Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 120

Archive 115

←

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Archive 125

Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op

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.

---

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm The article mentions that "On June 1, 2020, Trump ordered police to tear-gas protesters near the White House so that he could walk to St. John's Episcopal Church, where he posed and waved a Bible at television cameras."

According to this official government source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm this is blatantly false. Could someone with permissions edit this to remove the false info. According to The United States Park Police, no tear gas was used only "smoke canisters and pepper balls." Also based on this official government source it doesn't appear that Trump ordered them to do so and the dispersion of the protesters had nothing to do with the church visit, the crowd was only dispersed because "At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street."

For the sake of being impartial as Wikipedia is supposed to be, any talk about whether Trump ordered the police actions and any suggestion that the protesters were tear gassed should be clarified as conjecture/speculation. Also, IMO the wording of " he posed and waved a Bible at television cameras" should be changed to simply "he posed with a Bible" in order to maintain an impartial connotation.

Also for the sake of impartiality perhaps later in the paragraph Rubio and Walker's defense of the photo op detailed here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/02/walker-rubio-among-few-republicans-to-defend-trump-over-church-photo-op/#481ab4027f04 should be mentioned to give two examples of a positive reaction to go along with the two examples of negative reaction already in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brboyle (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What's blatantly false is your official government source: historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. According to the rector of the building: Just after 10 p.m. on Sunday, someone set a fire in the basement of the parish hall, which firefighters quickly extinguished, The Washington Post reported. The fire was contained to a nursery room, although there was smoke and water damage to other areas of the basement, according to the Rev. Rob Fisher, the church's rector. "We’re very happy to report that the rest of the church and parish house is untouched except for some exterior graffiti, which the city's graffiti team has already covered up". You also should have read your own Forbes source past the first paragraph because in the next one they say that police used tear gas. That would make me double-check everything else Monahan claims. We use reliable secondary sources, not possibly self-serving primary ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't just the NPS. There were several other agencies with bodies on the ground, apparently at the behest of Bill Barr. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the whole section. As a main biography of the subject, this particular article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. — JFG ^talk 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a good move. I've reinstated it. Regardless of how it is trimmed, expanded, relocated, or rewritten, there is no doubt that it is a noteworthy, well-sourced topic that will endure in this article. Denial and erasure doesn't help us get to the best format for article text on this topic. Among other things, you could start by proposing a different location within the article or further discussion of the use of military force on domestic civilians, or the swift condemnations by diverse notable individuals. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit deleted the section on Trump having lawful demonstrators driven from Lafayette Park and surrounding streets for a photo op in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. Edit summary: This article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. (Don't count me among the shocked, I was expecting something like this.) @JFG: you support the expansion of the section on primary, secondary, tertiary fencing, steel posts, etc., and this is where you draw the line? Federal law enforcement (secret service, national guard, the freaking park service) attacking Americans lawfully demonstrating in front of the WH so bunker boy Trump can safely wander across the street for a five-minute photo op? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am firmly in agreement with JFG on this one. This is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. It might be something for Presidency of Donald Trump, but I think it unlikely this will ever have the WP:WEIGHT necessary to have a significant impact on Trump's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of the kind of information on recent developments that is sometimes deemed appropriate if this event doesn't qualify? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, "incident of the day"? SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I dunno. A declaration of war, perhaps? A heart attack? While the clearing of lawfully assembled protesters was deplorable, it is not a thing that is going to have a significant impact on Trump's life. It fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't violate not news unless this article becomes a newspaper consisting of "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" ← Of course, we commonly and extensively include such routine content anyway when it involves sports or entertainment, so why you or anyone else would decide that NOTNEWS should be expanded to include widely reported, non-routine material of obvious societal importance is totally beyond my comprehension. - MrX 🖋 12:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: It would be fair to say my view on this issue is evolving. It does, in fact, appear that this has a little more legs than I originally thought. Nevertheless, I still maintain this is something that belongs in Presidency of Donald Trump, not here. At least not yet. To suggest this has any biographical significance to Trump at this point would be WP:CRYSTAL. Trump has weathered countless controversies like this in the past, things that would end any other presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough Scjessey. There is no way to know for sure if this will have lasting significance, but I predict that the images of park police using shields to shove protesters out of the way while the protesters are being pelted with pepperballs amid smoke will have the same enduring values as images from 1968, and perhaps even 1933. A year from now and five years from now, we can review the article content from more of historical perspective and make adjustments as necessary. - MrX 🖋 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with JFG and Scjessey. The point that keeps getting made over and over is that Trump's presidency is an endless stream of noteworthy, well-sourced topic[s] that will endure in this article, at an average rate of roughly one per week. We already have far too much of this, and its existence doesn't justify even more. Almost all of it violates the spirit of #Current consensus #37. I implore editors to stop reacting to today's headlines in this article merely because of its high visibility, and to start taking most of that stuff to the Presidency article and other sub-articles for consideration. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

While it’s very obviously due to for the Presidency article (I don’t think any reasonable person can deny that), I do have some consternation whether it’s due here. It certainly passes the WP:10YT, as this will be talked about for years to come. There’s no doubt about that, given the coverage this has already evoked. However, I do agree with some of the editors here that this is not “overly” due, as of yet, for the top level biography. As in, it doesn’t need extensive coverage. I think we can certainly devote a few lines to this, though, as it’s obviously historic. But we don’t need paragraphs of content. Piping links will likely be adequate if a reader wants to know more about it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This will be edited, perhaps shortened, placed in context with reaction such as the unprecedented rebuke from Trump's Secretary of Defense. But how can we say that this is less significant to the narrative of who Trump is and what he's done that the trivia about World Wrestling, the details of some real estate, casino, or other transactions, or similar events that affected Trump and his counterprties and few others. Moreover, arguments such as Mandruss' that are about otherstuff and not about the specifics of this event as described by RS are non-starters and shouldn't be put in play to distract us with off-topic dialogue. I agree with A.A. that this is not a NOTNEWS editorial issue, so arguments based on that knee-jerk reaction will need to go deeper, based on the sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude. Agree with JFG, seems just a story-du-jour, not BLP significant nor 10YT. Also agree with OP that the content seemed dubious on facts ... the photo op seems a show of support due to the church arson, and I’ve seen press saying the orders came from Barr not Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

While I know “story-du-jour” is a favoured phrase of yours, I’m a bit surprised that you don’t recognize this passes 10YT, as it has for the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally. And we can’t speculate on where ‘orders‘ came from (Trump is capable of making his own determinations). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, this isn’t a vote. “Exclude” isn’t necessary. We’re just discussing.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Exclude, Remove, Delete, this *is* my discussion. This was just WP:RECENTISM plopping in a breaking news item. Now it is past my usual desire that there should be a 48-hour holding period so WEIGHT and more info can arrive, and it’s obvious this is not a BLP life-altering item. I’m curious what specifics you were thinking of by “the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally.”, but not much. Really, this never belonged in his personal Religion section. And it doesn’t belong as a whole subsection of Presidency, equal to all the Immigration, or all the Foreign policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I can provide a list of presidents who militarized police to subvert protests, or used the military to do so, but I think it’s immaterial. I’m primarily thinking of Nixon’s administration. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus mmm. Think Hoover and Roosevelt if you’re being historically inclined and looking for military use. If you want more current comparison about black death riots, try Obama sending troops re Michael Brown, or Freddie Grey. I continue to think this just has not been shown as material suitable for the BLP, emotional OR and speculation notwithstanding. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

“Mmm”? Like I said, there are several examples. But this practice has died off for a reason. Mark, look. I live in Ohio. My parents witnessed the Kent State Massacre and I witnessed the 2001 Cincinnati Riots triggered by the shooting of an unarmed black teenager. Since then, I’ve lived in four other places where either unarmed black people were shot, or police brutalized protestors. And not much happened. Never have I seen a politician hold up a bible outside a place damaged in the aftermath. Let alone disperse and injure peaceful protestors to do so. If you can’t realize how historic this is, it only means you’re lacking imagination. Search “Trump” in any search engine, and you’ll see a barrage of reliable sources talking about this, and how it’s relevant to his presidency. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus I am content with your expressed doubts, as I do not see you have a grasp on realities or ability to provide factual specifics here, particularly in context of this article. There seems a lot of imagined items being asserted “passes 10YT, as it has for the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally.” Or (Trump) “disperse and injure”. This kind of TALK isn’t usable for article edits. Search a bit more for yourself on where the orders came from and why... there’s just too much storyline fantasy here, lots unclear and confused, not enough fact or article edit discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

