Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 115

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117→Archive 120

Reducing editorialising and sensational language

I was concerned with the language used in the coronavirus section, and boldly altered the wording of the section to the following:

In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China, spreading worldwide within weeks and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. Trump initially dismissed the severity of the threat of the virus on public health, focusing greater on economic and political considerations. He continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and CDC officials repeatedly told him it would take 12–18 months to develop a vaccine. Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, falsely claiming that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though availability of tests was severely limited.

On March 6, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law, which provided $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies. On March 11 he gave his first serious assessment of the virus in a nationwide address, providing reassurance that the outbreak was "a temporary moment" and that a financial crisis was not occurring. On March 13 he declared a national state of emergency, freeing up additional federal resources. In a March 16 press conference, Trump acknowledged that the pandemic was "not under control" and that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur. Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from the media, health experts, the World Health Organization, and the Chinese government.

From mid-March, Trump commenced daily press conferences accompanied by medical experts and others administration officials. He sometimes disagreed with the experts by promoting potential treatments, and continued to attack political opponents and journalists.

Another editor reverted this edit. I am concerned that we have been essentially copying editorial language found in reliable sources, but I am certainly open to further changes addressing the concerns of other editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The source in question for the bold edit is NYTimes. That source says

The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have been foreseen.

The existing language looks to be an accurate representation of the source. The language in the article itself was not editorial and neither is the language in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That is precisely what I am targeting as an editorialised summary. That is appropriate for a New York Times article, but not for an encyclopaedia. We could probably get away with something like "considered to be slow" if we really wanted to use that word, but otherwise it's Wikipedia making a negative value judgement on the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing in the wiki article's text that is remotely editorialized. It states facts, and we should not state facts as opinions (WP:YESPOV). He was slow to respond and that statement can be found in many RS. Is there something specific you take issue with? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, Onetwothreeip made a more accurate representation of the source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)(my opinion changed--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC))
Whether he was "slow" or not, for example, is not a matter of fact. The issue is that we have been transplanting editorial language from reliable sources into this article, and we do not need to do this in order to represent the source. This usually appears to get in the way of representing the facts of the source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources say he was slow. Your edit is not an accurate representation of the source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
RS say lots of things. Reliable sources said he was fast, said he was slow, said he was doing too much, said he was doing too little - the point being that RS said lots of things and all of these are Opinions about someTHING specific and not facts in themselves, and that ‘slow’ in particular seems just typically vague sort of partisan spin. Yet ‘comparative’ looks differ from ‘complaining’ looks. President Trump has been voiced in print as comparing reasonably well by amount and timeliness to other world leaders, current national Democratic leaders, regular government speed, and compared to prior similar Obama actions. Compared to candidates who were running rallies despite coronavirus concerns, after the CPAC. I can agree that the article as phrased is a pitch - it states as if fact ‘slow’ (conveying just a vague POV or wishful thinking), and then in article is skipping many actions and reactions to just highlight a few complaints to support that theme. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
For your convenience, this directory of discussions about coronavirus currently open on this page.
Editors, please feel free to add a new discussion any time you have something new to say about coronavirus at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that Onetwothreeip's edit was not an improvement. An extremely broad array of high-quality sources (news articles, not editorials or op-eds) state that Trump's response was slow. We reflect the reliable sources say, rather than distancing ourselves from them. We rely on secondary sources not only to recite facts but also to give overviews, descriptions, and characterizations. This is a feature, not a bug, and it is perfectly proper (indeed, necessary for an encyclopedia) to take note of them. To give an example, the article John F. Kennedy includes the sentences "Kennedy's administration included high tensions with communist states in the Cold War" (a description/characterization) and "In April 1961, he authorized an attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro in the Bay of Pigs Invasion" (a fact). Both statements are sourced, due weight, and have their place in an encyclopedia article. Same situation here. Neutralitytalk 22:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't find any "sensational language" in He rejected persistent public health warnings from officials within his administration, focusing instead on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. Where is the editorialising and sensational language in this? Why did you change it. Also, "slow" is supported by many reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, I am not saying that the source articles were editorial articles or weren't news articles. I am saying that their characterisation of him as "slow" is an editorialised analysis and decidedly not neutral. If we really wanted to reflect that in the Wikipedia article, we should say that he was considered to be slow. To say that the American government had "tensions" with Soviet-aligned governments is also a fact, not simply an editorialised characterisation.
SharabSalam, the sensation language there is with "rejected persistent". This creates a clear implication of a negative value judgement, when instead we should be providing facts. The facts can speak for themselves being negative or not. It would be far better to state what exactly Trump was rejecting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This basically seems like a variant of "the mainstream media is biased and therefore we should reject their presentation in favor of some sort of downplayed presentation." We don't do this on other articles and we are not going to do so here.
And yes, "slow response" is just like "high tensions"—as in my JFK example, they are both characterizations, by reliable sources, that are supported by facts but are not themselves "facts." And that's fine, because encyclopedias necessarily present characterizations and give context. We are not an almanac that is just a book of context-free dates and events. Neutralitytalk 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think you should change your username to User:NPOV. Too many editors confuse NPOV with common off-wiki concepts of "neutrality", a lot like WP:N vs "notability". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not particularly concerned about the bias in these sources. Reliable sources are reliable sources and we should take everything relevant from them. Cold War tensions are much closer to fact than characterising an official as slow. I have no desire to pretend that the actions of Donald Trump were good or that they can't be characterised as "slow" (by sources other than Wikipedia), it's just not what Wikipedia is here to do. It is not a matter of whether things can be characterised, but plainly how. We shouldn't, and we generally do not, characterise people in positive or negative terms.
What would be encyclopaedic and would get a similar point across would be to characterise the response as "delayed", and would be far more accurate. The speed in which measures were taken once they were starting to happen is clearly not the issue here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It's clear why RS describe Trump's response as slow. And the sources cited in that section go into considerable detail. Senior advisers describe an urgent threat that requires immediate action to prevent a catastrophic loss of life and Trump's responds six to eight weeks later with a fraction of what's been recommended. So when they say slow it means doing something months later vs. hours later. That is slow. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
"Slow" is definitely not editorial. Slow is objective and measurable. An editorial word would be like "tragically", "unfortunately" etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You are saying "Slow is objective and measurable". Do you mean "slow" relative to the response to the other pandemic? "Slow" relative to what? Why would we repeat partisan carping? Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a tendency to belittle and discard honest criticism as partisan carping or bickering. Like it or not, criticism of those in office is a necessary part of governing. O3000 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I am not saying that the criticism is not "honest". You say "Like it or not, criticism of those in office is a necessary part of governing." Wikipedia does not have an overriding purpose of criticizing those currently in office. Wouldn't that be WP:ADVOCACY? Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course not. WP documents based on RS. We don't filter out the negative. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality—you say "We rely on secondary sources not only to recite facts but also to give overviews, descriptions, and characterizations" and then you give this example: "Kennedy's administration included high tensions with communist states in the Cold War". It is from half a century ago. In the intervening decades historians have studied John F. Kennedy and the Cold War. Do you see the distinction between that and the coronavirus outbreak which is still ongoing? Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
We routinely do the same thing for recent and historical events alike. That's part of what being an encyclopedia is all about. Neutralitytalk 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Analysis by noted conservative commentator

