound intriguing. It's worth pursuing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Then feel free to pursue it. Even if such a facility were accepted, Trump would likely be out of office (and/or dead) by the time it was ready for use, so it wouldn't offer much solution to the more immediate issues at this article. I was thinking big picture, out of venue. I can't think of any way to externalize inline citations that we could do locally – and citations do need to be inline. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR violations?

PackMecEng: You "seem to be" accusing me of violating 1RR on the Donald Trump page. How am I supposed to respond to a vague accusation like that? Please specify the "partial reverts" that you think are in violation of the policy or delete your message from my Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Fine here and here are both partial reverts. The first being a violation of BRD as well. I had no plans of pursuing it but since you asked. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The second one is a revert, and I explained my reason for it. The first one I don't consider to be a revert, partial or otherwise (haven't found any mention of "partial revert" in WP Help just saw it in 24-hr BRD cycle). I was editing based on the sources you had provided, and I explained what I was doing and why. I may be wrong, so maybe the admins keeping an eye out for restriction violations would like to weigh in on this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You removed material here, I reverted and added sources here, and you removed most of it again here. Again it was a reminder to watch out on a very active DS topic, so no idea why you brought your 1RR and BRD violations to the talk page here. Finally explaining why you make multiple reverts on a 1RR page is not an exemption. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of a complete picture, this is the entire sequence of edits to the paragraph: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. BTW, I just noticed that the sentence I initially removed and you reinserted was copied word-for-word from one of the two additional sources you added. That's the CNN source I removed as part of what I consider to be normal editing (9) (in my edit summary I wrote that I was removing "two others that missed the three separate ones in 1992" but I actually removed only the one). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

None of that really matters for 1RR. I was just leaving a nice little note that you need to be more careful. So yeah, do that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

My bad, didn't get the nice part of You seem to be making a lot of partial reverts on a 1RR article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, this type of discussion might be better had on a user talk page. The purpose of this page is to discuss article improvements and content, not editor behaviour. Mgasparin (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The only problem is too many reference cites

Let's please solve the problem we face and not a different problem that does not exist. The problem is nearly 900 references cited, half of which are not needed to verify the article content. The "excess" references can be put in a separate supplemental reading page, they could be apportioned to the narrower subject-specific articles, or they could be discarded. There's no need to port text just to get rid of the excess citation templates that will then -- wait for it -- needlessly burden the subsidiary articles. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree, and we should just all start doing it. It doesn't require any discussion. I just removed six excess references from the "early life" section; it didn't take long and it removed 1200 characters. Maybe if we all did this, a paragraph at a time, through the whole article, it might calm this frantic campaign to split the article into forty or fifty subarticles. That's no way to treat a biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. In fact I dare everybody to take this on. And report progress in this section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Family section. Another five duplicative references, another 1100 bytes. We really don't need two or three references to document every fact in his life. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

For noncontroversial facts we don't. For controversial or BLP-sensitive matters, we need several. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That's true. You can't just blindly remove a reference, you have to actually look at the references to see if each contains unique information. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is one of the worst ideas ever. References are the basis of all our content, and only the one who added the reference really knows which word(s), phrases, sentences, or paragraphs require that ref, so when someone else comes along and removes two out of three references, the result can easily be a loss of the necessary references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Might suffice if he loses in November, otherwise completely unsustainable. We cannot maintain the current number of citations for five more years of adding things to this article that are really important for readers to know without clicking a "Main article" hatnote link, such as the eight world leaders who Trump cited as good leaders (what bio would be complete without that??). Perhaps we should defer these discussions until 4 November, and otherwise limp along by removing a few cites each time we exceed the limit. I could live with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think is a good idea to put things off to November.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, reduced Art of the Deal same cite on each of three lines to just once at end. Only saved 58 bytes though. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: Apparently some still are confused about what the technical limit is about. It is not about file size, which is what you reduced by 58 bytes. Your edit removed no citation templates, so it had no effect on post-expand include size, which is what the technical limit is about. A <ref name=.../> tag is not a citation template, as you can see by the absence of {{cite web/news...}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, reduced Acting repeated use of cites and three cites as about his pension down to one -- and also fixed the misquote of dollar figure and years. 673 bytes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• And reduced Talk Show cites - two lines had three cites each, but the lines were more than covered by two. 692 bytes Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Good work, Mark, keep it up. As I understand it, the problem everybody is worried about is not actually the total size of the article; it is the number of templates, which in this article is primarily the {{cite news}} or similar template used to cite references. So when you remove excess references, you are accomplishing more than just the number of bytes; you are removing templates. I knocked out a few more yesterday and will continue to work on it. Something I recommend: I'm making a note of exactly when I end a series of removals, so that I can wait 24 hours before starting on another bunch. I don't want to accidentally violate 1RR. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

[User:MelanieN]] - sure thing or reducing excess cite, a good cleanup step. Though I still think if we could do some eliminating in the non-BLP political lines (and hence their cites) it would also be better. Something like moving the whole Conflicts of Interest section over to the Presidency article withOUT trying to have a summary here, and a more stringent look at the lesser points in the Politics pages - especially for any that are already at the subtopic article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC),

• Reduced cites diff remove two cites not needed and not that relevant to the line. 453 bytes. The first cite names the other countries; the cite specific to one a crown prince and the cite specific to UAE donations are going down to specific items within the report, not speaking much to 'there are several countries'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reduced cites in Special Counsel Investigation diff. 1,052 bytes. Notice this one removed text so may be contentious.. The first quote was from the Mueller Report Vol I as cited by named ref; but then remove the line ending as the second quote "welcomed and encouraged" foreign interference. Seems not actually in the report or the other cites. And remove three cites as not needed or that related - Alba is re 2020 election, From seems an opinion piece, and the NBC piece seems a bit related but not much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" comes from Page 5 of the Mueller Report (bold is mine):

The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”) showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, ...REDACTED... forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks’s first release came in July 2016. Around the same time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State.

"Welcomed" is in the report specifically. "Encouraged" is a word Mueller agreed to in his testimony to the House committee when referring to Trump's call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. So a partial restoration of what you removed may be appropriate, although I see no need to had the cites back since this comes directly from the report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw welcomed but article presenting an enquoted "welcomed and encouraged" as if a quote of the Mueller report seems false presentation. It doesn't even seem a valid paraphrase of the actual line. I see the text was reinstated anyway. Since this isn't about citing, I will break into a new thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Linking NYC

I recently linked the first instance of New York City in the lede. Spy-cicle reverted this, citing WP:OVERLINK. I hardly think it is overlinking to link the first time a term is used. Indeed, it is required to link the first uses of link-worthy terms. Ergo Sum 21:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Under WP:OVERLINK (for what generally should not be linked) it states: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia). Most readers are familiar with well-known locations like New York City so it is redundant to link it. But even if a reader was not aware he/she could click on the Queens wikilink a few words prior.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What Spy-cicle said. Observe OVERLINK or explain why this case should be an exception to it. Separately, any editor can seek to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding U.S. to place of birth

I think we should add U.S. to his place of birth. Since there're some rules regarding presidents being natural born citizen, adding U.S. behind Queens, New York City will completely clarify to the reader that he was born in the United States. Additionally, every other president appears to have U.S. behind there name which would keep with the consistency of US president infoboxes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• #Current consensus #2 specifically says "No state or country", so editors have already considered and rejected U.S. in this case.
• New York City is so universally known that Wikipedia generally doesn't (or shouldn't) even link it, per MOS:OVERLINK – and linking it would consume no additional space. (The link currently in the infobox is an anomaly; see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 107#Amend consensus #2 for background.)
• Please link to the guideline that suggests that presidents' BLPs should be consistent on things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate approval

The approval ratings section is outdated. It states that Trump's approval is the lowest in modern history. It should be noted that recently his approval ratings have matched that of Obama and other recent presidents Alec935 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. Trump's lowest = 35; Obama's lowest = 40. Trump's highest = 49 (there might have been one 50 recently). Obama's highest = 67. Trump's average = 40. Obama's average = 47.9. Per [chart]. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

However, I agree the section is outdated and also too much detail for a biography. I will try to trim it to the basics. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a complete rewrite to bring it up to date, use better references, and remove trivia. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Business career

Per summary style (and the preceding section), I would like to propose summarising the business career section, with the Business career of Donald Trump article carrying the focus on that subject. We can move any content not already in that article, and leave behind a short summary. Thoughts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's not be in too much rush to trim essential content. Parts of his business career are essential to his life story. Let's not assume the article needs slash and burn simply because of a software issue. And there are plenty of unnecessary references and some inessential content that can be trimmed but not removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but not nearly as essential as his presidency, and can be adequately covered in a few paragraphs at most. This isn't simply because of the technical limits, although the software issue is actually something very serious. We were never supposed to get close to reaching this limit. This is not the only thing we should do, of course. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of them are already summaries of existing spinoff sub-articles, but it might be worth examining where some can be summarized even more. Compare the summaries here with the leads in the articles. The leads should be the best summary in existence, but here we can summarize even more, if necessary. Just make sure no content is actually lost from Wikipedia. It's better to move than delete. We don't write outlines here. We write more in-depth than anywhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Trimming the business career section is less of priority than several other sections that I mentioned above. One could argue that what we currently have is a summary. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree that other sections are higher priority, but we cannot waste time figuring out what is the highest priority. If there is consensus for something low priority, that should be immediately actioned. I don't think we can call what we have there a summary when this article is about someone who is primarily a political figure. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is there still a two-paragraph section for Dismissal of James Comey? Top candidate for trim/removal, IMO. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been many other important events in his presidency. Comey's dismissal has almost been forgotten under the mountain of other scandals/controversies. This event is no more controversial than the many others that have occurred. Mgasparin (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not so fast. The entire section should not be removed. This was one of Trump's early major scandals. The material can be trimmed to a couple of sentence. Please propose something here before taking an axe to the article. - MrX 🖋 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How about two sentences in the special counsel investigation section? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. Could we see the sentences first? - MrX 🖋 02:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Let's not be in too much rush to trim essential content." ... The entire section should not be removed. This was one of Trump's early major scandals.