On July 24, 2018 before a group of U.S. Veterans of Foreign War, Trump said, "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." Orwellian? Yes[1]. The absurd notion that Trump has a government website denying Trump used tear gas against Americans protesting the government just so Trump could walk across the street for a photo-op at a church is Orwellian, a lie, propaganda. And the lie starts with Trump's government website falsely claiming that "pepper balls" are not tear gas, but according to the Washington Post [2] the C.D.C. says it is tear gas. I don't know why Trump wants to deny what we saw with our own eyes, but, in the future, if Trump does not want the media to expose his violence against Americans exercising their 1st Amendment right, then he should stop being so violent against Americans. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I know this isn't a vote, but I feel this should be included in Trump's bio because I feel this is who Trump is and who he is belongs in both his bio page and in the Presidency of Donald Trump page. Let me explain what I mean, Trump is an Authoritarian[3] [4]. Not a Republican, but an Authoritarian. So, just as the "Russia's annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine" and Putin using Russian police to attack Russian protesters is within Vladimir Putin's bio page, Trump attacking American protesters with tear gas just to so he can get a photo-op at a church should be in Trump's bio. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feelings are irrelevant here. I don’t disagree on at least a few of those points. But you need to act dispassionately, and be neutral, when editing. Your comment is a lot of polemic. Call me an idealist, but I genuinely try to be neutral and consider all perspectives. Offer your improvements for the article one at a time, and provide sources, as you have prior. But the ones here aren’t sufficient to rewrite a whole section of a biography. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus - your right, my feelings are not relevant here, and that's why I sourced the RS article regarding 'Trump is an Authoritarian' to explain why I support keeping SPECIFICO's edit. I apologize if I my comment above didn't make that clear. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I was a bit harsh. It wasn’t clear. I know you’re just trying to improve the article. I was only saying the extra commentary wasn’t helpful. And the “vote” comment was directed at Mark, as he used a comment standard in !voting, even though we were just all engaging in a discussion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.  I should have been more clear in my two comments.  My first comment was addressing my "non-support" of the editor's proposition, who began this new section, that we exclude truth based off of Trump's most recent fib, untruth[5], 'it wasn't tear-gas' even though WaPo confirms it was, in fact, tear gas & we saw the tear gas with our own eyes. My second comment was to "support" SPECIFICO's edit. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of this story - I don't think this is a mere passing item in the news cycle that will quickly be forgotten, I think it is a major, pivotal event that completely meets WP:WEIGHT and is totally WP:DUE. It has united Episcopalian clergy in furious denunciation [6], the participation of the Defense Secretary in the photo op resulted in "A former top official at the Pentagon, James Miller, resign(ing)... from his position on a Defense Advisory Board.... his decision was made over Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s participation in President Donald Trump’s photo op in front of St. John’s Church" [7] and is even splitting his conservative evangelical base the photo op was intended to appeal to [8].Smeat75 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, but it needs to be put into the context of the worldwide protests triggered by George Floyd's murder, but arguable resulting from pent up outrage about systemic racism in the U.S. criminal justice system. We should also briefly mention SecDef Esper's break from Trump's position regarding the insurrection act. For those who are concerned about lack of room in the article, I would be happy to start trimming an equal amount of non-biographical material as I have offered before. To those invoking WP:NOTNEWS, please understand the words and intent in the policy you are invoking. To those invoking WP:RECENTISM, I will point you to tens of thousands of sports and concert articles added over the past 19 years. In other words, WP:RECENTISM does not describe something that is in opposition to actual widespread practice. - MrX 🖋 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deleted for now - I’ve removed this again. The church photo-op got out of his personal Religion subsection, but got promoted to higher prominence of one of the six parts in the Presidency section. That event alone being set on par with *all* immigration items, *all* foreign policy, etcetera is clearly UNDUE at this time. If and when, meaning *after* it has some real impact (not ‘I think it is pivotal’) come back and convey that. A George Floyd para/subsection seems much more likely, it has much more in events and coverage - and this is just a trivia piece within that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you undo your repeat removal. You are kind of on borrowed time here, and edit-warring against the consensus on this talk page -- especially after the text has been moved and edited to address constructive comments -- is not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Time to self-revert your removal: [9][10] SPECIFICO talk

