Talk:Liberation Day tariffs

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

Presidents of the United States Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

On 14 April 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Trump tariff announcement. The result of the discussion was moved back to Liberation Day tariffs.

Relocation

Article can probably be relocated as a section/paragraph under the tariffs page Kokokringle (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a section in the tariffs page dedicated solelely and specifically to the April 2/"Liberation Day" tariffs, given how much prominence they have gained worldwide, even compared to the previous, more specific tariffs Revangarde568 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. This has massive implications in America and abroad. The stock market has already shed more than $2.5 TRILLION based on the news—and that's despite him promising to do it before the election! I think people just assume he wouldn't do it. Electricmaster (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, we should copy over content from the 'Reciprocal tariff policy' section of the other page. That is to say, if this page here is to be the dedicated page for the April 2 tariffs, then it should not be missing any information that other pages have on the April 2 tariffs.

I'm happy to do this copying, but I note it will require some restructuring of this page here. Gfoxwood (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additive

Has there been any clarity yet on whether the reciprocal tariffs announced yesterday are additive (in which case the reciprocal tariff of 20% announced for imports from the EU would equal 30%)? CBS news has claimed "The tariffs will be additive, meaning that imports will face both the universal tariff of 10% plus the specific reciprocal import levies targeting each nation" ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-liberation-day-list/ ) but other news sources aren't reporting this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.9.7 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) satkara❈talk 20:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech → Executive Order 14257 – This article uses the Executive Order infobox but does not use the standard naming convention for EOs, as seen in "Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump". Even EOs with common names use this convention, such as the "Muslim travel ban" aka Executive Order 13769, or the "TikTok ban" aka Executive Order 13942 or authorization of the "Japanese internment camps" or Executive Order 9066 use this naming convention.

It takes a couple days for the Federal Register to formally publish and enumerate a new EO, but it has done that now and assigned it #14257. Moving to this name will also satisfy the deletion discussion for this page; the liberation day speech was just the formal announcement of this EO. satkara❈talk 17:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only executive order in history I can find that does not use the #s is the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln. satkara❈talk 13:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ Oppose because of it not really following the WP:CRITERIA of article titles.
- Recognizability: ~~Maybe~~ No because of wide coverage as Liberation Day as the name.
- Naturalness: No because most are looking for Liberation Day.
- Precision: Maybe because it is the announcement of the executive order, but not the order itself.
- Concision: Yes Executive Order 14257 is pretty concise.
- Consistency: Yes as above.

Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 18:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion from Weak oppose to Oppose because I am also looking at WP:NCGAL#Legislation and it says "Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources.". Reliable sources show Liberation Day usage. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 23:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above, I do not think that a string of numbers will be quite recognizable to most people searching for the article. Easternsahara (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NATURALNESS, all of which the proposed title unequivocally fails. DecafPotato (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for consistency with other Trump orders on Wikipedia and also for being a more neutral name. --Dynamo128 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Move to "Liberation Day reciprocal tariff announcement" It has the WP:COMMONNAME in it and it also explains what the announcement is the "reciprocal tariffs" Shaneapickle (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: We should also refer to it by its #EO name, which is 14527 Shaneapickle (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes The article is primarily about the executive order enacting the tariffs, and the tariffs themself. It is not mainly about the Liberation Day speech in which Trump announced the tariffs, as the articles current title suggests it is about. The only part of the article that really covers the speech in depth is the section titled Speech, which is a single section within the article. With that being said, I think the proposed name makes the most sense, as it the WP:COMMONNAME for an article about a U.S. executive order. Also all of the other names for the order that meet[[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY] besides the proposed name could be redirected to the article at that new name.