Nobody is talking about removing anything. We are talking about taking full advantage of WP:SS by moving much of the content to sub articles. In essence, we want to transition this article from being Trump's biography to the hub of Trump's biography. Nothing would be lost, in fact, forking the content in this way will mostly likely allow even more detail than has ever been possible before. It is no small undertaking, but it surely must begin. That is why I also support Onetwothreeip's proposal, which echos the one I made in #Media career. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. You started a discussion about " summarising the business career section". Someone change the discussion to the Comey dismissal and someone else removed the entire section. That's what I was referring to. In other words, somebody was talking about removing something. - MrX 🖋 15:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not confused. You are. I didn't start this discussion. I did the one about the media career above. I'll support ANY effort to reduce the amount of content (and thus, citations) by taking better advantage of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article must remain Trump's biography seen as best we can guess from a future perspective. This article must not be recast into a table of contents with links to subject-specific articles most users will never click and that they wouldn't even be able to evaluate for significance. The deep citations beyond what's needed for verification can be moved to a supplementary page of additional sources and reading. Moreover, if a software constraint is getting in the way of proper and valid content, then change the constraint, not the valid content. I've done little trims of trivia, off-topic aside comments, and redundant sources. These appear to have been uncontroversial. Trimming an entire section on one of the most noteworthy events of Trump's life -- firing Comey, with the mounting paranoia and erratic behavior that followed, is against our purpose here. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - as 50+ years and a major focus of his life and fame, it deserves major BLP presence and not elimination. It already is largely summary with side articles anyway. Also, this is too vague and unspecific, it needs to offer some lower and actionable specific edit(s) that maybe would be supportable. I would for example support moving the Conflicts of Interest subsection to the Presidency article as it seems misplaced here anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Everything is major, Mark. That's why we are in this position in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support I have been proposing this for years, as an alternative to the people who want to nuke the "presidency" material. The alternate article already exists, it will only be necessary to strip out the duplicative material and leave a paragraph or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the proposal. Are we proposing to start a whole new article, "Business career of Donald Trump"? Why in the world? We already have "The Trump Organization" as a perfect place for all of this material. Take the unnecessary new article and merge it with the Trump Organization. In fact I will file a Merger proposal as soon as this discussion is closed. But in the meantime, strip down most of the "business" stuff in this article; it can all go in the existing/merged "Trump Organization" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Business career of Donald Trump was created in November 2016. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WWE

Is any of this biographically significant? I have a proud track record of avoiding all wrestling, so I'm not qualified to know if these edits should be rolled back per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions said they're not significant enough for this article (there are two in Archive 108 (no idea how to cite archived discussions), there may be others), and some of the material that was added today (hair match, Lashley/Umaga match etc.) was removed as trivial. Attendance at Wrestlemania XX and being interviewed by Jesse Ventura – that's new and seems even more trivial, and I have a proud track record of not avoiding all wrestling. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

None of this seems significant to the arc of Trump's life story. Maybe in some other article, but not this one. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23 was the biggest cashgrab in pro wrestling's 120-year history, at the time. Attendance-wise, it still might be Trump's hugest offline crowd. The bare bones (participants, stip, result) are rightly noted in McMahon, Lashley, Umaga and Austin's biographies. Everyone on the show's article notes how they fared. Trump's performance is the only one that received significant coverage from reliable mainstream sources over the years, demonstrating a lasting effect. Probably even some scholarly articles, but certainly Fox, CNN and BBC. Seems extremely odd to single the guy in the middle of the marquee out as the one whose bio is irrelevant to these very brief, very important and very standard facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Ventura interview is relatively meh. In defense of a one-sentence note, I'll only say it actually happened. There are many paragraphs elsewhere about things that were merely supposed (by some) to happen, if space is legit running out (and too many citations to all opinions). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've partially restored some of the material that got taken out by another editor, and I've rearranged the refs a bit to reduce the number of times they are called. (diff) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we have consensus that any WWE stuff belongs in the article (beyond enough words for a link to the WWE page? I doubt it. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I have no interest or knowledge of wrestling. Since there is some dispute over what to include, I have essentially reverted it back to the stable version it was before (apart from a small cite reduction). As a person with no interest in wrestling whatsoever, I couldn't care less if the section was removed completely; however, I am given to understand from previous discussion that some people think it is an important part of Trump's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, but that's exactly the point. I have no interest in horse kidneys, but that doesn't mean I am agnostic if somebody claims they belong in this article. It's unimportant to his bio and we have other articles that cover it in the context of its importance to their subjects. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in wrestling, but it was a major part of his life, and so belongs in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've had my interest in wrestling compared to a lot of niche tastes over the decades since it's gone objectively mainstream. Circuses, gay porn, cockfights, even local politics. But horse kidneys are a new low. I've owned horses and never seen even one kidney, much less read about how (or if) they actually work. But looking back, it seems we were all in Archive 108, so we all could have read the twelve stories about how heels work that Starship.pain(t) carefully illustrated for you willfully ignorant noobs (no offense, you just are).

Literally everything Trump has done to keep his "unpresidential" heat for the last four years is directly parallel to how men like Bobby Heenan, Freddie Blassie and Vince McMahon won the bona fide wrestling game of popularity, engagement and mind control. That's how you win elections, while genuinely not caring about advertising budgets, opinion polls, foreign opinion, marginalized demographics, facts or spelling. Readers upset with how Trump "stole it" last time (a fair few, I gather) should know more about how he stole the 2007 show as a babyface, not less. If they bother to pay attention, they might actually learn something about getting over in 2020, instead of trusting CNN's bland and robotic "safe choice" again. At the very least, they might be pleasantly surprised to see Trump in cahoots with a strong black American role model who isn't Derrick Lewis. Sharing reliably-sourced reaction from "The Black Beast" might be "too real" just yet. But a decent short overview of any WWE Hall of Famer's "fake and gay" career isn't "radical" or "problematic", by any stretch of the imagination.

You're just afraid to "legitimize" the idea that millions of registered voters and foreign agents still watch or remember WWF/WWE weekly since Reagan quit, I think. I'm afraid to admit other people watch hours of Senate testimony, and hours more still watching reaction vids to that testimony, then days here arguing with Congressional fanboys about how to best reflect the reflection (and how it might reflect on them in ten hypothetical years). But I let the bloated and controversial sections speak for themselves, don't delete what I fail to understand, simply skip it. I'm happier for it, too, I swear! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I think there's a lot of Trump's past in his current presidency.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

And in his current title defense. Hushing up how he shaved the chairman's head is one (arguably) understandable thing. But covering up the contribution and payoff history between he and the CEO is a whole other denial of reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reminder:WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If that's for me, I'm on point. Circling it, at least. Despite many first impressions, pro wrestling is far more complex than amateur wrestlers agreeing to be pinned for money. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Virus

Seems like his strategies and approaches to command the developing crisis are now worthy of some mention. Apparently, [7]. I don't have a full set of references on his earlier statements. The coverage has ramped up a lot after Trump got personally involved over the past 10 days or so. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I found some more articles from the NYT (some are analysis/opinion, others are original reporting) on his controversial response to the virus. Yeah, the coverage has been going on for some time. I'm not sure how much we should mention here, (perhaps a few sentences, nothing more). A longer section on his response is probably more deserving in the presidency article.

Trump's strategy for the virus.

Fact-checking the president on his claims.

An opinion on his response. From The Hill, in case someone doesn't like the NYT.

Mgasparin (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It definitely belongs on the "presidency of" article. Does it belong here? I dunno. What text would we add? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Interested editors are welcome to click and participate in a discussion about President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus, on the talk page for the Presidency of Donald Trump article. starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Photo Caption: Trump in 2017 EditQwerty (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty EditQwerty (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's pretty obvious that's Trump. No need to state the obvious here. Mgasparin (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of date additions

I just wanted to explain my reasoning behind reverting this edit. The paragraph has been assembled to make narrative sense, but the addition of all the date (none of which are important) made it bounce all over the place in chronological distress. I believe the restored version is perfectly acceptable. The dates add nothing of value, and in an article that needs trimming we can ill afford to add valueless data. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: They aren't valueless and are fairly standard on politician articles. "During his presidency" for the travel ban is so broad it hurts; you could've at least kept "In the early months of his presidency". But oh well.

Literally every single edit I've made to this article has been reverted at this point, all of which were benign (ranging from a year in the short description to the presence of an image caption).

Now I feel like I have to justify every slight touch I make to the vase that is this article. Will you let me re-link "racist" in the lead section? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't really plan on editing the article anymore. This is just a test to see if such an edit will get through. I made the mistake of taking long-established conventions for other politician articles that went without a hitch to this article. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't relink "racist", because it simply isn't necessary. Everyone knows what racist means. Sorry if it seems like everything you are doing is being reverted, but it is fair to say that we have such a long article we need to keep it as trimmed as possible, and the dates you added really didn't have any useful value. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

New image

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.

---

Current image (2017)

Proposed replacement (2020)

There should be an updated image in the infobox. It has been over 3 years since the present one was taken. My proposed new one on right. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The "official portrait" is what is supposed to be in the infobox, per convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Other active politicians with official portraits have more recent images in their infoboxes. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders for example. These cases seem more analogous to Trump than former presidents who are either dead or long-retired. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about the convention for presidents. Besides, Biden doesn't have an "official portrait" right now as he doesn't have a role in government. I don't know about Sanders, but what goes on at one article does not determine what happens at another. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You might want to start by taking a look at Current Consensus item 1 for past three discussions here on the subject. For American Presidents generally we go with their official portraits, for example Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, use official portrait. I'd likely say that even if the alternative weren't almost identical. His jacket is a bit straighter in the official portrait, presumably because it was less spontaneous. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, use official portrait. The Sanders TALK archive 19 was mentioning should use official photo, but that the photo was 12 Years old so they went IAR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep the official portrait. Trump hasn't changed so much in 3 years that updating the image would noticeably improve the article. As far as quality goes, the new image looks less professional, almost candid. Mgasparin (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2nd looks ugly. 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA (talk)

Agree with convention on using official portraits -- by far the more recognizable image. Also, lighting on the left one is worse, as to be expected when comparing a staged professional photograph with one that seems not so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The one with an American flag seems more fitting, as for most federal representatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep the one on the left. RHS photo is unflattering. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The right one looks brighter and should be used unless we can brighten up the left one Dq209 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the one on the left his "official presidential portrait?" If so let's not second guess POTUS. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support the image in the left is very very old. We should use any recent image.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It says that the current image is from 2017 but I can find the image in a 2019 version of this article. See [8]. I guess there was an image with the same file name? Is it possible?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, that's why I said in my comment above that it is very very old. I saw it in a 2009 version of this article and I thought that it is from 2009. I didn't know that it is from 2017. If I knew I would have said "old" without "very very".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Given hat we use official photos for most politicians where possible, the left is preferable. Guy (help!) 22:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Notice of discussion

This is just to alert all interested editors that there is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump concerning the inclusion of coronavirus misinformation. (The relevant thread is SARS-2, add ?) Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed trimming