User:SPECIFICO the move was a *reason* to delete it, and not seeing any meaning to ‘borrowed time’. If it’s so big then tomorrow or next week it will still be growing - come back then. It doesn’t seem really factually straight or BLP material, and it certainly is UNDUE prominence to put it at the same level of *all* immigration, etcetera. Other than fantasies and reinterpretation framings, there’s just very little to the whole event. Hyperbolic diatribes (here or outside) just have nothing to offer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are calling Gen. Mattis' statement a "hyperbolic diatribe" -- that is kind of a preposterous characterization. Maybe give it a second reading. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Trudeau! Business as usual. Just a day's headline? [11] SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That is the octuplets version of a pregnant pause. - MrX 🖋 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include I can't think of anything brilliant to say. This latest episode of the absolute insanity that has become part of our everyday lives leaves me just totally dumbstruck. The NYT called it something that's going to go down as a memorable event in Trump's presidency and I firmly believe it. Even non-Christians know that the Bible is considered a Holy Book and to use it as a prop to show his special connection to God is just about the most bizarre thing imaginable, especially when it is very well-known that he's never read it and wouldn't believe a word of it if he did. Gandydancer (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude: The federal government was not responsible for the death of George Floyd. I see no evidence that Trump is the main focus of the protests. I don't believe the photo op at the church will be remembered in 10 years time, and I find the claims about historians writing about this fanciful. Is there any basis for these far-fetched claims? If it develops into something bigger, then, sure, include it. But at the moment it seems like a passing news story.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not really talking about the federal government or George Floyd, are we? We are talking about Trump's personal actions with respect to the latter. All news stories pass, but this one has evoked stunning reactions from the current and previous Trump-appointed SecDefs, which in itself makes it highly noteworthy. The huge amount of coverage across the world easily means that it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT according to our policy which looks at proportionate coverage with respect to other content in an article. The bible waving is not the main event. The main event is that Trump, through the US AG (Note: not Trump's personal AG), used unjustified force to clear a path so that Trump could signal his evangelical base right after he proclaimed that he would use the U.S. military to quash protests against the government, in violation of the 1st and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Causing protesters to be assaulted in the streets, threatening to use the military against Americans, waving a bible in a photo-op in a very Christ-unlike manner, and retreating to a bunker like a bitch are familiar images from a very dark and not so distant past. I assure you, this is far more important than golf courses, wrestling, reality TV, recognizing Jerusalem, and Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea. Don't take my word for it. Just listen to what the civilized world is saying as reflected in reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well said MrX - very well said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Very well said indeed (and the "swan song" comment below). BTW, while the Bible waving may not be the main thing right now I believe that that photo of Trump waving that Bible will become a historical image because it so well illustrates the picture of what it looked like when our democracy, which was built on the very idea of a separation of church and state, failed. Think about how one may look at a photograph of the ayatollah waving a Quran while the government troops savagely attack their own people and what that means. It has made a lot of people glad to be from America. And now the same thing happened right here and there it is documented in that photo. Maybe I am just being starry-eyed but I believe that Wikipedia, through documenting what is happening here and around the world, is helping us to preserve our freedom. (sorry for the soap boxing which I know I should not be doing...) Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer - Excellent points! BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer In Foreign Policy [12] retired Marine Corps 4-star General John Allen wrote, "One wonders, did Esper and Barr know that hundreds of peaceful U.S. citizens had been attacked by riot police just minutes before, their civil rights massively violated just to set the stage for their picture? Did it occur to them that in posing with the president and the Bible he held in front of a church, ostensibly calling down the authority of God on this cause, they were violating the spirit of one of the most important strictures in America, the separation of church and state? And if federal troops are indeed dispatched into the states to take action against American civilians, where does the Bible and the Christian God figure into the president’s deployment order? The framers of the Constitution intended the separation for a reason, and the commander in chief just trampled it." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MrX, can you please stop this "North Korea policy was a failure" argument. Wikipedia does not include or exclude content based on whether it is a success or failure. Please stop it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, your Korea remark raises an overriding issue which perhaps needs to be stated more starkly. Trump's North Korea policy, like many of his initiatives, was not a policy at all. It was a charade. It's been a constant battle to avoid article text here that reads like the script of Administration talking points and deflections. In the case of North Korea, RS tell us that Trump surrendered any chance of slowing or preventing Kim's development of deliverable nuclear weapons. That is the significant point, and it is not clearly articulated in the article. Trump's twitter posts, plane rides, hand shakes, Korean lunches etc. are not the central facts. Jack Upland, why don't you propose some article text on Korea that adequately conveys Trump's surrender to what the US intelligence and military establishment considered the most dangerous threat facing the US. That would be helpful, as would similar NPOV improvements to text on other governmental matters. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack, I wrote "comically failed attempts to contain North Korea", not "The North Korea policy". Trump was not operating from a policy as far as anyone can tell—not even cowboy diplomacy. I also didn't claim that the containment failure was a reason for relegating the material. - MrX 🖋 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote this is far more important than... Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea. That is a clear illustration of how much this incident is being blown out of proportion.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include It`s relevant...the way the way things are going it will probably be his swansong 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Title change: George Floyd's killing and the officers initially not getting charged was the trigger for the protests, but Trump's photo op wasn't about Floyd. As Bishop Bunne said, he didn't mention Floyd at all (or the fire-damaged church, for that matter). The cited sources say that he was furious about the administration "looking weak" and wanted to take control of the streets, resulting in Barr personally ordering the attack. Also, can someone explain to me why the main article has a "deletion" tag which leads to an AfD page for a page that doesn't exist? It looks as though the article for deletion was merged into the photo-op article. Does that automatically extend the deletion process to the article it was merged into? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Do you have a source for this currently unsourced edit? I vaguely remember someone (bishop, rector?) mentioning that the fire started in the nursery but the cited sources don't mention it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the current sources is Reuters, "Outside St. John’s, people distributed water bottles and squirts of hand sanitizer amid the coronavirus pandemic as the rector, Father Rob Fisher, watched the protest. Fisher said that a fire set the previous night in the church’s nursery did little damage before being extinguished by firefighters." Other sources have noted these church people were moved away by the 'tear gas' or police push. USA Today gives some more details – “As we know many of you have already heard, there was a small fire in the parish house basement,” Fisher wrote in a letter to parishioners. “Thankfully, it appears to have been contained to the nursery — though, as you might imagine there is smoke and water damage to other areas of the basement.” in "A look at damage inside historic St. John's Church, which burned during protests". Today. Retrieved 2020-06-02. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This one is not even remotely a close call: the WP:WEIGHT of the sourcing as relates both to both the secondary sourcing and the cascading public primary reactions separates this topic from a mere event in a daily news cycle being up-jumped by WP:CRYSTAL reasoning, even at just a handful of days out. All typical care for both the length of the content, its exact format, and appropriate attribution are of course required in rendering the event into the larger context of the article, but to the extent that the present protests must be to some degree covered in this article (and I take it for not particularly controversial that they will be), this is a significant point of focus within it. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Not a close call, given the sources. This event caused Trump's own former defense secretary to denounce him as a threat to the Constitution. "The police dispersal of protestors from the Lafayette Square and the surrounding areas was described by The New York Times as "a burst of violence unlike any seen in the shadow of the White House in generations" and possibly one of the defining moments of the Trump presidency." We can talk about where and how to include it, if necessary. Neutrality^talk 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include in some form. Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church was a keep at AfD, and has 27kb prose, all reliably sourced. With that much to say about the incident, it can get a sentence or two here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support inclusion - we got religious leaders and former military officers up in arms over this, which is not common at all. Furthermore, this incident totally features Trump himself. There's no shirking away from this. starship.paint (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Better in the Presidency of article if anywhere.--MONGO (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include I think it likely to pass the Wikipedia:10YT and be an important enough event for his bio. I mean the dude violently clear out protestors to hold up a bible across the street from the WH. Seems an important enough single event to be here.Casprings (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include but retitle and refocus somewhat. This one incident should not be a full section and should not be two paragraphs. Instead we should change the section title to something like "Response to George Floyd killing." We should expand the info about his comments and actions. Instead of him floating (but not using) the Insurrection Act, we should say that he ordered National Guard troops from several states, as well as personnel from a dozen federal law enforcement agencies, into Washington, D.C. "Combined, at least 5,800 troops, agents, and officers have taken to the streets of the District." And we should include a couple of sentences, no more, about the St. John’s Church incident. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is neither about the "Killing of George Floyd" nor the "Response to the George Floyd killing." This is about the Trump administration's questionable response to protests and riots over police misconduct since the police-custody death of George Floyd ([WaPo]), over systemic racism ([13]). The protests are about systemic racism. The Trump administration's response, Act 1, was driving peaceful and lawful demonstrators out of Lafayette Square with rubber bullets and teargas so Trump could stage a photo op pawing a Bible. (That's not just some "incident.") Act 2 was Trump threatening to deploy the military, Act 3 is Barr patrolling the streets of D.C. with unidentifiable Bureau of Prisons personnel in riot gear (asked if they were from the Department of Corrections, they replied, "Maybe"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Space4. If this were merely about Trump's reaction to the killing, it would not be a significant fact in his 70+ year life story. As I said recently about the Korea show, we need to be careful not to adopt false narratives promulgated by interested parties (Trump administration and reelection figures) when we describe his actions. Just as the Korean lunch and handshakes with Kim were not about disarmament, these latest actions are not about police misconduct - or at least not Mineeapolis police. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion I’ve stated my reasons in the above section. I can’t imagine how people would try to obfuscate this or downplay its significance. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include This particular incident raises the level of absurdity regarding him to new heights..not even getting into separation of state and church and the constitutional issues..what does he think he was proving ? This was an insanely incoherent incident and my guess is he`ll probably top it soon..it doesn`t matter whether you include or not..eventually there will be no choice..it`s obvious 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Struck double vote by IP user. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• IncludeThis one will probably end up in the history books so it doesn`t matter what we say here..trump holding a bible in front of political protesters 2600:1702:2340:9470:CCDD:9ABF:9B30:9D06 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Struck triple vote by IP user. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Two weeks later, I stand by my initial assessment: As a main biography of the subject, this particular article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. Which other "egad" moment is top of the news now? — JFG ^talk 22:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude as part of this article - probably better for the "Presidency of" article. I have to agree with JFG. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I came here to close this, but decided I probably wasn't the best person. My thoughts are that it seems there is a rough consensus to include the information in some form. Those who support inclusion point to the exceptional response from James Mattis, our article Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church, and its keep result at AFD as examples to argue that while daily outrages are not new, this outrage is an important aspect in Trump's biography. The opposition largely argue that this is no more important than the other daily outrages, and it would be undue to discuss it at length. This is a compelling reason not to have an entire section or multiple paragraphs, but weighed against the arguments of those in favor of inclusion, it doesn't seem sufficient to justify complete exclusion of the information. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment — I agree with JFG. This story has already dropped out of the news.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - no lasting encyclopedic value...yesterday's whine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. The extraordinary level of media coverage passes even the very high bar for DUE at this page. I see the normal cluster of editors here whose views about DUE just happen to line up precisely with what's favorable to Trump — it's pointless to try to tell them to stop, but they need to stop. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor ZiplineWhy has changed the title to "Killing of George Floyd" twice now ([14], [15]), both times without the courtesy of explaining their reasons in the edit summary or discussing in the lengthy discussion above. In two edits after the first change ([16], [17]), the editor stated that the section should be expanded to include Trump's condemnation of Floyd's passing, and more information. The editor also added a sentence to the lead [[18]) which has since been deleted. I have reverted to last version prior to the change. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Iconic photo