Oppose per Stuffinwriting, additionally, on the point of the infobox, I argue that it should be reverted back to the original "infobox event" template as in this revision. The focus of the article is not the executive order itself, but rather Liberation Day as a whole. I think a better name is warranted, but more focused on the event, not the executive order. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and per user @Stuffinwriting. Ahammed Saad (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per al common names of Executive Order articles and per reasoning of nominator. If WP:COMMONNAME is an issue, all Executive Order articles should be renamed. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Regardless of whether one finds the proposed title appropriate, it is incorrect. The Federal Register has officially designated the executive order imposing these tariffs as Executive Order 14257, not Executive Order 14527, as the RM says. DecafPotato (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of repeating my previous opposition, I must state that the fact that not a single person before this in the discussion noticed the fact that the RM is proposing an objectively false name makes it a rather damning failure of both WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. DecafPotato (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, I updated accordingly! I'd like to note though that this is RM focuses on consistency with other EOs for every president (see "Category:United States executive orders"). For example, while I assume very few people know that Executive Order 13769 is the "Muslim travel ban", that's still the name used on Wikipedia. So the question is, does the common name usurp a convention for ~300 pages? satkara❈talk 21:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, especially in this instance, because the article's scope is beyond the order itself. But even more broadly, I can't find any discussions for this convention at all. We don't use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, and the executive order standard isn't written at WP:NCGAL or anywhere else. Certainly some executive orders are best known by their official name, but I'm not sure that consistency is enough to overcome the standards of the policy WP:CRITERIA, because I don't think the title is either recognizable nor natural.

(And a brief aside, the 'Muslim ban' EOs I think have better titles, because that phrase can reasonably refer to either Executive Order 13769 or Executive Order 13780, which superseded it, so it seems to me like perfectly fine WP:NATDIS.) DecafPotato (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is substantial support in the AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech) for renaming/merging this article to Liberation Day tariffs, which was recently redirected here. The support for that option should be considered by any closer of this discussion. — Goszei (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe @Jmccfip @Bri @GWA88 @Astaire @Reywas92 @WMSR @Enos733 @An editor from Mars @Seefooddiet @Sink Cat @Novem Linguae @SymphonyWizard72 @JParksT2023 @Yeoutie @KingSkyLord @Reunion @Galagora @Botto @Vctrbarbieri @LokiTheLiar @Generalissima @AbbotOfLeibowitz @Burwellian @Lord Beesus @A. Randomdude0000 @Evileeyore @YaBoiWilhelm @V. L. Mastikosa @Stuffinwriting @Pithon314 @Voorts @Cleebadee @Windfarmer1799 @Schiffy @Sjö @Sethi752 @StAnselm @Personisinsterest @Des Vallee @Dynamo128 @RedDeadGuy @Kaito-san @WereWolf @Wheatley2 @Wjfox2005 @Brenae wafato @-insert valid name here- @Shankargb @Casspedia @Widefox @Sirfurboy @Thegreatrebellion @Jothefiredragon @AnotherWeatherEditor @Vanilla Wizard @DemocracyDeprivationDisorder @Chess

Pinging all participants in the AfD discussion in case you wish to comment on the RM here. I've tried my best, though apologies if I've missed or duplicated someone. DecafPotato (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and support move to "Liberation Day tariffs", per the arguments advanced in the AfD linked in my comment above. — Goszei (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my nomination. As events and notability evolve, I think there is room for both an article on the EO as well as an article entitled "Liberation Day tariffs" or "Trump administration reciprocal tariffs". satkara❈talk 20:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

New name?

Per above, withdrawing my nom. There may be room for both an article focusing on the EO and an article focusing on the tariffs, but that's not my focus atm.

Per the AFD and RM discussions linked above, it looks like everyone agrees this article should be moved to an article that focuses on the tariffs announced April 2. Before opening another RM, what do we think the WP:COMMONNAME is to propose a move to?

A. "Liberation Day tariffs"
B. "Reciprocal tariffs" or "Trump reciprocal tariffs" (to avoid confusion with Reciprocal Tariff Act)
C. "April 2 tariffs"
D. Other options?

This is a google trends comparison of the above with variations over the last 7 days. "Trump tariffs" has significantly higher volume than all of these but isn't specific enough.

While liberation day had a sharper peak, it declined more quickly and has a lower volume than reciprocal tariffs. Filtered to the last 3 days, "reciprocal tariffs" beats out "liberation day" even in the US, and searches for "liberation day tariffs" are minimal.

However there seemed to be a forming consensus on liberation day tariffs in previous discussions. Thoughts?

satkara❈talk 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support naming it Liberation Day tariffs. Most of the news media is still using the names. Although they are also using the name Trump tariffs widely, but this doesn't cover it at all cause all of his administration's tariffs aren't reciprocal and we have a separate article on his tariffs. And simply Reciprocal tariffs, as you mentioned, may create confusions. Also the term Trump reciprocal tariffs seemed odd to me. April 2 tariffs doesn't seem universal to me. Ahammed Saad (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supports B. as news outlet inn my country called this thing "Trump Tariffs". 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 06:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support A for move to Liberation Day tariffs: seems the most reasonable option and highlights specifically the importance of this singular event and the tariffs proposed (and later imposed) from it. JParksT2023 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is moved to Liberation Day tariffs per AfD. Syn73 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which, per the close, is a placeholder pending move discussion. "Trump Tariffs" has 20 times the coverage of "Liberation Day Tariffs". "Trump global tariffs" manages nearly 7 million hits (but half the liberation day count). WP:TITLE, on neutrality of titles, says, inter alia:

In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions.