"Racial views" and "Allegations of sexual misconduct" both have main articles already. So is it all right with people here if I trim those sections down to a paragraph or two? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. No need to repeat information that is already in a separate article. That should also help with the size issues here. Mgasparin (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, congratulations to everybody here for finally reaching a consensus on how to trim. We finally got the article size below 400k for the first time since February 2019. Mgasparin (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sexual misconduct stuff has never been important to the public, except as it relates to the Billy Bush tape/Wikileaks timing and the Jailing of Michael Cohen. So I think there's lots that can be trimmed there. The racial "views" stuff, at least post 2011, is the core of Trump's brand and political success. I suppose the "squad go back" thing is insignificant, but I suggest you try to keep most of the post-2011, possibly with summary sources that give an overview of the significance to Trump's narrative to his core demographic voter groups. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, trim.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Err, race has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's "brand" or "success." A fairly disgusting remark that should be retracted. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to reducing 'Racial views' by a paragraph or two. Paraphrasing what SPECIFICO correctly points out, Trump's racial views are core to his political brand. Maybe the last paragraph can be removed. Possibly the second paragraph can be condensed a bit. I think the 'sexual misconduct' section can probably be condensed to two paragraphs. - MrX 🖋 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Do either of you have any evidence to back up this inflammatory claim that "race" is "core to his political brand"? We really need to be careful here when attacking politicians in this manner, especially with wild allegations. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I support MelanieN's proposal: those sections can be effectively trimmed to a few lines, notwithstanding the political exploitation of those themes. I would add the "Foundation" section to heavy trimming candidates; this has not been a central pillar of Trump's life, and the dedicated article covers it extensively enough for curious readers. — JFG ^talk 09:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to work on a draft of the trimming here on talk, as it's evident that the trim is agreeable but that there is disagreement as to what and how to trim. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I trimmed the sexual misconduct section since that seemed to be uncontroversial. Another 5900 bytes and 12 templates gone! with no loss of meaningful content. I will work on a proposed trimming of the racial views section and propose it here before implementing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Good call, JFG. The Foundation section is currently four fat paragraphs and 19 templates. All of that information is available at the linked main article so this could be majorly trimmed without damage to this biography. I may work on that first. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That one was pretty easy. Another 3600 bytes and 6 templates gone. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I like what you did on the sexual misconduct accusations. I think the "racial views" will benefit from talk page discussion, because there seems to be dissent as to the significance of the underlying events. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking again at the "racial views" section I don't see much hope for a major trim. Multiple individual incidents, each already described very briefly so no trimming there - and it wouldn't be easy to come up with criteria for which ones to remove entirely. So I am not going to attempt that and will look for easier/less controversial areas to trim. Looking particularly for sections that already have a "main article" link. There has been so much splitting and forking from this article; since those other articles exist we should be able to reduce duplicative coverage in this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think you should trim the 8 paragraphs down to one or two. I agree with MrX for once about only trim it by one or two. Perhaps the opinion of Political Science Quarterly as lowest WEIGHT ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we also get someone to fix the spelling on hot mic? Calling it "hot mike" makes it look unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5f80:f340:d35:ed53:ca23:c7c4 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" fails V

User:Scjessey - starting a TALK thread on this one, we seem at BRD time to open up a discussion on it.

While cleaning out excess cites, I came to a line in Special Counsel Investigation with four cites on it.

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and it details how Trump and his campaign "welcomed and encouraged" foreign interference believing they would politically benefit.[724][742][743][744]

The problem is that Mueller did not literally say "welcomed and encouraged", so the article enquoting is a false presentation. There is no "encouraged" about the interference and for the only line in Mueller report (pg 5) which says "welcomed" this text seems an invalid paraphrase. None of the cites actually say 'welcomed and encouraged' - specifically it doesn't say encouraged and it says only Trump campaign not Trump - or anything really close -- so I removed the back half of the line as lacking V.

• 724 is the Mueller report. There is a "welcome" on Page 5, the second page of the Executive summary: The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”) showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.
• 742 is a David Frum May 2019 piece on theatlantic.com of his opinions what the report said. The body includes The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.
• 743 is a Jane Timm April 18, 2019 piece on the report, and it's subtitle said Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts," Mueller's report said.
• 744 is a Monica Alba piece April 24, 2019, on the 2020 election and that the re-election campaign has not publicly stated that it will not use hacked materials to it's advantage. Down in the body is a line the Trump team expected to "benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."

So - the enquoting of "welcomed and encouraged" is factually false, and the line in the article is a bad paraphrase of Mueller or any of the cites then present.

I did find use of the phrase in a WP:BIASED source about Muellers testiomny, a Congresswoman McCollum (DFL-Minn) press release here “Mr. Mueller’s testimony today reaffirmed that Russia attacked our democracy in the 2016 election to solely benefit Donald Trump. The Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged the interference and lied about it to cover it up. But as a partisan source that would have to be attributed and the PR just doesn't seem itself WP:WEIGHT enough to have in article.

So obviously I believe the best option was to just drop the end bit. Whether they liked it or not simply isn't a major part of the Mueller report. The first volume is on the Russian activities, and the second volume is on Trump hindering the investigation. Alternatively, the phrase could be edited to replace the part failing V with something that is the actual text such as Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" or Trump's campaign "welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton".

RSVP and open to input from others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, OK, so "welcomed" and "encouraged" is fine. Or remove the quotes, they are superfluous anyway. Just fix it. Guy (help!) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcomed is well sourced. The exact word encouraged I don’t see. But, we don’t need to use exact words if unquoted. Publicly announcing that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server sounds like encouragement to me. Welcomed and encouraged with no quotes works for me. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Invited" and "requested" would also be accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Solicited and welcomed? SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcomed and encouraged without the quotes works for me, too. A quick search for each verb produced a long list of RS using welcomed and four using encouraged ([9], [10], [11], [12]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" may have originated from the hearings. For example, this exchange between Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff:

SCHIFF: Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?
MUELLER: Yes.
SCHIFF: And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?
MUELLER: Yes.

On that basis, it would seem that "welcomed and encouraged" is fine, with or without the quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Update: The description on the video does not match the language in the video. My apologies for not checking. However, this does not change the fact "welcomed and encouraged" is a perfectly acceptable summary of what the Mueller Report found. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey - do you have a better cite for that exchange ? I'm not hearing it in the video clip, and the title is just a non-CNN user label so meh. It is not in the WaPo transcript. I do see other mentions in tweets, a John Avalon tweet at 2:17 on 24 July, and PodSaveAmerica tweet indicates it was at 1:14. And the phrase is attributed to a member here, plus Schiff said it a couple days before. Just trying to be sure of a solid cite that exchange were the literal words said ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the video description is basically bogus, and I've struck it out with an explanation above. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey Ok, thanks. The before hearing interview of Schiff saying it seems the best cite with that phrase though, other than the previous in quotes False attribution. So why is that a good summary for you ? Have you any other basis to support why that enquoted phrase is better choice than ‘expected to benefit’ ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: I am only going to say this one more time because I'm tired of repeating myself. WE ARE NOT USING QUOTES, SO "welcomed and encouraged" IS JUST FINE! Please consider this to be my last word on the matter, and accept the consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey ??? I simply asked for why that is a good summary for you, if it still was now that the - my pointing out — hoax seems to have reduced the Schiff linkage. Thanks again for the strikeout, and again the earlier Schiff interview now seems the best offered cite other than the bare want to keep the exact words of the prior False attribution phrase set as a goal, but I am trying to fairly capture if there was any reason why that exact wording should still be here. The thought that a hoax quote is being somehow exactly the words to use seems so, so, wrong that I’m checking for anything better than ‘well without quotemarks it isn’t Technically a lie’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller also stated he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS or the Steele dossier, didn't know who Corey Lewandowski is - despite being mentioned repeatedly in the report that he supposedly wrote, and gave contradicting reasons why he didn't indict Trump, among other various inconsistencies and memory lapses. There are assuredly more reliable and factual sources than that disastrous hearing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller said that Glenn Simpson was outside his purview, not that he didn’t know what Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier were. Looked through the testimony and can’t find any indication he didn’t know who Lewandowski was, and there were multiple reasons why he didn’t indict. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller: "Not Familiar" With Fusion GPS, "Outside My Purview" It's both. After being asked about Fusion GPS, Mueller replied "I--I'm not familiar with that. I--could you--". After a Republican congressman explained to Mueller the significance of Fusion GPS, and brought up Glenn Simpson, then he said that it was "outside my purview." I admire your willingness to read through that testimony, but the Lewandowski tidbit is covered in reliable sources so we don't have to do that [13]. Yes, he gave different and contradicting reasons why he didn't indict. In any case, I think we can all agree that the Mueller testimony isn't reliable. We should find some reliable sources for this "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the transcript. He did not say that he was not familiar with GPS Fusion or the Steele dossier. And no, we do not all agree his testimony isn't reliable. Again, this is a BLP. We must be careful not to make negative statements about living persons without reliable sources. RS do not say what you are claiming. O3000 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I watched the hearing live last year. Here on Wikipedia, we need to use reliable sources rather than our personal opinions and takeaways from various pdfs on the Internet. Nobody said anything negative about living persons, so we don't need to worry about that. Reliable sources say Mueller was not familiar with Fusion GPS, per my link above. You're getting bogged down in the minutiae. You can rely on the testimony, but here, we need reliable sources for the "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Once someone finds some, we can take a look at it and go from there. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that Mueller is dead? Or are you saying that all your comments about him are not negative. We take BLP seriously here. And I am not bogged down. We have already discussed welcomed and encouraged and it appears most of us are OK with this. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't get smart with me, please. Obviously Mueller is still alive. If you want to perceive facts such as "Mueller said he was 'not familiar' with Fusion GPS" as negative, that's your prerogative, but we need to discuss facts. If you think you have a legitimate BLP grievance, you are free to run it up the chain and see if it sticks. If the majority are okay with relying on Mueller's testimony, that's fine by me. Just adding my two cents here on the issue. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We also deprecate obstinate insistence from Single Purpose Accounts. O3000 is correct. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We can safely ignore the opinion of any editor who says "Mueller's testimony isn't reliable." That's just absolutely absurd on many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, we can go down the personal attack route - I could reply and say that we should ignore opinions about Trump from virulently anti-Trump editors on talk pages related to Trump. But I won't do that. We should just focus on providing reliable sources for improving the article, and make sure we play the ball rather than the man. Editors are free to rely on Bob Mueller and buy his Saint Bob Mueller Prayer Candles. Just as long as we stick with reliable sources, we'll all be on the same page. Architeuthidæ (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Architeuthidæ, it's not a personal attack. Rejection of Mueller comes solely from motivated reasoning and relies on the assumption that facts cease to be facts when they are politically inconvenient. Guy (help!) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