@Starship.paint: The iconic photo isn't one of those the White House published, it's the one of Trump holding the Bible aloft like a foam finger. It's the image you see when you go to the C-SPAN footage, and from 00:36 to 00:51 when the video is playing. I looked at C-SPAN's Copyright & Licensing and it seems to me that—since the event was in the public domain and its use would not enhance the value of an organization or entity—a still image of 00:37, for example would be permissible. @MrX: You were/are involved in at least a couple of deletion discussions on Wikimedia. What do you think? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I agree that the screen cap from the C-SPAN video is the iconic image and that it can be used, but it should be uploaded to Wikipedia not Commons, and we can't crop out the C-SPAN logo. The White House photo is a not a free equivalent, because it's not equivalent. "Public domain" refers to the copyright status, not the venue. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - can you prove that this particular shot was iconic - e.g. have media organizations used this particular shot? starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A basic Google image search of "Trump holding bible" suggests the image is notable, although I don't know whether "iconic" is a valid label at this point. "Like a foam finger" made me laugh out loud. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I used the word iconic because that's what your edit summary called the other photo. I can't recall having seen or heard the word used for any of the photos from the outing. There are quite a few others (Trump pawing Bible, Trump looking at Bible—uh—pensively) but the one used most often on TV and as the only one or the first one in print is the one from those 15 looong seconds of Trump the Crusader defending the honor of Bible defiantly held aloft. The NY Times has the best photo IMO (Trump and lamppost framing church marquee sign) but unfortunately we can't use it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Forgot the sources (there are more): NY Times,[19], [20], [21]), [22], [23], [24], [25] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image. MrX: Could you take a look and let me know if you see something that might be a reason for deletion? The resolution is lower than the official WH photo but no worse than other pictures in the article (Trump examining the border wall, for example). You can see it in this diff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I recommend not leaving n.a. in any of the WP:NFCCP spaces, since every criteria must be met. - MrX 🖋 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

External videos
President Trump walks across Lafayette Park to St. John's Church on YouTube (C-SPAN) (7:46)

In place of any photo, consider an external video box like this one, which would be more informative. It would also appear more neutral, since it doesn't cherry-pick images. We've done things like this for years in current-event articles, with no copyright objections that I'm aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to figure out how. Took me quite a while to do the rationale for the image; I thought I had filled out everything but I seem to have overlooked a few items. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

In the current event articles, we always prefer raw, uncut video to edited, despite the former being longer. The rationale is that any editing can reflect bias, even unconscious bias. We let the reader (viewer) look at any or all of the video (nobody is forced to view the whole thing, and most internet users these days know how to skip around in a video) and make their own interpretations and judgments. Certainly that concept applies even more when you effectively "edit the video" down to a single frame. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - good work finding the sources using the picture. They have substantively bolstered your case. starship.paint (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't actually pick the image, RS did that. All I did was find a version of it we can use on WP (keeping my fingers crossed). I get the rationale for preferring raw, uncut video. But—there's raw footage, and then there's raw footage of an elaborately staged propaganda production. The White House used footage of the walk for a 30-second Twitter video, underlaid with bombastic music. The Washington Post pasted a "This is propaganda" label on it and showed law enforcement driving protesters from Lafayette Square on a split screen. I've come to the conclusion that raw footage of an elaborately staged propaganda production (even without the music) is still propaganda, and that Wikipedia shouldn't link to it (WP:NOTPROMOTION). The plot: "Get to da choppa." The Expendables move out, Ivanka in black suit, black face mask, carrying a large white bag at 0:16–0:18 in the video. "Where's my prop, Ivanka?" Ivanka walks from left to center in background with white tote at 4:46, hands Bible to Trump at 4:47, exits screen to the left at 4:51. Trump holds Bible aloft from 5:21 to 5:36, glowers into camera ("from my cold, dead hands"), then has his Mussolini moment on the way back to the White House, reviewing the Metropolitan Guard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

elaborately staged propaganda production is POV on its face. I don't think it's for us as Wikipedia editors to decide what's propaganda. I happen to agree with you personally, but I check my beliefs at the door. I didn't actually pick the image, RS did that. I understand. But you're choosing it over an alternative that RS also picked, so you can't pass the buck to RS. It would be an entirely different situation if the raw video weren't available. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How about "clumsily staged propaganda production"? Better? Actually I would say media event instead of propaganda production, because the Americans do not have propaganda. That is more a European and Asian thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You're word-quibbling and missing the point entirely. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well what is your point. The thread was about a photo but then you went to how you prefer them uncut, etc. which I didn't really understand. Anyway, please don't confuse Space4's talk page comment w. article content. I think it's clear that what Space4 and I tried to describe in various wordings is what RS tell us about the event. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

what RS tell us about the event Same song, verse 2,236, and again we see the weakness of this system. Editors can always claim that RS says this or that, and that's never provable or disprovable because nobody can assimilate the entire body of RS on any topic, let alone prove what they've assimilated. Confirmation bias. Which sources – which tiny subset of RS – have you personally read regarding this issue?

This business is largely a numbers contest between editors of different POVs, under the guise of policy-based decision-making. I've cast my effectively-democratic vote and submitted my off-topic but highly relevant meta-rant, and I'll move on now. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll move on now Praise the Lord! Please don't disparage your well-read and open-minded colleagues here. It hurts our feelings and makes us sad. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I’m mostly noting how much of this is fantasised parody, kind of disreputable and not a credible or serious effort. Tsk. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Put it in..waving a bible in front of a bunch of pissed off students was a pretty stupid thing to do..not that it would ever happen but he could have come out and said something..anything would have been more effective than that..the worse part of all this is even his supporters know he`s crazy...It doesn`t matter what people say here..this photo op is another escalation of his lunacy and it will probably get worse..might as well put it in while it`s still relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• That was quick - image was deleted by a bot because an editor put it up for discussion stating that he didn’t see any difference between it and the WH picture and another editor voted "delete," erroneously claiming that it fails NFCC 1. (How is it even possible that a bot gets to close discussions? Maybe I should have added "Keep" to even the score?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Tweet visual element

For a while, we've had Trump's tweets embedded via {{Tweet}} at Donald Trump on social media. A few days ago, Harsh 2580 added the mail-in ballot tweet as a visual element for the social media section here, and last night I added a caption to better provide context. Space4Time3Continuum2x removed the tweet earlier today. Do others feel it is a helpful addition or not? For reference, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE may be a pertinent guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I really liked your addition of a caption and I added {{tweet}} because I felt this was quite significant to explain the context of the last para. It was the first tweet fact checked by twitter. In my opinion, editors are overcorrecting compliance with NPOV, leading to a false balance. - Harsh (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem helpful - Sorry, but it doesn’t seem related to the items in section text so does not have MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I don’t think just showing a tweet and just one tweet is good at conveying the situation as the section text describing the second-party views of tweets. So I don’t see that any image that would be helpful for the section. To image this one in particular just seems an WP:UNDUE prominence given to a specific tweet of no great note sand it overwhelms the section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that my edit summary was unclear. "NPOV" didn't refer to the removal of the tweet, it referred to began tagging Trump's more egregious misstatements which is kind of WP op-ed - I don't see that in the sources. The big story is the big shift in how Twitter deals with the president (NYT cite), and Twitter followed up the fact-checking warning with the ones about glorifying violence. The RS cites all contain the tweet plus more context than we can provide in a caption and in a short encyclopedia entry, and IMO the tweet did overwhelm the section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As the author of "more egregious", I comment on the question of why Twitter began tagging Trump's tweets. The previous and present text struggle with the questions of why Twitter began such tagging and how it decides to tag or not. My phrasing attempted to indicate why, the new phrasing resorts to weasel wording, perhaps raising more questions in a reader's mind - "some tweets"...chosen at random? why some not others? why now? etc. To back up, having reviewed the cited sources again, the issue was brought to a head by two incidents: (1) Trump's recent horrible tweets regarding the death of Klausutis, and (2) the sensitive issue of Twitter's response to Russian use of its services to interfere with the 2016 election. The first made it imperative for Twitter to do something, the second made Twitter hypersensitive about election interference, and here was Trump doing the same. As one reference discusses, the change in policy was two years in the making...brought to a head by these recent egregious tweets. There is perhaps an opportunity for indicating specifically how this came about in the article. More broadly, I reiterate my earlier opinions that the Tweeting topic is underrepresented in the article; Trump seems to tweet 50-100 times a day (ironically using Twitter and hyperbole to criticize Twitter). (I am a veteran of a hot-topic political article...and won't get too involved!) Bdushaw (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The tags are portrayed as new Twitter rules then, not about President Trump or targeted to him as “tagging Trump” portrays. Just that a tweet of his got tagged was reported, ok, and I see also complaints reported for they didn’t tag him on Gugino NYT. The introduction of more tags seems wrapped around lots of things, and so does the mechanism or success of what is/isn’t tagged and whether it actually was corrupt partisan action NYPost NBC, This looks more like something for the Twitter article than for the Trump BLP, where President Trump among others Fox The Hill are just noted as instances, and the controversy is a Twitter one. The credibility (or not) of statements is already addressed elsewhere, tied to fact-checkers... that already seems a bit UNDUE and an image saying ‘we mean tweets too’ seems redundant to the text. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair use photo for popular culture section?