Liberation Day tariffs is not the common name here. That is the political spin put on it by the instigators of the policy. Know that no-one outside of the USA thinks of this as a liberation day, and many of those cases of the use of that name put liberation day in quotes (in the US as well as elsewhere). E.g. [1]. A title must be precise, and Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. The non neutral, and non common name "liberation day" should not be in this title. The common name is "Trump tariffs". But per the advice above, we should qualify that for this article as either Trump global tariffs or more likely Trump Tariffs of April 2 2025 or similar. Or else just merge the thing into an article about Trump Tariffs, which is the real story and the common name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your reasoning here since I don't see many news outlet in non-American countries addressing the tariffs as per title. How the articles are structured surrounding this very notable events are quite confusing and even more so during a beginning. Perhaps a new RM could be proposed. Syn73 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A new RM is inevitable. But let's have a bit of workshopping first so that the proposal can be for a title that stands a chance of gaining consensus. I am not so bold as to assume my starter suggestions will not raise objections. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reciprocal tariffs" is definitely too vague for an article about US tariffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thnk that Liberation Day tariffs is not a neutral point of view name. As outside the USA this is mostly known as the USA tariffs day. 80.103.137.78 (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That gets a couple of thousand hits in Google, but well short of the 72 million for the vaguer "US tariffs" and that is dwarfed by the 275 million for "Trump tariffs". Also is April 2nd really that relevant? He announced tariffs before April 2nd and those he announced on April 2nd have now been replaced by a flat 10% everywhere but China without actually being implemented. So, what's the best title? Trump tariffs? But then, how is the page different from Tariffs in the second Trump administration? Maybe Trump tariff announcement of April 2 2025? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GUYS. IT FINALLY ARRIVED.

Dia de la Liberación (Liberation Day)

https://empresa.org.ar/2025/cepo-cambiario-actualidad-argentina-el-dia-de-la-liberacion/ ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request placed to move to Liberation Day tariffs. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's Liberation Day tariffs → Trump tariff announcement – Optionally add "of 2 April 2025". "Liberation Day" is not neutral point of view but was political spin, and in any case, it is now unclear in what sense the day of that policy even persists. Where it is used in sources, it is usually in quotation marks, but significantly more sources just speak of Trump tariffs. This page is about a particular announcement of one set of (largely rescinded for now) tariffs. The announcement has gained lots of coverage looking at things like the misdirection, the assumptions in the calculation, and the economics, but little commentary takes "liberation" seriously. The proposed title meets WP:TITLE in that it is recognisable (whether the date is needed will only really be a question if there are more such announcements). It is natural (I believe more natural than the current use of a possessive in the title) and precise in a way that the current title is not. It is the most concise (and moreso than the current) I believe it to be consistent with the huge body of Trump articles. Many thanks for your consideration. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. WP:RS are not referring to that date as "Liberation Day", it's Trump's own partisan description that hasn't caught on. I'd make one small change to the proposed name: I suggest "2025 Trump tariffs announcement", since he has (a) announced other tariffs before, in his previous administration, and (b) there were a large number of tariffs being announced, not just one. But anything is better than using the "Liberation Day" name. — The Anome (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. More succinct than my date option. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although I agree with the point in the nomination that the term "Liberation Day" is a political spin, that does not mean that the title is not neutral. The possessive "Trump's" in the title means that it's Trump's spin, so Wikipedia is not promoting the spin. Since it's Trump's announcement, he gets to name the announcement. Using the name that Trump gave it does not mean that Wikipedia is promoting it. Green Montanan (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, There are at least a dozen "Trump tariffs" at this point spanning 2018-2025, some of which are more consequential than the now walked-back reciprocal tariffs, and thus fails MOS:PRECISION. For example, the "Trump tariff" of 25% on automobiles is more consequential to Mexico, Canada, Japan and SK than the reciprocal tariffs are.