it's not a personal attack. In my opinion Architeuthidæ is both right and wrong. It was not a personal attack by en-wiki's narrow definition (much of it necessarily unwritten), which is effectively "If it won't get you sanctioned for NPA violation, it isn't personal attack." Scjessey didn't say "You are an insufferable fool" or something. My advice to editors is to be very conservative in their use of the words "personal attack", because over-assertion enables responses like it's not a personal attack. But we should play the ball not the man as Architeuthidæ says, and I suspect Scjessey knows that. He has no doubt seen "Discuss content, not editors" many times, and he probably has said it himself a few times. Apologies for the diversion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We do stick with reliable sources, which say Trump "welcomed" and "encouraged" Russia to help his election. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO "welcomed and encouraged" is factual and sourced, and if we want a direct quote, the Mueller testimony works. Others here have suggested "solicited" or "invited" which are also factual; Trump literally requested Russian interference on live television. I prefer Mueller's own words, but am open to other wording. But we cannot remove the conclusion that Trump - not just his campaign, but Trump himself - welcomed and encouraged Russia to help him in the election. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" without quotes is a problem because it is a direct lift from the hearing, not the report itself, and does not attribute the phrase. In fact, the phrase originates from a question at the hearing, not the testimony by Mueller (though he answered affirmatively). [14] Sourcing policy probably requires a better indication of where that phrase derives from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Objective3000 - The Trump remark about Clintons email seems to have some WEIGHT, I suggest you try an add to the Presidential campaign section. It does not belong to the section of the Mueller report. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey and User:BullRangifer - No no no, it is ***not*** OK to just make stuff up or to present other events as a quote from the report. For the line in question starting "The report states" the article is presenting this as one of the exact quotes from the report, in the section about the report. There is no such phrase there. If you want to mention any of these non-report things above they need to go into a different location, be attributed to the person who is the source, and provide V. Plus be of enough WEIGHT to be DUE a mention here. It is apparent that the phrase is not going to get V or get a mod to something more accurate so I am going to again delete that part of the article line as lacking V (because it is false). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't worry. I think MelanieN summed it up best. BTW, you might want to follow policy and not just delete the content, but improve it per WP:Preserve. That's what we are supposed to do when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Markbassett: You're wrong. "Welcomed and encouraged" is fully supported by reliable sources. Having it without the quotation marks addresses your concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It might be helpful if you offered a source to support your point, rather than simply telling another editor they are wrong. At the very least, this raises a legitimate question of what the proper attribution should be here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I don't need to provide a source, because one was already provided by another editor (example). Trump literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails on live television, which was covered by every media outlet on the planet. We use the word "encouraged" in our text, but any synonym of the word (invited? begged?) would suffice. We don't need attribution because we are saying "welcomed and encouraged" in Wikipedia's voice, as part of our lead summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: The question is whether "welcomed and encouraged" is properly attributed to the report, not whether it's the WP:TRUTH. I don't see that source supporting this attribution, and the press conference is not relevant to the issue of the report itself. I don't think that a phrase lifted from the hearings should be attributed to the report if it doesn't actually contain that language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We aren't saying that the report contains the specific phrase. We are saying that the phrase summarizes the findings of the report. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

But it's clearly implied by the use of the phrase in the current text. "Welcomed and encouraged" is lifted from the subsequent hearings, but the current text seems to suggest via an WP:INTEXT attribution that it's from the report. Since it's not, that's clearly a problem. There is a technical problem with how this phrase is currently presented and attributed. Borrowing something from the hearings and implying it's from the report might actually be WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Then fix the attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Don't get aggressive with me for raising an issue. I don't necessarily know what the most agreeable wording is. There is currently a problem with what's presented. We have a possible discrepancy between what the nominal author of a report says, and what the report actually says, and we can't afford to be sloppy on this by treating both sources (the report itself and the author's later statements) as if they are one in the same, esp. since the phrase "welcomed and encouraged" didn't actually come from the author. I think the entire phrase should be scrapped in favor of whatever the report says. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal We leave the phrase "welcomed and encouraged," and include an explanatory note indicating the origin of the phrase, with a possible quote of the Mueller-Schiff exchange. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, no aggression intended, just suggested one way to fix the situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure me diving in and implementing my idea of what's correct will have long-standing effect on this page. I raise it here because some kind of consensus would obviousy be best. I think an explanatory citation note will require little to no modification of the current text and provide the attribution that's needed, so I'd be curious how people feel about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a no on the citation note in the lead. It simply isn't needed. The explanation is in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "welcomed and encouraged" is a phrase directly lifted from the source. The attribution can't be in the body of the article, it needs to be in the same line as either an WP:INTEXT or a citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey No, the line and section is about what is specifically in the report Volume I. I think we’re all clear that “welcomed and encouraged” is not literally in the report and not in the cites the editor had, and apparently not referring to the report. Someone just edited in a false quote there is all. It’s only in the scrutiny of cite reduction trying to see which could be removed yet support the line that fails V became apparent. Possibly ‘encourage’ is referring to the earlier campaign remarks about the 30,000 missing emails rather the report content. Possibly it is referring to the framing Schumer said in the later hearing rather than the report content. The point is, those would not belong in this line and should not be attributed to the report or Mueller. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:MrX - sigh. I see you have reinstated the “welcomed” phrase, but did not provide a support. No, it is not enough to simply remove the quotes, as this is not from the report nor the prior reviews of what the report said, and does not even seem to be about the report. Removing quotes just shifts it from false V to lacking V. Procedural notes

Please note WP:V lead “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” And in the BURDEN section “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.”.

As the restorer, please provide such a source which is reviewing the report and says this is in there. *Not* just any cite with the phrase such as a cite that says it as a truth in general, or happened in 2016, or as a later remark by Schumer — but one that is reviewing the report and so meets V “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.”

Or move the phrase to the Presidential campaign section or later hearings section or something where it is supported. Or just follow the V instructions and delete it here as it was a bad quote. I will tag it as citation needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Phleeebpt. You made a bad edit and I fixed it by removing the quote marks, consistent with what several editors have said in this discussion. Scjessey quoted Mueller's testimony. MelanieN made a strong argument in support of the material. JzG advised that the problem is solved by removing quotes. Muboshgu cited two sources and Space4Time3Continuum2x cited four. You do realize that most of America heard Trump ask Russia for help, right? - MrX 🖋 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It is amazing to me that a couple of editors think that by saying the same thing over and over again, it will change the facts. "Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) is WELL SOURCED and the language is supported by a majority of editors here. It's time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems like we're having two different conversations. No one is disputing that there is a source for the phrase "welcomed and encouraged." The issue that MB raised and that is valid is that this source is not the report itself, which is what the article text suggests. Yes, this is nitpicky, but for the lead of probably one of the most read articles on WP, I don't think that's inappropriate. This has nothing to do with the WP:TRUTH of whether this happened, this is a technical sourcing/attribution issue for language directly lifted from an external source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Supported for elsewhere, but not for the place it is. Yes, it is amazing to see that you keep repeating ‘in the report’ is supported. Giving cites that support such will do, saying it is supported doesn’t provide V. BUT frankly this is just defending a *false quote* that was shockingly bad cite practice. Someone put it in although all four of the cites said no such thing, so they simply weren’t looking at the things they were citing. It seems just from other places, not in nor about the report, so does not fit here. “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) IS NOT A QUOTE, Mark. It is OUR language that is supported by reliable sources, and it is a perfect summary of how the report characterizes the Trump campaign's position on foreign interference. What part of that don't you understand? Removing the quotes fixed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

FIXED. You see how easy it was, Mark? It took less fuss and edits than your "citation needed" tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:MrX - Citation still Needed. By removing the quotes you only ‘fixed’ it into unsupported. You still need to either remove it or meet BURDEN and provide a clear support. The two added do not do. The NYTimes.com cite has nothing relevant, it is about the hearing being disappointing, which has nothing close to mentioning welcoming or encouraging, even Schumer saying it. The abcnewsgo cite also will not do. It is at least about the report and substantial. In it Bruggeman clearly supports the same as the four other cites did - a quote “the Campaign expected to benefit electorally”. The closest otherwise is Bruggeman gives background mentioning “In July 2016, around the time Trump...” but there he says the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks. This would support ‘the report said they planned to benefit from Wikileaks’ but does not support ‘the report said they welcomed and encouraged Russian interference’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: "Welcomed and encouraged" is not language original to an editor's summary, it is a quote from a question posed to Mueller at a congressional hearing. The phrase is exactly the same as the question shown in the source. We can't pretend that a phrase wasn't lifted when it clearly is. All that needs to be done here is add a footnote to the exchange, and it will be properly attributed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the language originated from. It is perfectly acceptable language that I have already provided a source for, even though it isn't necessary. And of course, we do not need to do it in the lead because it is already in the body. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - Nope. First, it *does* matter where the language is coming from - the attribution it should have is the issue here. And no, the cite you gave to the Washington post is yet another that does not clearly support the article line about the Mueller report "The report says" or "it details how" attribution for "welcomed and encouraged". It nicely snapshots where instead it is 'Philip Bump in WashingtonPost.com' says about the 2016 IC findings "Mueller’s investigation bolstered those findings and demonstrated ways in which Trump and his campaign aided or encouraged those interference efforts, even if unwittingly."

Look - "welcomed and encouraged" was a false quote, acknowledge that it was wrongly placed (at best) and starts with less than zero credibility as what should be here. Removing the quotation marks does not magically undo that it came from a *false quote*. It seems to be about the 2016 campaign, or perhaps from the hearings -- and removing the quote marks does not magically make it about the report. We've got five cites explicitly and prominently quoting the report that the Trump "Campaign expected it would benefit electorally", and instead pushing 'welcome and encouraged' is just not paraphrasing this or even trying to.