At Donald Trump in popular culture#Television, I notice that we used File:Three Donalds.jpg under fair use. Would it be acceptable to do the same thing here for the popular culture section? (the section currently has no visual element) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. (And how did this still escape the notice of the Fair Use Police?). It's a still from an SNL show Trump hosted in 2015, and celebrities hosting the show get paid. It's related to Media career, I'd think, but it wouldn't serve to illustrate anything in there right now. Maybe 2016 campaign, if that mentioned the billions of free publicity Trump got. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias against Republicans on Wikipedia

I don't even know why, there's so much bias against republicans on an online encyclopedia, encylopedia's are supposed to be objective, but since the far-left editors on this website have made it a shithole, from the smearing of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, well known African American Conservative Candance Owens, Conservative pundit Mark Levin, by an editor named Snooganssnoogans. My question is how would you like, if I dug up homophobic tweets by MSNBC host Joy Reid, and added to her page, because those exist, and she actually said those things on Twitter, it was widely reported by Fox News, and caused a lot of problems for Joy Reid, or the money problems of the founders of the Lincoln Project and their connections to the Russian Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JET08021 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JET08021, see Joy Reid#Controversial blog posts. It's already documented. I see no sources about the Lincoln Project and Russia. There are many about Trump's ties to Russia, though. We are neutral. Your desire to push a right-wing point of view is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Can a brief sentence of six words be added to the lead?

My aim on Wikipedia articles is to always edit in a neutral way. I have no strong feelings of either liking or disliking Donald Trump.

In the third paragraph of the lead section at the end of the sentence: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist", I would like to add the following short sentence: Trump has denied accusations of racism.

These six words wouldn't make the lead section much longer, but in my view would aid neutrality, as per WP:BLP and WP:CRIT.

Two citations for "Trump has denied accusations of racism."

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

References

No. Trump's racially charged and racist comments are notable, but his denial of them is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If Trump said "Yes, I am a racist", THAT would be notable. But I have never heard of anyone agreeing with allegations of racism mada against them. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLPPUBLIC it absolutely belongs If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. If the claim is in the lead, the denial is also required to be in the lead. If you want to change the policy, it will require a community RfC for consensus, not a local discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would oppose this. Seems like WP:MANDY. Neutrality^talk 17:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just curious...I quoted BLP policy, which prevails in this instance, and you oppose the inclusion by wikilinking to an essay in support of your oppose. Please explain how you perceive that to be a legitimate counter to BLP policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• BLP doesn't mandate that we include obvious, non-noteworthy responses to characterizations. As HiLo48 wrote, "I have never heard of anyone agreeing with allegations of racism made against them." The excerpt you quoted also refers to responses re "allegations or incidents" and gives as an example an alleged affair. It does not entitle every living person to include a response to each and every characterization made by the outside world about their public, well-reported statements and deeds. Let alone in the lead section of an article. Neutrality^talk 18:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is no ambiguity about inclusion in BLP policy - denial(s) should also be reported - should is defined as obligation, a duty - the policy does not say "may be reported" or "could be reported". To not include it is noncompliant with policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

True in the body. Could you show me where this is required in the lead? I may have missed it. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADBIO - When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. His denial is absolutely relevant and we do not suppress a denial of a controversy per my statement above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should debate on that TP to add language to your liking. I don't see it. He denies everything. Perhaps we could add something to the end of the lead that says that. OK, that was snarky. But, it's on point. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Welp, it *is* the policy... Though I’d be happy for the dignity of the article to not have either in lead at all, it does seem big enough in article and remarkable enough to be there, so policy says have both.