alt: Trump reciprocal tariffs (see: WP:POVNAME

satkara❈talk 13:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 's from title Radiohead lover 69 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this proposed title. I support making the title something other than "liberation day tariffs" as I agree with the NPOV concerns, but the consensus at the recent deletion discussion was that the topic of this article should be the tariffs themselves, not the speech that announced them. I would support anything along the lines of Trump April 2 Tariffs, United States April 2 Tariffs, etc etc. Not picky about the exact title, just as long as it doesn't use a non-neutral name or make the subject the announcement as opposed to the tariffs themselves. (While not proposed in this discussion, I'll add that I would also be opposed to using the 5-digit executive order number as the title as that would make it significantly harder to find or remember the page) Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Although the name "Liberation Day tariffs" could be changed (for the name could be considered propaganda), I feel as though "Trump tariff announcement" is way too vague; the man enacted numerous tariffs in both his first and second terms. Although they weren't perfectly reciprocal, I could possibly support a change to "Trump reciprocal tariffs" or something similar. It's hard to title this article with a neat name without it being propaganda-esque, so a more generic name (such as Trump tariffs of April 2, 2025) could be better. Nevertheless, I oppose this name change for being too vague and broad. MontanaMako (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "reciprocal tariffs" is that these were never reciprocal by any meaningful definition whatsoever. That term was chosen because of the historical association. Also spin. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I feel as though a lot of the terms and phrases used to refer to the tariffs are unbiased or not factual. Maybe the article should be named after the executive order (Executive Order 14257)? Either way, this article probably won't have a neat and tidy name. MontanaMako (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy while that's true, WP:NPOVNAME says we should use the most common name even if it is not neutral. I personally agree with @MontanaMako that the EO is the most neutral and cleanest title, but it was failing the previous RM. satkara❈talk 17:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most common name is "Trump tariffs". See the nom. statement and discussion in the section above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump tariffs" is the common name for all of the tariffs Trump has enacted, but "Reciprocal tariffs" or "liberation day tariffs" (or "Executive Order 14257") describe just the tariffs announced April 2. satkara❈talk 18:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect.

"Trump tariffs" "2 April" [2] plus "Trump tariffs" "April 2" [3]: 12,510,000 hits (of the 250 million hits for "Trump tariffs")
"Liberation Day tariffs" (which includes "Liberation Day" tariffs whether double or single quoted) [4]: 10,100,000 hits (falling to half a million if the dates are included)
"Reciprocal tariffs" "April 2"[5] plus "Reciprocal tariffs" "2 April" [6]: 4,219,000

Trump tariffs is the most common name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles should be unambiguous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the date option. Reciprocal tariffs is ambiguous. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Trump tariffs is the most popular phrase, but "Trump tariffs" has been used since Trump's first term like this, and has also been used this term prior to April 2 like this. Most recently, of course, the "Trump tariffs" that everyone's talking about are the reciprocal tariffs, but in WP:10YT it would be ambiguous. satkara❈talk 03:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per other users, either rename it back to Liberation Day tariffs or otherwise rename Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was moved from Liberation Day tariffs to Trump's Liberation Day tariffs right before this RM. Apparently due to the rules of RM, it cannot be moved back to Liberation Day tariffs until the RM concludes. An attempt to do so was reverted citing this rule of RM. Anyway, this creates a fait accompli for Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, which is unfortunate since I feel that is an inferior name. Move back to Liberation Day tariffs per WP:CONCISE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the consensus already reached at the articles for deletion discussion. This feels like another step towards going back to the focus on the speech. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Liberation Day tariffs is short, it's punchy, not apt to be confused with anything else, and it's Trump's nomenclature. He owns it. kencf0618 (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not the common name, and it is not neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to our trilemna. Nixon had only one Nixon shock, "Victory Day" isn't neutral, Executive Order 14257 too specific... We're going to need a bigger hatnote. kencf0618 (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I think it is very safe to say that tariff happy Trump will be making many more "tariff announcements", and this is no WP:CRYSTALBALL either. It is almost as WP:SKYISBLUE as saying that Trump will continue to make comments about his hair. The "Liberation Day" euphemism is a good distinguishing label for this precise announcement and the current title and the abbreviated "Liberation Day Tariff/s" should be retained as quality and useful redirects. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per above WereWolf (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copy over info from Tariffs in the second Trump administration?

Now that the name debate is somewhat settled, are there objections to copying over the majority of the info in Tariffs in the second Trump administration#"Reciprocal" tariff policy?