The article went from three redundant cites to now three cites that are bad for "The report says" and "it details how". The NYT cite is about the hearing and nothing there. The ABC cite is about the report and nicely substantial including closing with "Campaign expected it would benefit" with in the middle that authors view 'the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks'. The WaPo cite about Trump tweet indirectly acknowledging the Wikileaks (amplified by the media) helped his election. Could be said as a WaPo statement but not proper in a line that attributes it as "The report says" and "it details how". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with you, Mark. A fair summary of the Mueller Report is that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged foreign interference. We do not need to cite that language as long is it represents what a preponderance of reliable sources say about the report, which it absolutely does. The removal of the quotation marks was a satisfactory solution, and that's all there is to it. A majority of editors agree with me. Time to move on before you get into the realm of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, I have to agree with Scjessey. Without the quote marks, the words are an excellent description of the findings in the Mueller Report. It's time to move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a perfectly acceptable summary -- it's also not our summary. We are ignoring the fact that the quote is directly lifted from the congressional hearings and not offered elsewhere. Pretending the phrase is an original summary written by a WP editor and removing attribution via quotation marks doesn't solve the problem that MarkB identified, it makes this WP:PLAGIARISM. This shouldn't be acceptable on any page, let alone one of the most viewed on WP. If we cannot agree on a new original summary, then an attribution via a footnote should be provided to indicate the source of the phrase. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Three common words is not plagiarism. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not the measure for plagiarism. "Welcomed and encouraged" is a distinct phrase, originating from one particular source (or exchange, for that matter) that appears nowhere else. Pop that phrase into a search engine along with "Trump" and "Mueller" and all of the results will reference the Schiff-Mueller exchange. Any basic plagiarism-checking program would catch this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I propose "encouraged and welcomed" (without the quotes). TOTALLY DIFFERENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose that, if "welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotemarks) is the best (concisest and most accurate) paraphrase, it matters not that it was heard in the hearings. We are not going to scour the transcript for language to avoid in this article. But if reversing the word order will allow us to put this to bed, I'm all for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose the article that any statements of what “The report says” actually use the language of the cites about what the report says — which can be the commonly offered true quote from the report “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally” (from Wikileaks). That simple and honest. The false quote was bad information and trying to somehow squint hard and keep it is inappropriate. V was failed, V says to delete such. That simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a quote. It's not a quote. This is tiresome. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It was presented a a direct quote from the report. That false quote was bad information. Trying to keep it when there is a clearly present alternative that was in the cites and widely reported is inappropriate. This would be substituting factual information with misattributed plagiarism or editor creative writing. V is fairly direct and simple for poorly sourced material: delete the phrase. Perhaps time to RFC between false quote vaguely almost-supported versus true quote widely reported ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, you've lost me. There are no quote marks. It is not a quote. We fixed that. What it may have been is completely irrelevant. And it is clearly not plagiarism. Look up the word. Indeed, you seem to be arguing that we must use exact wording but cannot use exact wording. O3000 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, there is a reason it was quoted in the first place, and that's because the phrase is widely known as being attributed to Schiff's question to Mueller on whether the Russians "welcomed and encouraged" assistance. We can either bury our heads in the sand and now pretend that it wasn't, present another source that is not quoting Schiff using that exact same phrase without, or we can attribute the phrase to Schiff. Option one is not actually a legitimate option. We can keep "welcomed and encouraged," but we just need attribution. If I knew how to format footnotes I'd have done it myself already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? It doesn't MATTER if the phrase is associated with the hearing. On this article, we are using it as a summary of the reports findings. It needs no additional support that what it gets in the references, and it certainly doesn't need a footnote that would misleadingly suggest we are using those words because of Adam Schiff. A significant majority of editors are fine with this language. As I indicated previously, continued objection in the face of a clear consensus can only be considered disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 It was a false quote. If you’re lost, try looking at the top of this section where that is shown. Someone put it in without ever looking at the four cites which gave clear support for a *different* phrase. Removing quotes magically moves it to an unsupported statement and false attribution, which means still failing V for what “The report says”. It was bad information, it’s still bad information. And no, User:Scjessey, a vote does not eliminate V for what is a factually false statement. Now I suggest that for a line about what “The report says”, a NYT cite to the Hearing and a WaPo 2016 cite about the IC report just won’t do. I will put in the ‘Campaign expected’ quote that was prominent in all four original cites, using Mueller and the new ABC cite. If there is something more that can be supported it can follow that. Up in the 2016 campaign section or as a hearing remark maybe - but it just doesn’t fit here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your assumption, the cited NYT article attributes the statement that (in the NYT's summary wording) the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin sabotage effort to Mueller's report, rather than basing in on something Mueller or Schumer said at the hearing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:HaeB the NYT article again supports the dominance of the direct quote “expected it would benefit electorally”. But really it is summarizing the hearing, not the report, and discussing the points the Democrats made. The section you refer to seems to reflect the Schiff framing mentioned above in this thread though without mention of “Trump” welcoming, or that either he or his Campaign doing “encouraged”, or giving a specific attribution. “Mr. Mueller concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his aides had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, even though the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin sabotage effort and “expected it would benefit electorally” from the hackings and leaks of Democratic emails.” The line “the report says” factually could give the “expected” quote, which is what wasvactually widely reported. When we have that line specifically and clearly reported in many reviews of the report, it’s just inappropriate and factually false to cobble up partial supports to state a Schiff summation at another venue as something “The report says”. A line from Schiff would need to give attribution ‘At the hearing, Schiff said’ per WP:PARTISAN. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbasset: Please read and inwardly digest WP:LISTEN. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey- seems too ironic for you to give me LISTEN after not listening. After all, you reinstated the phrase as a direct quote of the report the on the first day of this, in TALK giving the basis that in the hearing Mueller agreed with that question. Now I have reread the guideline LISTEN, will you please read the core *policy* V, noting that I cited bits here, and the explanatory bit COPO? Then we can perhaps seek to improve the article with factually correct phrasing and good support in cites and policy rather than just things we make up and vote-counting. Or we can go to DR. I have no difficulty listening to several editors liking the phrase as a direct quote and few remarking on it being untrue as stated, simply find that sad and not actionable. Now, what is your preference between pursuing better and DR ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for easier editing

Mark, I am distressed to see that you added your own version to the article [15] in defiance of the clear consensus here. You know better. In this discussion I see six people (not counting myself) in favor of "welcomed and encouraged", two others who suggested keeping the same sense but using synonyms, and at most three who objected to it. You started this discussion ten days ago; you need to respect the process you started. My own thought summarizing this discussion: I am perfectly comfortable with "welcomed and encouraged," but as a possible compromise, how about if we simply say "welcomed" without "encouraged"? That conveys the same sense, has a source directly supporting that the Mueller report said so, and gets around the whole argument here about where the phrase "welcomed and encouraged" comes from. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Solomonic solution. Yes! -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm strongly opposed, necessarily, but I disagree that it would convey the same sense. "Welcomed" is passive and "encouraged" is active. And frankly I don't see a need to pursue compromise when we already have consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss is our beacon. May his wisdom be our guide.

Solomonic is not a good thing. Encouraged is significant. "Rusher if you're listening..." etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Good points. Let's follow the consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN The line has been in flux during this, so no need for distress. Otherwise, perhaps you forget WP:V and WP:COPO. Yes, sadly many have indeed been fast to place/reinstate a false quote and then seek so hard to somehow keep the words despite that history and despite the clear and clean alternative of another statement with WEIGHT in this context. My first choice was to have nothing as simply V, but given the apparent desire to say welcome or support I offered that quote. And if people wanted to say more I said they could place it before or after if they have V and WEIGHT. Mentioned in all this there seems clear supports for saying ELSEWHERE the ‘welcomed and encouraged’ in an honest manner as it factually is something prominent elsewhere. But not here, because it is talking about something else. Seems time to DR, yes? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a quote if there are no quote marks. And, DR is useless for AP articles. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But you acknowledge it was false quote, and despite that history are in pursuit of keeping the words? Look, I can see at least four clean and factually true edit alternatives here that follow WP policy, but saying welcomed and encouraged just is not pursuing encyclopedic goals. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is when it's not in quotes, which looks like consensus to me. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely a consensus for "welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes). Mark's insistence to ignore this consensus and continue to disrupt the project by repeatedly making the same, failed argument is troubling. At this point, "fake quote" is starting to sound an awful lot like fake news. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 Make a better choice. It remains a false quote and bad information when it does not come from the source that the line states it does. This phrase has been acknowledged as factually comes from a different event from a partisan source that WP policy says should be properly attributed. So the 'not this' side of the scale has shown facts, greater WEIGHT, cites galore that explicitly and prominently give the other line as common, the bad history this edit has, WP directives in V to delete, etcetera. The 'keeping it' side has ...what ??? -- a couple cites about the hearing instead of the report that do not use the phrase but can be squinted at really hard and can be imagined might be paraphrased if we ignore the clearly present alternatives ? Seriously, how can you present that removing quotemarks magically makes it OK ? The case for nothing is stronger than this, as is the case for 'expected' or for honestly portraying where 'welcomed' was said and by who. Make some better choice here, because I don't think it possible to make some better case for the 'keeping it' side. Markbassett (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How can something that is not a quote be a false quote? That's a strawman argument. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 hmm “false quote” *is* too mild, since we are discussing quotation marks that were wrong versus now knowingly giving bad information as to meaning and source while avoiding clearer portrayal of actual fact. That’s because “false quote” seems commonly referring to an honest confusion of who said it or the exact wording, thinking some phrase really was said. False attribution is a cleaner description of improper quotation marks, when I AGF. To describe the proposed knowingly doing unclear attribution and/or asserting a paraphrase seems like it should get a more vehement “Deceptive attribution” and “fake” information. Since the phrase is about something else it remains bad info in either case if placed here, and whether the info is portrayed as an exact quote or portrayed as close to literal is just deciding whether the bad attribution is clearly wrong or is being deceptive about it. Really, there are honest things strongly supported about the report, and there are honest things strongly supported about what Schiff said in the hearing. But to state Schiff's words as being something in the report and support by a cobble together SYNTH of partial items just is not a good choice. Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly I am ignorant as I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 We're indented to your question of how it can be a false quote, so discussing that. It was a false quote, with quotation marks. Upon reflection, "false quote" usually refers to an urban myth or honest mistake -- and a more precise label for here is that with quotes it was a False attribution, and now removing quote marks the proper terms would be a Deceptive attribution and fake information. Saying False quote would be a close synonym but is too mild. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you still WP:REHASHING this? This is disruptive in the extreme. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX - ??? What are you going on about ??? Unclear what part you're referring to and doesn't seem to fit.

In the subthread you indented this as part of re using the term "false quote", there was movement two days ago and nothing since so rehash seems inappropriate.

If you meant about the overall thread re the line failing V -- Obviously lots of various inputs in a couple weeks, many diverse subthreads, and several edits / proposals. But nothing at that level since a new Melanie N proposal about 11 March, so again 'rehash' seems a bit inappropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus-first in the lead

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.

---

Should prior consensus be required for any change to the lead? Presumably this would include the infobox as part of the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it would be contrary to core Wikipedia principles like WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, WP:5P5, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:AIM. However, if a particular editor repeatedly adds content to the lead that clearly doesn't belong there, then they should be further restricted. - MrX 🖋 23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, as long as it is not against something that had consensus in the first place. For example if someone wanted to change something that is on the current consensus list, they would need consensus to do that. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No. I see little need and significant downside. "Any change" would have to mean exactly that, including addition of a serial comma. Maybe a clear spelling correction would be exempt, I don't know. But experience tells us that it would not be useful or effective to limit this to "significant" changes, since opinions too often differ about what's significant (witness the recent protracted debate about the word "but"). In my opinion we should allow BOLD changes to the lead except where content already has explicit consensus. If a different editor objects for a content-related reason, they can revert per normal BRD process, stating that reason in their edit summary. Often "excessive detail for the lead" is appropriate and sufficient. But "this has not been discussed" is not a content-related objection, and not everything necessarily needs discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Although this is a highly contested article, that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Ergo Sum 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think prior consensus should be required for any substantive change, or any change of meaning, but we will have to rely on the good sense of the regular editors here to "patrol" such things. Otherwise, I have no objection to minor and/or corrective edits being done without consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, prior consensus should not be required. "Consensus" is not something that ever preexists. It has to be arrived at. And this sometimes involves the WP:BRD process. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting that consensus cannot change. The point is that, in cases where consensus has been established by previous talk page discussion, it is unlikely to change without another lengthy discussion. In light of this factor, we should not change the meaning of article text during the new talk page discussion about changing the consensus. This provides our readers the current, best available version and it's a reasonable working procedure that makes the best use of editors' time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You say "we should not change the meaning of article text during the new talk page discussion about changing the consensus" but consensus has to be arrived at; it doesn't preexist. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a disappointingly unresponsive statement. Yes, where there was a previous talk page consensus, then that consensus does "exist" and it exists until it's changed. Capiche? SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, per Mr.X and Mandruss. It's not how WP works. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This pre-existing/prior consensus argument is missing the point, I think. We already have a consensus established on certain elements of the lead and listed under #Current consensus, which I guess could be characterized as "prior consensus" for the purposes of this discussion. But I feel strongly that if an editor wishes to make a significant, substantive change to the lead (something new added, something well established removed, or a change of meaning), they should first propose such a change on this talk page and seek a consensus for it. This is an approach that worked very well when editing the Barack Obama BLP during his presidency. With that being said, we shouldn't jump on new editors who are unfamiliar with any sort of editing convention we establish here. To be clear, I am not insisting we do things this way. I am just saying this is my preference. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