User:Kind Tennis Fan - the call-him-racist phenomenon seems mostly to have been just a DNC tactic per mentions like Donna Brazile, just a talking point like Michael Moore pushing everyone to mention the popular vote on the morning after election. It is also in an era when that WP:LABEL is thrown a lot. The line is “characterized” after all, not a descriptive that he declares himself as such. But you’re right - while the name-calling is perhaps WP:LEAD material, the policy definitely is to include the denial. A vague denial line is same prominence in article as the vague mention, so both get same prominence. Both in lead seems best choice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I`ve never met a racist who didn`t deny being one..however trump is president..noteworthy 2600:1702:2340:9470:E15A:2C5D:2047:A608 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump denies absolutely everything, and in any case it is irrelevant. Trump says "I am not a racist," but the article does not describe him as such. So arguments in favor of his denial are flawed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• In the lead? No. It's WP:MANDY level stuff. We're not a newspaper, we don't give the subject the last word. And let me be clear here: I do not think Trump is a racist, he just doesn't care enough to put racial justice above transactional benefit to himself, from rental decisions to choice of immigration adviser to his response to the George Floyd protests (ten year jail sentences for pulling down statues of traitors erected by 20th Century racists). But we should cover as a simple statement of fact that he has been widely accused of racism, and we can explore his denials later in the article. BLP says we report it, but does not require that we give false balance between credible accusations and implausible denials. Guy (help!) 22:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "Person that is openly and unashamedly a perpetual liar claims he has never lied in his life" is neither surprising nor worthy of note, and neither is this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It goes without saying. - MrX 🖋 10:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Being neutral doesn't mean that we have to balance every comment with an opposing comment, it just means that we report what has been commented in a non-sensationalist way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Trump's racist words and deeds are noteworthy and have been reported by RS since 1973 when the U.S. Department of Justice sued Donald Trump, Fred Trump, and Trump Management for racial discrimination. [26] Washington Post reporter Michael Kranish said that the Justice Department considered the case "one of the most significant race bias cases" at the time. [27] Trump denied he was a racist then too, but the court's disagreed and Trump lost that case. Trump denies a lot of things that we know are true. Like I said, Trump's racists words and deeds are very noteworthy, Trump denying them are not noteworthy -- BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:BLP - "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." I mean, it's the policy. What else is there to say? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: - we do report it in the article. It's in the body: He has repeatedly denied he is racist, asserting: "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world". WP:BLP does not say the denial needs to be in the lead. It only mandates that the denial has to be in the article - which it is. starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Also, the article doesn't even say he is a racist, so we don't even need to include the denial that he is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, The clear intention of BLPPUBLIC is to state the allegation while also stating the denial out of fairness to the subject of the BLP. It can't be gamed by placing the allegations in the lede and then burying the denial later in the text. I'm sure you would object if we placed the denial in the lede and then the allegations later in the article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Also, it doesn't have to be a whole new sentence -- something like "..., though he has denied this." would also be appropriate and not interfere with the intro's flow. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Automatic, routine, unremarkable, and assumed by readers, therefore undue for the lead. It might be different if his denials were responsive to the specifics of the allegations; instead, he has sidestepped them with careless, lazy, and objectively false comments like "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." People are usually the worst possible judges of their own character, and one's subjective self-opinion (assuming he's being honest about that) is not the same as a matter of fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support From what I can tell it is a BLP vio to not have it. While I can appreciate user essays and people feeling we do not need to comply with policy, fact of the matter is we obviously do need to comply with BLP policy. Arguments like of course he denies it or that he denies everything are completely irrelevant and hold no weight what so ever. PackMecEng (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral I guess there's no real reason to register a !vote if I don't care either way, but since I happen to be on this page anyway I will. I'm strongly swayed by the WP:BLPPUBLIC argument of PackMecEng. On the other hand, the assertion is constructed in such a way ("characterized as" instead of the more absolutist "are") that Mandruss' note that it would be "assumed by readers" is compelling. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MANDY. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  So a user essay overrides BLP policy and our MOS? Also argument that lead is not subject to that policy has no foundation in policy and appears to be an attempt at gaming the system. PackMecEng (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, Agreed. A good rule of thumb is that if you have to twist the verbiage of our BLP policy to get what you want, your actions probably not following the intention of that policy. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:MANDY is explaining an application of WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a policy. Nice try. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb, The BLP policy states that "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." It does not state that "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, unless an editor thinks otherwise." The idea that a user essay which explains a policy clearly geared toward historical/scientific claims somehow overrides BLP doesn't hold water. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How many times does this need to be said? At no point does this article label Trump as a racist. Therefore, his denial that he is a racist is completely irrelevant. He has not denied that he has made "racially charged or racist" comments, at least, I can find no reliable source that says as much. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Scjessey, You're splitting hairs pretty thin here. The distinction between "he's racist" vs "he's said racist things" is really no distinction at all. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: I disagree. In fact, I would only support adding a denial if we also added that he is a racist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Scjessey, So when the BLP policy says "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported", you think it only refers to allegations made in Wikipedia's voice? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Nowhere in this article does it say "Trump is a racist" or "Trump has been described as a racist" in Wikipedia's voice or any other voice, so his denial of same is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with policy. Surely this is an easy concept to understand? I've now explained this several times, and I don't believe it will be necessary to explain it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mandruss and Scjessey. Proponents should note that WP:BLPPUBLIC makes zero mention of leads. It only says that denial(s) should be reported in articles, so by reporting the denial in the body of the article, WP:BLPPUBLIC is already satisfied. starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources do not really support the statement as such. A wide perception of Trump's actions is far from undermined by two statements from 2018 and 2019 where he denies very specific instances of racial controversy. The first citation has to do with the "shithole" controversy, and the second with the Elijah Cummings attack. Are these the only racial controversies of his entire term? Far from it, if I remember correctly. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support- As per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Some of the same people who want to hide allegations made about Joe Biden want to not only highlight them here, but omit Trump's response to them. There is always a double-standard on wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Claims of a double standard are not sufficient to require information you like to be included in the article's lede. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, important policies like BLPPUBLIC need to be applied consistently.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:BLP does not require this trivial denial (among hundreds of others) to be included in the lede, of all places. Claiming otherwise is a willful misreading of policy. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The argument is WP:BLPPUBLIC does require it. Also what makes it trivial? PackMecEng (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Show me where WP:BLPPUBLIC states that a subject's denials of accusations must be included in the lede. The policy governs articles as a whole, not ledes as constituent parts. The statement that they are trivial is not part of my argument, but I believe them to be because (as others have noted) this article's subject as a rule denies a large plurality of facts reported about him. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
      • • The issue with that is you cannot make a claim or accusation and then bury deep in the article they denied it. That is just an end run around public figure. PackMecEng (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Also, and I've now said this eleventy billion times, this article DOES NOT call Trump a "racist" anywhere, so his denial of same is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
        • That's all just semantics. Your argument is that we're not calling him a racist, but saying "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist" strongly implies it, so I see little difference.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
          • It's not semantics. Trump has absolutely NOT denied that some of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, or we would have put that in. And we ALREADY have his denial in the body of the article, so BLPPUBLIC is already satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
            • So every time someone accuses him of saying something racist, he has to issue a separate statement about that particular comment? By putting the allegation of racism (or whatever you want to call it) in the lead and burying his response in the body, you are giving much more UNDUE weight to his critics. Either his response belongs in the lead or better yet the entire topic stays out of the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
              • "Burying his response in the body..." Oh, now I see what this is all about. You want Trump's non-notable denial to be in the lead because you think it will balance out the voices of "his critics". This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You see, Trump HAS made comments and taken actions that are racially charged or racist, and we have TONS of documentation from reliable sources to support that. It has HUGE biographical significance because it is one of his defining characteristics (along with lying). But Trump's claim he is "the least racist person anywhere in the world" is obviously utter bullshit and not biographically significant at all. That's exactly how WP:WEIGHT is supposed to work. The notable stuff gets more coverage than the non-notable stuff. Please come back with a policy-based argument, instead of a personally motivated one. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
                • I did give you a policy-based argument, you just don't think the policy applies because of your personal opinion that what Trump said is "obviously utter bullshit" (which is really inappropriate even for a talk page and may be a BLP violation itself). But wikipedia is not your blog, the reader should be able to decide himself, instead of being told what to think. Basically, you want to state that "Trump is a racist" but know that won't fly so are using WP:WEASEL words instead.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • LOL yeah okay. I guess misstatements are just normal now, as is the lack of reasonable discourse. I shan't be wasting any more of my time debating with editors who aren't here to improve the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as his rote denial is already mentioned in the "Racial Views" section. There's no rhyme or reason to put it in the opener. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Would also bloat lede. ~ HAL333 20:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support My initial inclination was oppose as it should be obvious and go without saying. However, as has been pointed out, WP:BLPPUBLIC would seem to support the addition. My first thought was that perhaps a difference should be made between objective accusations of an event occuring vs subjective value judgments (this case being the later). However, I'm having trouble articulating why these should be different, and the more I think about it, the less I'm convinced that they should be. I was trying to look for some precedent in featured articles, and I can't find any leads with accusations that could be classified as subjective value judgments, leading me to question whether this belongs in the lead at all. I'm vacillating between Neutral & Support, if anyone can come up with a precedent or solid reason why the normal standards of WP:BLPPUBLIC should not apply here, I will switch to Neutral or even Oppose.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's very rare that someone openly accepts the term 'racist'. The lead is tight on space. If any additional content on race should be added, it's that Trump led the birther movement (which would only need six words). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support BLP Policy takes precedence over some obscure opinion in an essay. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with rewrite I propose combining the two sentences into one: "Many of his comments and actions have been accused of being racially charged or racist, which Trump has denied." This has better flow, and the proposed new sentence gives an implication that Trump isn't denying the 'charged' part. Also, most topics in the lede do not have more than one sentence dedicated to them. --Steverci (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Steverci: Please provide a reliable source that supports that idea that Trump has denied accusations his comments and actions have been racially charged or racist. As far as I know, he has only claimed he is "the least racist person in the world" and this article does not claim he is a racist. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Scjessey: I think that's a flawed argument. The denial is of the accusations, not of the Wikipedia article. My emphasis: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Thus the policy can apply without our use of wiki voice. Whether it applies in this specific case is a different matter, and I reject arguments that the policy is inviolable, which are inconsistent with WP:POLICY. It is a single sentence that leaves plenty of room for interpretation at the case level. Editors are free to interpret it rigidly, and we are free not to do so. But we shouldn't be saying that it applies only to wiki voice, as it clearly does not. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Mandruss: That's not what I'm saying. I have made this argument several times above, in fact. Our article does not accuse Trump of being a racist, either in wiki voice or any other voice. It simply says that some of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. If no accusation of being a racist is in the article in any form, no denial of same is necessary. Despite that, we DO include his denial in the body of the article, we just don't include it in the lead. I think that is perfectly reasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah so. So you're saying that his denials as reported in this article are of something that he has not been accused of as reported in this article (to wit: being racist). A non-racist could say and do things that are racially charged or racist. Sure, I suppose that's a hair that could be split by a somewhat sane person. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @Mandruss: I'll proudly wear my "Somewhat Sane" badge with honor. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Scjessey: "After days of controversy, the president explicitly denied making racially charged remarks during a meeting". Same article says "Trump denied being racist, too", so the two were clearly differentiated. --Steverci (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • "During the meeting". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • You have imposed a higher standard for him to deny the allegations than you have for the people making the allegations, that's unreasonable. Even with a source that says he "denied making racially charged remarks", you won't accept it because maybe what he was saying is that he didn't make racially charged remarks during the meeting but he usually does. Do you think anyone except for you would interpret his remarks that way? Do people only deny being racist on certain days, but admit that they are racist on other days? Does he need to make a separate statement denying allegations of racism every time he is accused of it? And yes, the article basically says he is a racist without specifically saying it, see WP:WEASEL.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
          • I haven't "imposed" anything. I'm just saying that his blanket denial that he is a racist is a response to something WE DON'T SAY IN THE ARTICLE, and that we ACTUALLY INCLUDE IS DENIAL in the body of the article anyway. His denial of not notable enough for the lead, because OF COURSE he denied being a racist - everyone would. And the number of sources accusing him of racially charged actions and comments are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than the number of sources referring to his weak denial. I'm done arguing this BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS point now, as you can tell from my ALL CAPS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Like Rusf10 said, are you expecting us to find Trump denying every allegation from the last half century? Also, there are sources calling the shithole comment both racially charged and racist. Why should we be differentiating something completely subjective? --Steverci (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary and not needed. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new lead immigration text to replace consensus

Here is the text I propose to replace the enumerated consensus text on immigration in the lead:

1 Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president. He reduced the legally permitted number of asylum-seeker immigrants by nearly 90% and attempted to institute a "Muslim ban" that was modified and renamed after being struck down several times in the courts. Trump's policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back after sparking widespread outrage. His campaign vow to "build a wall" on the Mexican border has resulted only in the renovation a few sections of pre-existing fencing.