I also think a lot of the current "response" section should be deleted per WP:NOTDATABASE, and a new section about how negotiations are going should be added. satkara❈talk 22:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the response section, I see no justification in WP:NOTDATABASE for deleting this section, as none of the points there warrant removal of this kind of information. Additionally, it is extremely common to include a response/reaction section to articles about events, especially with foreign impact. I don't see any reason to remove that information. JParksT2023 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JParksT2023 I should have linked the main section, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." WP:RECENTISM is related and applies more strongly, particularly the news spikes part.

The list of responses in the article, as is, is very repetitive and gives equal weight between China (which responded with 125% tariffs), countries that did nothing, and a singular house rep. I don't think it should be totally deleted but condensed in prose form instead of as a list. That said it's not urgent to fix. satkara❈talk 18:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Liberation Day tariffs be renamed and moved to "Liberation Day" tariffs.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Liberation Day tariffs → "Liberation Day" tariffs – "Liberation Day" is Trump's own term for the day, and is a partisan name not used by his opoponents. Using the name uncritically in the article title endorses that point of view, in Wikipedia's voice, and breaks WP:NPOV. Putting the term in quotes distances this, and makes it clear this is a quote. — The Anome (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Criticism of the name, and its partisan nature, can be discussed in the article. That shouldn't be done via the formatting of the title. This would also make the article harder to find as readers are unlikely to know about any quotes in the title. What matters is what reliable sources use; if they use a different term, I would be open to that. Trump is the president and has outsized influence on matters like this as any other president would. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but this is exactly my point; the name of the day is not "Liberation Day", that's just what Trump, and his supporters call it. I doubt whether Democrats would use that term, or most non-Americans; it's simply partisan. — The Anome (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Then we should see what term reliable sources use, not mess with the formatting of the title, which itself is not NPOV. We don't do "Salary Grab Act"(an unofficial name used by opponents of that law in a partisan manner), do you have examples of where this is done elsewhere? 331dot (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of WP:RS usage: [7], [8], [9], [10], to name just the first hits I found. I'm sure numbers of hits can be found for the usage without the quotes; my point is that there is clearly no consensus about the use or lack of quotes in RS. At which point we must use other criteria, such as NPOV. — The Anome (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think NPOV calls for using the title most sources use and not qualifying it with quotes- doing so would itself appear to be partisan(as it already said, rightly or wrongly, with their name of The Gulf and how we don't use it, last I knew at least) 331dot (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also quote Green Montanan from the last rename discussion, "Since it's Trump's announcement, he gets to name the announcement. Using the name that Trump gave it does not mean that Wikipedia is promoting it." 331dot (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also urge The Anome not to use quotes in the body of text until a consensus develops to do so. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just standard English convention - reported speech should be in quotes. This should be uncontroversial, as it does not express any opinion about whether or not this was a true "Liberation Day", only that someone - in this case Trump - called it so. Unless you believe that the day truly was Liberation Day, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, in which case you should remove all the quote marks to be consistent; something I believe would violate WP:NPOV. — The Anome (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any English convention where it is appropriate to quote every use of a title as a direct quote. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is to take Trump's usage as gospel. If we take your approach, we end up renaming the Joe Biden article to Sleepy Joe, or Mike Pence to Liddle Mike Pence. — The Anome (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources do not refer to Joe Biden as Sleepy Joe. Even Fox News itself doesn't do that- its talking heads, giving their views, might. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per 331dot. Félix An (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "Liberation day" being in quotation marks follows most of the reliable sources and accurately reflects simply that these tariffs were unique to Trump and the label that he chose to give the event, but also it is the most WP:PRECISE wording. Lastly, a redirect of course should still point from "Liberation Day tariffs" without the specific quotation marks just around "Liberation day" to this suggested rename of the article. I support this minor, albeit correct suggested page move. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support four sources have been provided that use "Liberation Day" rather than Liberation Day. The term without quotation marks is not currently being presented from any sources. I could be persuaded to strengthen or change my position if additional sources could be provided for either option, particularly if those sources were not from headlines but rather body copy. Simonm223 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Zacwill (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Scare quotes in the article title are a distraction. Their use in reliable sources is not an indication we should adopt this style. This is essentially how news organizations implement their own versions of NPOV and COMMONNAME. Essentially, such usage recognizes that a non-neutral phrase is common. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]