BS is not a new editor however. There seems to be consensus among the rest of the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion that sprung out of an edit by User:Scribatorian? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the reference is to User:Scribatorian, a relatively new editor. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mine was a reference to you. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My sense of the consensus is that a change to the lead should be treated like a change to an item on the "consensus list" -- It's not a crime to make a change to the article text, but such a change may be reverted by anyone who challenges it. Such a revert would not count as the daily revert and either the change would be abandoned or the editor who initiated it could start a discussion on talk to form consensus for the change. Did I get that wrong? SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scribatorian was adding that "He was educated at New York Military Academy". But that is not something addressed at #Current consensus so even if Scribatorian were not a "new editor" they would not be prohibited from adding that assertion. The quintessential question here is "What constitutes a substantial change?" I tend to agree with Mandruss that it would not be useful or effective to limit this to "significant" changes, since opinions too often differ about what's significant. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My sense of the consensus is that a change to the lead should be treated like a change to an item on the "consensus list" Well, no. If you want to change something that's covered by a list item (or any other sufficiently clear talk page consensus, and the list doesn't include all of them), you have to first get talk page consensus to amend/replace/cancel the earlier consensus. If an editor fails to follow that rule, they should be reverted, and that revert does not count against 1RR. (This is affirmed by "Remedy instructions and exemptions" in this page's prologue, which was written by admins per DS.) For content not covered by existing consensus, that prior consensus is not required, normal BRD process applies, and a revert counts against 1RR. The consensus so far in this thread is that that holds true whether said content is in the lead or below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your honor, that's exactly what I said they should be reverted, and that revert does not count against 1RR.. Nobody needs to bother getting prior talk page consensus when correcting punctuation, formatting, or other innocuous edits on the consensus list, and they would not be challenged. The remedy if anyone feels meaning is changed is a quick, exempt revert. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your holiness, I responded to the part of your comment that I highlighted in my response, which was incorrect. If you meant something other than what you said, my response was equally incorrect. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My child, I was referring to how the consensus list works in practice. Although it may say not to change that stuff w.o. prior consensus, the fact is that one is free to do so and the only penalty is that the offense will be remedied by quick reversion. So we are on the same page. One day, I will get around to reading the consensus list. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(Can't think of a way to top "child" without violating NPA/CIVIL, so I concede that part of this exchange.) But that isn't how the list works in practice (if you disagree, show me article content, covered by a list item, that differs from the supporting discussion(s) in some innocuous way). It isn't a patently bad idea, although it isn't without its downside either. It's a trivial matter to get prior consensus for a truly innocuous change (corollary: If that isn't a trivial matter, the change isn't truly innocuous). At minimum the list item would have to be altered to reflect the innocuous change, so that it continues to match the content. And a note should be added to the list item to explain that that's what happened, that's why the list item differs from the supporting discussion(s). If someone disagreed that the change was innocuous, they would need to revert both the article and the list. It is not clear to me that that's better than the alternative over all; in any case, it's false to say that it's been the practice. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss - you could have gone with "My God", hmm? starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are saying "The remedy if anyone feels meaning is changed is a quick, exempt revert." In my opinion, SPECIFICO, if a revert does not pertain to material that is addressed on the #Current consensus list—that revert should not be deemed an "exempt revert". Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who raised this issue with my edit summary when I reverted. I now see that I had misinterpreted some comments I have seen at this talk page, and that we do not require prior consensus for every edit to the lead, only for those that violate previously established consensus. I should have treated this as a simple BRD revert and not invoked a rule that I now understand does not exist. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus first in the lead was my understanding, yes. I believe now it would better be put as ‘recommended’ to TALK first because it is a contentious page, to respect the many pre-existing discussions, and to give a chance for encouraging people to make body edits first. (vs. So, so, soooooo many jump to lead edit w/o any body content.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you expand the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" section in the sanctions template at the top of this page there are 3 exemptions for the 1RR rule: restoring clearly established consensus, reverting vandalism, and reverting IPs (not applicable here). There is no exemption for reverting edits to the Lead. Although with a local consensus here you could conceivably add an item to the #Current consensus list to that effect. (I'm definitely not recommending that.) ~Awilley (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I’d say it’s more a wise practice recommendation and commonly done local convention to TALK about lead edits first. The other long-standing practice is to inject or propose something at lead with no body content, from whatever breaking newsfeed. This article does have many many lead edits reverted, or accidentally stepping on numbered consensus, or igniting an edit storm. (And seems like all of that happens every month.). TALK first at least shifts much of it to pre-article, instead of edit wars. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You are welcome to use the talk-first practice in your own editing. I hope it's clear now that you cannot enforce it by reversion, or suggest in any way that it is "common practice" or "local convention". Some do it – some don't do it – some do it or not, depending on the circumstances, and that's their choice – and that's as far as it goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Oh but I can and do suggest it *is* common here to discuss before editing the lead, and factually it *is* “common” to revert such unexpected lead edits, one may even say “the norm”. Seems like almost all lead proposals just die, and ones that go straight to edit also almost always die by, revert or by minor edit storm. Surely you don’t deny those happened quite often, do you ? There is no explicit guideline above to do so, it’s just de facto a norm. Might be the same on any contentious page, I suppose. RECOMMENDED. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I'm not going to continue debating you about exactly how common it has been in the past. The only salient point is that there is a clear enough consensus against requiring it in the future. I retract or suggest in any way that it is "common practice" or "local convention". As far as I'm concerned you're free to pointlessly claim whatever you want as long as you don't revert with a reason of "not discussed". Considering the consensus here I think most admins would consider that disruptive, and remember the article is under DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I don’t think we are debating. We seem to be in violent agreement that it is done and is allowable, and not an explicit rule. I said I believe it would better be put as ‘recommended’ to TALK first, more a wise practice recommendation and commonly done local convention and not part of the sanctions template. This, along with just going for lead edits without body content are both factually items seen many times. “De facto”, meaning what is done, as contrasted to “de jure” what the rules say. And I don’t think you say reverts are blocked or “needs TALK first” as an edit summary, or that I am not allowed to believe or suggest it as a wise step — that would be opposing TALK — just that you emphasize it isn’t explicitly a stated item and would be opposing BOLD to make it a constraint. So ‘talk first’ seems likely to continue a good idea, and we seem in violent agreement on different aspects. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You are entitled to your viewpoint that telk-first should be "recommended". Please don't represent it as anything more than your viewpoint without a consensus to that effect. You are free to seek one in a separate thread, and I would oppose. I'll save my arguments for that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

p.s. see, another lead/revert just happened to Lorromorro 25 March circa 22:00. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem confused. That revert was for content under existing consensus, which is NOT what we are discussing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: and you seem forgetful... I gave exactly such stepping on numbered items as one reason that talk before edit the lead is RECOMMENDED. “This article does have many many lead edits reverted, or accidentally stepping on numbered consensus, or igniting an edit storm.”. Again, we don’t seem debating fact or OK that many reverts saying ‘discuss first’ have been OK. I say de facto you say dejure, seems in violent agreement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You're suggesting that an editor should talk first – spending their valuable time composing the opening comment in a new thread – which would then be answered with a single line See #Current consensus #xx., thereby ending the "discussion" – to avoid making a mistake that is easily corrected with two clicks of the mouse and never subject to sanction. That's an absurd argument, frankly, and I've carried this about as far as I care to with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: So reverts saying ‘please discuss first’ will continue, and I will continue to recommend it. And yes, Lorromorro is a demonstration of editors who would be helped by opening a thread so someone can point them at the consensus list, and a step towards a better article rating. I don’t mind that you feel it absurd, so long as you don’t deny reality it exists or request I not represent it as anything more than my viewpoint. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: So reverts saying ‘please discuss first’ will continue Sigh. I hope not.

• Reverts of non-consensus content should indicate a content-related reason – not "please discuss first", which is a process-related reason. To revert that kind of edit with "please discuss first" is to require prior consensus. Since the consensus in this thread is not to require prior consensus for that kind of edit, that would likely be seen as disruptive by admins. Maybe admin Awilley would care to comment on that point.
• Nobody has brought a proposal to change how we do reverts that restore consensus content. All we need is to point to the consensus, as has been suggested at the top of #Current consensus for years and has been seen several times in the past two days alone. The issues related to changes to existing consensus are too complicated to be expressed adequately in edit summaries, and are understood by editors with a modicum of experience, which is one of the reasons we don't try to explain them in edit summaries. We certainly don't need to encourage revisitation of existing consensuses, since in a large majority of cases revisitation is not warranted.
• Thus, there is no need or place for reverts with "please discuss first". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I was the one who started all this, because I was under the misimpression that all edits to the lead have to discuss and seek consensus first. It is clear from this discussion that I was wrong about that. Clear consensus at this discussion is that there is no such rule. You and I are free to revert any edit to the lead that seems to us to be wrong or improper, but we do it via BRD, and we have to give a reason for our reversion - not just "discuss first". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Up until a similar discussion maybe a month ago, Consensus first in the lead was my understanding. It is perhaps a natural impression from seeing it defacto in use and reverts I suppose. I believe now it would better be put as ‘recommended’ to TALK first. “Please discuss first” has been mentioned so perhaps that’s also done. Nothing I know of says they “have to” give more. Though I would recommend instead something specific and *not* calling for discussion, that is CIVIL and indicates being open to talk. If you want more, there’s plenty of examples and discussions about consensus or talk first in the article edit history and TALK archives - one good example is here. This article just seems one of those BRD says BRD isn’t much good for. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care to research this, but it seems to me that "please discuss first" has been seen in reversion edit summaries (including by one or two of the editors opposing this restriction in this thread). As I read this consensus, that practice should be deprecated. Requesting prior discussion by reversion is no different from requiring it by reversion, and it should always be possible to state a reason for reversion beyond a vague feeling that discussion is needed. Stating that reason is all that's necessary, and the discussion part is implied and understood by all editors with any experience, per BRD. Is there any disagreement on this point? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added #Current consensus #43 per this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, Mandruss. I think what we need to be concerned with is the new editor. A new editor is easily misled. A new editor is trying to understand how the process works. There are implications in different responses. If we revert an edit to the lede with the summary "Please discuss first" we are telling them this is the way things work around here, when it is not. Thus our edit summary is misleading. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, actually you are just telling them that you challenge their edit (normal editing process) and that they'll need to get consensus for it on talk. Same as everywhere else. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is the basis for the revert. Is their edit being reverted because we have a policy of discussing first on a Talk page? "Please discuss first" implies this. We should avoid misleading new editors. It is preferable that we simply convey disagreement. The "Please discuss first" edit summary is mealymouthed and misleading to someone unfamiliar with the policies of the project. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