• Responding to editor comments and criticisms below Here is a shortened version of version 1. Needless to say, it would have been helpful to have some of this constructive participation earlier in the five weeks since the lead revision was first proposed. When evaluating these options, please compare them to the article text and sourcing, which is our guide. Here is option one short version:

  1 short version Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president. His policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back after sparking widespread outrage. His campaign vow to "build a wall" on the Mexican border resulted only in the renovation of a fraction of the preexisting wall.

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Atsme, Scjessey, Onetwothreeip, 1990'sguy, Chetsford, Mandruss, Sdkb, Markbassett, Starship.paint, and MrX:

For comparison, here is the consensus text:

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

Here is the text JFG's replacement, for which no new consensus was established:

3 Trump has advocated a stricter immigration policy: he imposed travel bans on various countries, tightened enforcement of immigration law, and increased migrant detentions and family separations. He also vowed to "build the wall" on the Mexican border but has managed only to renovate mostly renovated pre-existing fencing.

Note: The above proposal was made by User:SPECIFICO. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 2600:1702:2340:9470:2874:EE79:5E55:D671 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - More concise and direct. But as a point of clarity, is the statement that "Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president" actually true? There was once a time in American history when only a free white person of "good moral character" could be a citizen - which is definitely harsher than anything Trump did. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• The wording reflects article text and cited sourcing. Also, please note that asylum is not citizenship. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, The actual article is a little clearer: "harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president before him." That makes sense, and is sourced. The blanket statement that his immigration policies as a whole are harsher than any other US President is dubious. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Need to see the sources first. Did I overlook them? - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just trying to summarize article text and the sources cited there. None of these cite additional sources not in the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - I see no reason at all to change the existing text, which has been stable for ages and seems to do the job adequately and concisely. If it ain't broke... -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Update - I am persuaded by the arguments for option 3 or 3.1 enough that I don't object to them. But I stridently oppose option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, unless we're Breitpedia now? Guy (help!) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.1 as option three is the best out of these. The first option is so shamelessly biased that I am surprised anybody would seriously suggest an encyclopaedia publish this. The second option is reasonably neutral but does too much to sanitise the actions of Trump. The third option covers all the important events but is still written to make Trump sound like some sort of clown, rather than have that as a natural implication from the content. It also inadvertently makes some points that are too charitable to Trump, such as that his policies are a matter of enforcing existing laws. I would amend the third option as follows:

  Trump has advocated for and implemented stricter immigration policies such as banning travel from various countries, increased deportations, and increased migrant detentions and family separations. He also vowed to construct a wall along the US-Mexican border.

  I'm not fixed on this particular wording so I'm more than happy for others to modify this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: This version is both concise, NPOV, and still is able to give satisfactory detail on Trump's immigration policies. Option 1 is too biased -- for example, it says that "only ... a few sections of pre-existing fencing" were "renovat[ed]". "Only" and "a few" is editorializing, and the claim is debatable, since 200 miles have been built, and there's a big difference between the original fencing and the new structures. Other parts, such as "policy of caging children" is clearly POV (the policy was to stop "catch-and-release" and because of the Flores Settlement, separating families was a consequence of the policy), and the travel ban clearly wasn't a Muslim ban by the time the original order was signed, as the text implies (the ban was obviously inspired by the campaign promise, but the text implies that the implemented policy actually was a ban of Muslim people). Lastly, Option 2 only mentions one specific aspect of Trump's immigration policy, so that's why I also don't think it's an appropriate version. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to strongly oppose the shortened version of Option 1. The first sentence is patently false -- just compare Trump to the restrictionist presidents of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Also, the word "harsher" isn't encyclopedic and words like "stricter" or "restrictionist" are more descriptive. Also, once again, "caging children" is too emotionalistic (and not purely a Trump Administration policy). The POV word "only" remains in the border wall sentence, and it's inappropriate to word it in the past tense since the wall construction is still ongoing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2; (Option 3 is my second choice). Option 1 is just too wordy for a lead that already unnecessarily eclipses the guidance provided us by WP:LEADLENGTH. Chetsford (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose option 1, far too long for the lead of this account of an entire very public life. That's if we have to say anything at all about this in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.1 as proposed by Onetwothreeip. Trump's immigration policies go far beyond the Muslim ban, and this option captures that best while remaining concise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - keep consensus, (Option 2). Lack good reason(s) to be playing around. Really nothing new to add or improvement here so not good. Longer is actually a bad thing. Playing around during election time just smells fishy, though article already has pings as biased. Giving some respect to established #consensus is desirable. Stability in general is desirable to move closer to a Good Article Criteria, and though article is a long way from GA it should try to move closer not further.