New editors should not be jumping to the lead for their first contributions here. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Even new editors can make improvements, and even to the lede. Sometimes "fresh eyes" see things a little differently than those that have been entrenched in previous concerns and arguments. New editors don't bring with them any of this "baggage". So we certainly do want to encourage new editors and get them up to speed on editing practices as soon as possible. Thus a revert to an edit to the lede should not contain the derelict wording "please discuss first". A preferable edit summary might be "I disagree. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." If the edit is unmistakably a good faith edit, then it might be a good idea to initiate a section on the Talk page to discuss their concern. And of course summon the new editor to the discussion. But even if you don't initiate that section on the Talk page, you have not communicated to them that discussion is a prerequisite to edits to the lede—because it is not. I think edit summaries are sometimes important, as in the instance being addressed in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If it is a truly wonderful edit, nobody's going to revert it. So it's unlikely further discussion of this point is going to produce valuable insights. Everything (and more) has already been said, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from one being arguably noob-friendlier, there is no difference between "please discuss first" and "I disagree. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." Neither gives the reason you disagree, which is at the crux of this issue. The preferable edit summary might be "I disagree because I feel this is excessive detail for the lead. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." – or the terser but perfectly acceptable "excessive detail for the lead". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am using this comparison for illustration purposes only. You don't have to say "I disagree. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page". Your suggestion is fine: "I disagree because I feel this is excessive detail for the lead. Let us discuss it on the article Talk page." And an infinite (approximate) number of other edit summaries would be fine also. Yes, "excessive detail for the lead" is fine also. All that we are discussing is whether prior discussion on the Talk page is prerequisite to edits to the lede. You have correctly indicated 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. All that is left to discuss is the problem of misleading edit summaries—I think we should avoid them. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're well afield of the topic of this discussion, which is not "anything related to editing best practices at this article". Unless someone has something more to say on that topic, I think we're done in this particular thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are "done in this particular thread". Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Impeachment in lead

@Starship.paint:. This edit of yours adds new language to lead text that was extensively discussed on talk. Please undo your addition. It's rather SYNTHy (as if the trial was not legitimate) and at any rate should be agreed before such an addition, given the recent discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: - done and sorry, I've been out of the loop. I didn't know there was a discussion. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that, for the lead, it's safer to give advance notice on talk. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention of coronavirus in lead

I really think the lead needs something like "Trump was also president during the coronavirus crisis." I made the change on Saturday but was reverted. pbp 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - lots of people are in power over the planet while the pandemic is ongoing. There's no reason to highlight this one instance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It should probably also be mentioned in Xi's article and the head of government in Italy's too, for starters. pbp 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. This is the top-level biography of Trump and the lead already includes too much detail about the presidency part of his life. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You consider ONE SENTENCE about a global pandemic that has shut down a country of 320 million "too much detail"? pbp 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for the lead of this article, which is about an entire life of a man who was widely known and widely written about for decades before he stumbled into the presidency less than four years ago. It's just amazing how many things about his presidency are just too monumentally important to omit from this lead.

By the way, lead summarizes body, so we couldn't add this to the lead until it's mentioned somewhere in the body. A browser search of the article for "virus" finds zero occurrences. But I would still oppose this in the lead, even after that's taken care of. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mandruss, what I'm getting from your comments is that you had a lot of gripes with the article before my proposal and you're taking it out on my proposal. And, yes, coronavirus is easily one of the 5-10 most important things of his presidency, and if you devote 1-2 sentences to each of the most important things, that's only 1-2 paragraphs. pbp 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention of coronavirus in the body

Shouldn't this article contain at least a paragraph about Trump and the coronavirus? pbp 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No. It's a global health crisis that implies nothing specific about Trump. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. That's why we don't mention WW2 in the Winston Churchill article. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Ha. The difficult bit is showing how this is any more or less inept than anything else he's done. Guy (help!) 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, how to avoid disruption of talk pages by fringe POV nonsense. We are going to need to address this. It's shutting down progress on many articles. To respond directly to your point, I have long said we should be looking for summary analysis of fundamental factors that come up over and over. Each instance may be WP:NOTNEWS but the larger context needs encyclopedic coverage. We're beginning to see respected analysts address this, for example in the recent book A Very Stable Genius. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Trump's response to the pandemic should obviously be covered briefly in this article. Otherwise, we need to remove Jerusalem, Wrestling, Cuba, Acting, Talk shows, Miss Universe, and a whole lot more. It doesn't belong in the lead now, but it may later depending on the impact of Trump's involvement. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My sense of the RS reporting and analysis is there are two significant points. First, his initial reaction to the virus' spread, which is roughly 60 days ago, was denial. He did not heed advice that this would become a global crisis, and he did not deploy or strengthen the capabilities of the US to prepare and to intervene overseas, as e.g. his nemesis Obama did in the Ebola incident. Second, as he became aware of the spread of the pandemic, he sought to suppress information and to minimize government response, for fear it would weaken the stock market or impair his reelection prospects in other ways. Consistent with these approaches, he appointed inexperienced and ignorant staff to handle it for him, and only in the past few days has appeared willing to take the lead of medical experts. In part this shift appears to be due to the spectacle of local governments upstaging him and providing leadership in the crisis. @JFG: FYI, the disease did reach the USA some time ago, so "global" no longer excludes Trump's domain. It would be great if you'd read up on the RS discussions of his leadership in this crisis and help us write some great article and lead text. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There is lots of Trump content in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. There should certainly be some coronavirus content here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"He appointed ignorant staff?" comments are laughable in the amount of speculation, with no facts to back them up. I encourage all reasonable editors to disregard above analyis if they add a corona virus section. With all due respect to SPECIFICO, it seems this user has been on wikipedia a long time with a noted history of one-sided political edits. This user should honestly be blocked by administrators from making edits on any page that has to do with Donald Trump. Amorals (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

This article certainly has to have Trump's declaration of a national emergency, and perhaps his claims that coronavirus was fake news. @JFG: Just because coronavirus involves a lot of people doesn't automatically discount it being mentioned here; what you're saying is less an argument for why coronavirus shouldn't be mentioned here and more one why Trump shouldn't be mentioned at the coronavirus article. pbp 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amorals: You were good for the first half of that comment. Comment on content, not contributors. There is a place for such remarks and this isn't it. If you feel an ArbCom enforcement request is warranted, follow this link and file one. Make further comments like that and you will risk being the subject of one. I have posted a discretionary sanctions alert on your talk page; please read it, understand it, and take it seriously. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the first half of Amorals' comment was not helpful. I prefaced my summary with saying that's my impression of RS narratives. I could instead have written article text with citations, but that would have been way premature. There are ample citations for encyclopedic text that reflects what I wrote, should there ultimately be consensus for article text along those lines. That would not itself be article text because it omits background facts and detail, but my approach has long been to moot rough sketches on article talk pages rather than jump to insert recent developments into the article text. That would have wasted editor time and attention, and it's not good for the workplace here. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the first half was "helpful" – I have no opinion on that – only that it didn't clearly violate expectations for behavior on article talk pages under DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Trump's response to COVID-19 will be regarded as the most consequential act of his entire presidency. We're going to be seeing thousands of deaths, many of which could've been avoided, and dramatic economic effects. With that said, we are still in the early stages and anything we put in the article will necessarily have to evolve more or less continuously. Perhaps we should start with something simple, with a sentence along these lines:

Trump's handling of the initial stages of the coronavirus pandemic drew criticism from EVERYONE! medical professionals and public officials.

I am not suggesting these specific words (which I pulled out of my ass, basically), but rather I am suggesting this is the sort of level of coverage we should be considering at this early stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Which section would you suggest? Presidency>Domestic policy>Economy and trade? A one-sentence section would seem strange, and unwarranted. (You've blown your British cover. The British word is arse.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what the actually words are. COVID-19 touches the economy, health, foreign policy, personnel, approval ratings, social media, and (of course) the 2020 campaign. There's currently no convenient place to put anything, so it probably warrants a subsection under "Presidency" all of its own. There's no rush though. I think we should take a little time to work something out before we even think about putting something in the article. And to be honest, this discussion should probably be happening at Presidency of Donald Trump (an article not on my watchlist) first, if it hasn't already. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

After living for almost 20 years in the USA, I have learned/learnt to use US spellings of things just to avoid the hassle I get if I do otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read through this entire discussion, but I support Scjessey's proposal above as a good simple starting point. No view on where it should go. Sdkb (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at this article for the first time and I was shocked that it did not contain any discussion of the president's handling of the Coronavirus outbreak. I believe it is a serious lack in the article. At this point, while we are in the early stages of the epidemic, it is already one of the most important issues of his administration. Without ignoring the potential horrors to come, we have already seen several border shutdowns initiated by the president, major national addresses by the president, the appointment of personnel to deal with them, enormous fluctuations in the markets coincident with these national addresses. And the presidents actions to prepare or not prepare for the infection have already had large impacts on the country. At a minimum, we could mention that Trump was president during the outbreak and link to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States David s graff (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic section

Based on this discussion, I've started a section to cover Trump's response to the pandemic. I think main story is how his attitude changed over a few weeks time, or pretty much what SPECIFICO wrote above. It's probably also worth noting that he refers to it as the China virus[16][17][18] and how proud he is of his own "tremendous" response. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This could be under "Domestic policy:Health care". I think many of the comments above are crystal ball-gazing. The news services might indulge in this, but we shouldn't. One thing this pandemic has shown is that current affairs can be very unpredictable. We simply don't know how things will pan out.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That didn't seem quite right to me. A lot of the decisions are being made on the fly in reaction to rapidly changing events in the economy and society. Policies tend to be longer term, and based on ideology and planning. I don't think we could rightfully say that Trump had a healthcare policy based on sending $1000 checks to Americans and bailing out the airline industry. - MrX 🖋 18:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

True, it's not just a healthcare issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The separate category is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Two significant themes related to President Trump and the pandemic that are starting to emerge in the media are: 1) that the partisan Democratic impeachment effort in January likely delayed the US government's response to the pandemic, costing lives, and 2) that the pandemic supports the increased border security and immigration controls promoted by the Trump administration. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I oppose AppliedCharisma's suggested changes; they reflect an ultra-right-wing narrative.pbp 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I would at least like to see sources. @AppliedCharisma: where are your sources? - MrX 🖋 20:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read AppliedCharisma's comment. It's always good to have a bit of satire on a Wikipedia talk page from time to time, just to break the monotony. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@AppliedCharisma:, how can you say the U.S. government response was delayed, in fact it was rated 10/10? The coronavirus was very much under control as late as February 24. starship.paint (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree re #2 that pandemic supports border controls and travel bans worldwide, but that’s not quite the same as border control for illegal immigration issues. There may be greater approval for President Trump on it now, but it would be said in citeable RS to support any such edit in article. For #1 - again there would have to be a look at RS, but here I think it really didn’t have “delay” at all. The response seems neither laggard nor prescient, a fairly normal progression of a democracy struggling with finding it’s way in a sudden disaster. A bit above-average response especially since Monday 9 March. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Pbp it is alarming to hear you refer to the entirety of AppliedCharisma statement's as far right and to read other users like Scjessey piggyback that. Only half the statement "partisan impeachment" is right winged. The other half, fact that the coronavirus plays into Trump's border policies is a reasonable fact, hell, shutting down the damn border is what he's been trying to do all along. It makes me concerned for the impartiality of articles like these when I read these dismissive comments.Amorals (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

Alternate proposal for pandemic section

I appreciate MrX's efforts in writing a pandemic section. We definitely need one and it's a good first effort. However, I think it is too focused on his misstatements and omissions, with not enough reporting on his actual actions. I propose to replace it with a version I have been working on - using some of MrX's reporting and sources but with more of a focus on actions and timeline, and a more economical use of references.