I’ll also note Option 1 is false - I don’t know where such a blithe ‘harsher than any previous American President’ comes from, but obviously contrary to history and blatently vague posturing there, and not part of article body. There’s a long history of harsh immigration treatment, Operation Wetback, Immigration Act of 1924, treatment of the Japanese and before them the German and Irish and Chinese ... and that was to those doing *legal* immigrantion. Try googling and read some, e.g. Salon Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Verification not truth, Mr. Bassett. Please read our article text. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This false posturing is not something emerging from the body, let alone in an amount to justify WP:LEAD or putting in such inflammatory blurbism. There is a line for the two whiffy advocacy sources saying more in immigration *enforcement policies* against than any *modern* U.S. president ... but #1 is clearly a false vague posturing. I am only slightly curious where this junk came from, but do not really need to know. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Playing around during election time just smells fishy ... Stability in general is desirable to move closer to a Good Article ... oh come on, shall we lock down the article until the election is over? starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s a thought, but no — and neither should we foolishly ignore that election-year rewrites without reasons is fishy. That is just asking for wasting time on junk. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ll also note Option 3 has a false bit there is barriers where there was none before, and replacement or upgrades of different design to prior obstacles, so “only to renovate pre-existing fencing” is false. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - fixed Option 3 per WP:IAR. Now follows the body. Thank you for catching that. starship.paint (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 is no longer sufficient, it focuses on only one aspect of Trump's immigration policies, possibly not the most important aspect. Option 1's first sentence ... is it really supported by the body? (harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president before him). policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back seems a bit misleading, I don't believe every child was caged, as there were different types of facilities. What was supposedly rolled back was the separations, although as our article writes, separations did continue. Not sure whether the caging did continue. Perhaps it did. Option 3 or 3.1 aren't perfect, but right now they are the better choices. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Yes, the article says that.. Maybe you can suggest a tweak to the language regarding kids in cages, since I know you've worked on this content in other articles. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Starship.paint: The processing enclosures that are from Obama would still be there and still used during initial processing. Calling the enclosures “cages” is a bit inflammatory and partisan labelling, and they’re not “kept” in the sense as long-term housing. Just saw some more news about fake news about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Between Option 1 and 2 - Strong oppose to Option 3 and its variants - Option 1 is too detailed, and phrasing like "policy of caging children" may sound good at the dinner table, but not in an encyclopedia. Option 3 omits the significant aspect of the de facto Muslim ban. If we are to expand this material, there should be a mention of the substantial opposition to his policies. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  @MrX: Would you support option 3 if it described those banned countries as some variant of "Muslim majority"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: No, I'm afraid not. - MrX 🖋 22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• MrX, how would you propose rephrasing the language that describes caging? It's surely been one of the Trump proudest and most widely-covered actions during his time in office and a key part of his attempts at reducing immigration. Let's all review the straightforward language used to describe the separations and kids in cages in our Wikipedia articles on the details [28] [29]. If we are not going to be clear about Trump's immigration policies, we may as well leave the minimal status quo, option 2. But because immigration and American national identity and America First are key to Trump's political posture success, I think more than a minimal sentence is OK for the lead. WP generally reflect mainstream description of all sorts of atrocities, disasters, tragedies, crimes, perversions, and horrible mistakes. Here we're talking about one of the most enduring parts of Trump's public record, not even something about which Trump has expressed any regret or misgivings. So if there's better wording that still conveys the sourcing and article content, that's always welcome. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trump's policy of separating children from their families was rolled back..." I'm not in favor of expanding this material at all. But we should have at least a couple of sentences about how famously he has botched the pandemic response, and how he has doubled down on racism.[30][31] We should dump N. Korea and Jerusalem from the lead, as I have said in the past. They are insignificant. - MrX 🖋 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose Version 1, both the original and short versions, as POV and not neutral. Language like “harsher” and “caging” may find its way into the article text, if sufficiently sourced, but absolutely does not belong in the lead. I have upheld version 2, the consensus version, in the past, and still support it, but I now prefer version 3 or 3.1, as being more current and inclusive of his immigration policies in general instead of just focusing on just the travel ban. (Nitpick: I would prefer “multiple countries” instead of the vague-sounding “various countries”.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Another, stronger reason why versions 1 and 1A are completely unacceptable: the sentence “Trump implemented harsher immigration policies than any previous American president” is false. It grossly misstates and exaggerates the sourced material in the text. As May His Shadow pointed out, the article actually quotes a scholarly source as saying “harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president before him.” In fact, many previous administrations have imposed much harsher and even frankly racist limitations on immigration. Ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? For that matter, immigration quotas based on nationality have been common well into modern times. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 – This new text was workshopped by several editors following a recent peer review of the whole article. The previous text (option 2) is obsolete, as it fails to note two years of developments since the July 2018 consensus wording, and puts too much emphasis on the travel ban's legal history. Trump's stance on immigration, and the policies that he pushed, are arguably the most prominent and consistent features of his presidency. Accordingly they must have representative weight in the lead section paragraph dedicated to policy. Option 1 is not neutral, and uses inflammatory language. — JFG ^talk 05:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3- The others are very disingenuous for the fact that neither North Korea nor Venezuela are muslim-majority countries. Option 1 is far worse that Option 2 though. and has severe NPOV violations.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Seems the best fit for accuracy and due weight. Option one is to long and unwieldy while giving undue emphasis on certain things, it comes off as POV. While option two is better it could cover more and is out of date. I think three is the best fit. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support a combination of #1 and #2. #3 is unacceptable. To say that Trump "increased... family separations" plays into a right-wing falsehood that Trump was continuing a policy implemented by the Obama administration.[32] FactCheck.Org describes it as "misleading"[33] and the NY Times describes it as "false".[34] We cannot have a lead that pushes falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only does Option #1 have serious POV problems, as multiple editors have pointed out, but it also contains its share of falsehoods and misrepresentations, as editors including MelanieN, Markbassett, and myself have noted. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 This is the consensus version for a reason. If we are going to change it then we need to show consensus has changed. Would support some clarification about North Korea and Venezuela not being Muslim majority countries though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 The most concise option of those given. Option 1 (both versions) is very POV, sensationalist, overlength, and uses scare quotes. Parts of it are just plain false – Trump has not made an executive order for "caging children". Option 2 isn't perfect; Trump ordered travel bans for non-Muslim countries and his immigration policies have probably concerned Mexico the most. Option 3 has some improvements (such as replacing "harsher" with "stricter") up until "increased migrant detentions and family separations". This technically falls under "tightened enforcement of immigration law", and it is unencyclopedic to portray a consequence of stronger immigration laws as a policy Trump actually advocates, when he has actually signed an executive order ending family separations and advocated keeping families detained together. The wall should probably be mentioned in the lede, but the proposed version also uses scare quotes and implies the effort isn't on-going. I prefer Onetwothreeip's more concise suggestion ("He also vowed to construct a wall along the US-Mexican border"). If these issues are addressed, I may support option 3 instead. --Steverci (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• @Steverci: I'm afraid you've got a bit of a straw man argument there. Version 1 states His policy of caging children separated from their families was rolled back after sparking widespread outrage. -- There is no mention of an Executive Order. This was Trump policy elaborated at length by him and Jeff Sessions to terrorize asylum seekers so that they would not come to the US. Please read the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

.

republican nomination

Closing. This has become just a discussion, unrelated to article content. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is trump running unopposed for the republican nomination ? Why isn`t in the article ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Because he wasn't unopposed at first, and now he has enough delegates to be the "presumptive nominee". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC) My point is this is unusual..what is different about this election ? He is obviously unpopular even within his own party and yet he`s already sewn up the nomination..it reeks of political corruption and no one even liberals seem to have batted an eye about it..why isn`t in the article ? If he`s the presumptive nominee than why are they having a convention..particularly during a pandemic? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC) The article doesn't mention "unopposed" because it's not at all unusual for an incumbent president to have no primary opposition, or only token opposition. It's taken for granted that the incumbent will run for a second term without opposition from within his own party; there is no "corruption" about it. See, for example, 1984 Republican Party presidential primaries or Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. I have taken the trouble to reply, but this conversation is really off topic for the article talk page which is supposed to be about what goes in the article, so let's drop it now, can we? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC) He is popular among Republican voters. Gallup says 91% approval in their latest number for Jun 8-30. 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries did have a former governor. Current top politicians rarely run against an incumbent when they don't have a chance. 2020 is not unusual here. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Why is there supposed to be a convention ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Orange skin

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

---

I was interested to see whether the President's famed orange hue was mentioned anywhere in the article: but it wasn't, not once. Now, I understand that Wikipedia is of course supposed to look at this from a neutral perspective, but characteristics of Trump such as his orange face - as well as his strange, blonde hair and even the red ties that he's fond of wearing - I feel should be at least referenced. The fact of the matter is that, whether or not Trump's face really is "orange", he is universally known for this feature, even among his supporters. Go up to a ten-year-old child and make a reference to the "orange man", and there's a chance they'll know who you're talking about. Obviously it's not particularly important to his presidency or his accomplishments, but maybe could be included in the "public profile" section? A "public image" section would be ideal. Does anyone agree with me that some kind of reference to this should be included at all? --121.99.126.230 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If you believe this is noteworthy, please provide several mainstream Reliable Sources that give an overview you believe should be reflected in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the following:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-is-donald-trumps-skin-orange-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-photograph-tan-lines-orange-face-white-house-a9324791.html

According to the Independent: "The president’s curious complexion has long been a subject of intense scrutiny, chiefly among critics and comedians, with Mr Trump previously blaming his heightened facial luminosity on the glare of energy efficient lightbulbs – which he then threatened to ban." --121.99.126.230 (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There is, perhaps, a substantive issue to be developed here, which is DT's general appearance - hair, skin color, use of makeup, etc. Often remarked upon by comedians cite#0 Vanity Fair. There was also the time DT sued Bill Maher over the issue, when he challeged DT to prove he was not half orangutan cite#1 The Guardian, cite#2 Reuters, cite#3 CNN. This article is about DT, so a discussion of DTs obviously carefully crafted appearance is valid. Meanwhile, the lawsuit is indicative of the character of the man. Also with relevance to his health. Bdushaw (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Also cite#4 CNBC the tanline incident, dismissed by DT as fake news.Bdushaw (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

He probably has high blood pressure 2600:1702:2340:9470:ED5A:2464:B671:13B7 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If anything this belongs in Donald Trump in popular culture. There is already a whole section dedicated to his hair, so you could probably easily make one about his skin tone. These things are not encyclopedic enough to put on the main Trump article unless there are reliable sources proving he uses wigs or spray tan. Most things in the Health and lifestyle section are backed by Trump's own physicians, not comedians. --Steverci (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The source of his skin tone is already known; it's a particular brand of orange-tone makeup.[35] [36] But it doesn't belong in the article IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll second that per consensus #37. Mgasparin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thirded. Mentioning Trump's makeup should really be beneath us. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, Fourtheded. Not the kind of detail we need to fixate on, at least in the main article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Perhaps we can add Trump to List of famous people with atrocious spray tans? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I can't believe I clicked on that May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Change: this was only publicly reported later in January 2019

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

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

Citing Wealth-X as source (note a)

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

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

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

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