In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China; it spread worldwide and was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. Beginning January 22 and for the next two months, Trump played down the threat, stating repeatedly that "we have it under control" and "it will all work out well". On January 30 he admitted that the U.S. had five cases but claimed they were all "recuperating successfully". On January 31 he announced restrictions on travel from China, effective February 2. On February 25 Trump said, "I think that whole situation will start working out. We're very close to a vaccine." He continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and CDC officials repeatedly said it would take a year to a year and a half to develop a vaccine. In a March 4 interview with Sean Hannity he claimed that the 3.4 percent death rate published by the World Health Organization is false, saying he had a "hunch" that the figure was less than 1 percent. Trump also over-promised on the availability of testing for the virus, claiming on March 6 that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test." In fact, the United States got off to a very slow start in such testing; fewer than 4,000 tests were administered between mid-January and the end of February. The number of test kits was very limited, and there were stringent requirements for who was eligible to be tested.

On February 26 he appointed Vice President Mike Pence to take charge of the nation's response to the virus. On March 6, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law, providing $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies to respond to the outbreak. On March 11 Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office and acknowledged for the first time that the virus was a serious threat. In the speech he announced the suspension of most travel from Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) for 30 days, beginning on March 13, and later amended it to include the United Kingdom and Ireland. On March 13 he proclaimed a national emergency, freeing up additional federal resources to combat the coronavirus.

Sources

What do people think? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have added a bit about the availability of testing. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement, but I think we should reference the origin of the pandemic because it provides important context and grounds the timeline. Per WP:GLOBAL. Perhaps, we could start with this:

The first confirmed case of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020, after the initial outbreak of the disease in December 2019, in Wuhan, China. ...

- MrX 🖋 20:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good, I'd be OK with something like that. Although the Chinese didn't reveal the existence of the coronavirus outbreak until January 7; maybe we should use that date, as it's when we first became aware of it? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've already added it. In that case I am fine with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Since you think this version is an improvement, shall I go ahead and put it in the article? I was tempted to do that directly but wanted to get a little feedback first. I've added your improved first sentence to my proposal. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

With my blessing. - MrX 🖋 21:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's already too wordy and this is only the beginning.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect is the enemy of better. The above is an acceptable start. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it again from the standpoint of "wordiness", I have removed the sentence about his "hunch" that the death rate figure was wrong. It was a passing thing, and it didn't affect any actions. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is an unprecedented amount of dissembling, irrelevant posturing, rumination, and self-congratulation coming from POTUS, even after he's been instructed to pivot from his outright denials and recriminations against the press and scientific consensus. We should develop a couple of summary sentences that adequately conveys the scope of this remarkable phenomenon. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There are several sentences that don't even mention Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That is true, just like the rest of the article. For example, at least five sentences in the North Korea section don't even mention Trump. - MrX 🖋 19:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Re "don't even mention Trump": I see four sentences here that do not mention Trump: the first two sentences in the section, which are necessary background; and the last two sentences in the first paragraph, which are in direct response to something he said and are needed to show that what he said was untrue. I think all four sentences are directly relevant to the section. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - you can pick and choose summary sentences from below. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping of rest of section's participants: @MrX, Jack Upland, and MelanieN:. starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

From January 2020 to mid-March 2020, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, giving many optimistic public statements, which were mainly aimed at calming stock markets. He initially said that he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic. He went to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control". He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax".

Trump has, in February and March, frequently promoted misinformation during his response to the outbreak. Without scientific basis, he suggested that the outbreak would be over by April, or that the virus would vanish "like a miracle". He underestimated the projected time for a coronavirus vaccine to be released, and inaccurately stated in early March that coronavirus tests were available for all who needed them.

sources

• Version 1 preferred. Better narrative and not too long. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: - I didn't mean that the entire 2 paragraphs were needed in this article. I did say you can pick and choose sentences. starship.paint (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, SPECIFICO and Starship, but I don't think any additional material from the above is needed to be added. Most of the main points are already covered in what we have, and additional quotes of things that he said only once ("vanish like a miracle") are probably TMI for a biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN - "miracle" was once, but 'disappear' was not. he has regularly promoted the idea that it could suddenly disappear. WaPo starship.paint (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Starship, Let me understand what you are proposing here. Most of what is in your paragraph here is already in the article. Are you suggesting we replace what is in the article with this paragraph, or add this paragraph to the article (creating a fair amount of redundancy), or pick out a sentence or two to add to the article, or what? If a sentence or two, can you single out what you propose to add that is not already in the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: - From January 22 to March 15, Trump played down the threat, stating repeatedly that "we have it under control" and "it will all work out well"; he also gave multiple suggestions were that the outbreak would suddenly subside. starship.paint (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible, but do you have better sources for that than the three you gave in your proposal above? They are retrospective and they just recite the whole litany of his falsehoods, mention the 'miracle' comment, and I think one of them mentioned it going away by April. But "multiple suggestions that the outbreak would suddenly subside"? Can you find a source that says that? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Actually the WaPo source that you linked to a couple of comments ago makes that point explicitly. I am willing to add it, with that source. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Shortened version of option 1

Replying to @Starship.paint:, something like

President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus, making optimistic statements that were unfounded or false. He repeatedly contradicted government experts from the CDC, NIH and other departments, stating that the situation was "under control", that a vaccine would soon be available, and that the virus would vanish "like a miracle". He accused Democrats and the news media of exaggerating the gravity of the situation, describing public criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax" and publicly attacking individual news reporters.

SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• There’s a TONE issue there that contradicts with source cites. For example ‘admitted there were 5 cases but claimed they were all recuperating’ is not a good paraphrase of the RS ‘President Trump said we have very little problem at this moment - just 5 cases and they are all recuperating’. There is no sense an “admission” in the source, as if he was caught doing wrong by someone, and a “but claimed” portrays recuperating as showing a falsehood about there being 5 cases when it wasn’t. The source isn’t about a ‘stating falsehoods’ narrative, the source is portraying this incident as an instance of President Trump’s voicing optimism or reassurance on 30 January was (in his opinion) part of downplaying the threat. I disagree with that POV as it is applying a late March POV and in January folks simply had only a weeks news from China — it wasn’t serious in people’s minds until mid-March. But if you’re citing to a ‘downplayed the pandemic’ article I’d suggest a hard wording scrub, much this doesn’t follow the cite. Markbassett (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - where are exactly you reading admitted there were 5 cases but claimed they were all recuperating from ...? The specific sources on falsehoods I found are NYT, Vox, CNN. I probably could find more. starship.paint (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  My bad, I found what you were referring to. I do not think that sentence is significant. I will remove it. starship.paint (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  But why remove it? Markbassett is just one suggestion. "Conceded" might be better than "admitted" but the source makes clear what he stated and why. Giving further context would be better than removal. There is now sourcing that relates POTUS' denials to the thousands of cases currently identified. That would be a better way to present the "nothing to see here" statements of January and February and early March. Also that "next 2 months" language is much better than giving two specific and otherwise insignificant dates. It is two months as of today, so I suggest you restore the more straightforward language. It's the 2 month span, not which numerical dates, that is important to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO Because the article cited just isn’t a narrative of President Trump being forced to concede that there are 5 cases, it is that the author cherry picks him stating this as him ‘downplaying’ the severity. And there was no “but” clause, the (his view) downplaying is in Trump choosing to give factually correct small number 5 “and” that they were recuperating. I happen to disagree with the portrayal of ‘downplaying’, this hindsight sniping of 14 March didn’t exist at the time and even now is not the WEIGHT of coverage. Fact is that 30 January there were just 5 cases of people who’d come from China and recuperating. With airport screenings, travel bans, and the forming of the Coronavirus Task Force, most people felt it *was* handled as far as the United States goes. Being before Italy or Iran or Diamond Princess playing out, even experts were not sure if pandemic was avoidable or not. Most were very surprised by his 11 March travel bans, and it wasn’t until mid-March you see general awareness, stockpiling, and broad measures. On 30 January, nobody knew what was coming - we were all going to find out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's a blog-worthy narrative. Unfortunately it is not consistent with near-universal RS reporting. Not really helpful for this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—we don't hold Trump to standards applicable at a later period of time for the unfolding of events and the utterances of Trump at an earlier period of time. Let me try saying that another way: we don't write as though Trump should have known something at an earlier period of time that became blatantly obvious at a later period in time. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why are you including vanish "like a miracle"? It is a manner of speaking. It is not to be taken literally. You are elevating it to a position of importance that is unwarranted. Are the explicit words vanish "like a miracle" called for? Which type of a "miracle" would this be a reference to? We don't know—so why quote "like a miracle"? Do you just like the way it sounds? Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You're going to need to read the RS reports. However we could give a (wordier, lengthier) summary of his insistent denials of the incipient pandemic instead of using that widely reported and video-broadcasted quote. I was working off the longer proposal. If you have language to summarize his denials, please propose it and we can all discuss. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

I would like to edit this page based on his view of the coronavirus and his political stand point right now in 2020 Vinko3638 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of high school in the lead

User:Scribatorian added the name of Trump’s high school to the second paragraph of the lead.[19] I reverted it saying Reverting good faith edit. Any change to the lead section needs to be discussed at the talk page first.[20] But I have since been told that is not actually a rule or consensus here. Is it?

In any case, because I reverted, I should start a discussion per BRD. In my opinion the name of his high school is not important enough to be in the lead, and we traditionally don’t include it. I don’t find it in the leads of articles about other recent presidents - we only name their colleges and universities. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two completely separate questions here, one content and one process. For the sake of organization, I hope you don't mind if I separate them, splitting the process question into the following new thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For a lead that is chronically too large, we need a high bar for inclusion. I don't think this clears it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

An exception should be made as this is not an ordinary high school. It is a military academy. The subject of this article being the commander in chief, that early background experience may be relevant for noting in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Although it is called New York Military Academy, it is not a "military academy". It is a boarding school with a military theme, which grants a high school diploma like any other high school. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I found this clarification at List of United States military schools and academies: "Most military schools in the United States are high schools that place a high emphasis on military preparation, academic rigor, and physical fitness. Most military schools are private and have high tuition, with financial aid available."

The school attended by most BLP subjects would be entirely irrelevant to their respective lede paragraphs. This article is no exception. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can be omitted. I changed my mind. It is best left as only included in the "Early life and education" section. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s not really relevant to the lede, just trivia. ~ HAL333 04:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please use the word "lead" and not "lede" since they are different? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)