Here is some perspective to counter the WP:NOTNEWS problem. This is analysis by respected arch-conservative commentator and former Heritage Foundation and Bush Administration official Michael Gerson: The horrendous reality at the heart of Trump’s pandemic response. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not, not your morning feed and let’s be more factual. Suggest the para insert more FACTS of the actions before the ‘slow’ opinionating, facts WP somehow missed. January 17 health screening vs China ... fact skipped; January 29 Coronavirus Task Force created ... fact skipped; January 31 Public health emergency declared... fact skipped; January 31 China travel ban ... fact skipped. Somehow skipping factual actions of President Trump or dates in order to spend two-thirds of the paragraph on Opinion pitch of opponents that only noted a few complaints not BLP seems pretty iffy NPOV and not-BLP. And now why would we consider including anything of a four-month later opinion article at a well-known anti-Trump paper from a not particularly noted source that is just this morning’s feed and has had no impact or WEIGHT ??? Look... in January the game seemed to be Democrats criticise each action President Trump made (while not risking advancing actions themselves), and now the game seems to be frame history and criticise isolated bits and not do an overview. That’s fine for them, they are *supposed* to be partisan. But WP isn’t. So, yes let’s look at the TONE of words this thread pointed to and include material by WEIGHT, not by ideological picking. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
If you have a problem with The Washington Post, take it to RSN and stop rejecting everything from a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It's an op-ed, not a news article. Also, I'd like to know if Gerson actually has any opinions that are conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Gerson is a life-long conservative and evangelical. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Reading his WP biography, there doesn't seem to be any difference between him and people like Jennifer Rubin or Ana Navarro, who (currently) advocate only for left-of-center views (not just on Trump). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 It's just yet another 'oooh, look at this mornings feed' of bare URL without proposed edit, and there is no need to give such any bare same-day URL attention except to explicitly reject them as URL-du-jour. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 You do seem to have that difficulty. Not this day's feed and facts not editorializing shouldn't be hard to get. I'll suggest you go up the indents and review from the Not, not your morning feed and let’s be more factual. Suggest the para insert more FACTS of the actions before the ‘slow’ opinionating, facts WP somehow missed. January 17 health screening vs China ... fact skipped; January 29 Coronavirus Task Force created ... fact skipped; January 31 Public health emergency declared... fact skipped; January 31 China travel ban ... fact skipped. Somehow skipping factual actions of President Trump or dates in order to spend two-thirds of the paragraph on Opinion pitch of opponents that only noted a few complaints not BLP seems pretty iffy NPOV and not-BLP. Maybe this time you'll be able to get the meaning that actual article content and issues should outweigh no-proposal spouting a bare URL to that day's spleen-du-jour feed. TALK isn't for a blog or to post URLs to blogs, and articles aren't supposed to be opinionating editorials either -- so I propose putting in some actual facts of the actions and when they were done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Nope, still don't know what you're talking about. Just seems to be criticism of an RS. You can take it to RSN. O3000 (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Analysis by WP:NOTABLE authorities are highly useful and unquestionably valid references. They are how we can avoid undue WP:RECENTISM. I have tried to bring examples from figures respected and of longstanding reputation within the right-leaning conservative and Republican establishment to counter the oft-voiced concerns of WP editors that sources are left-leaning or politically biased toward Democrats. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The Washington Post isn't "respected and of longstanding reputation within the right-leaning conservative and Republican establishment", and particularly this Op-Ed writer supported impeachment, said all 187 House Republicans had lost their moral compass, said Barr was a boot-licker, etcetera etcetera etcetera twice a week. How is this POV not "left-leaning or politically biased toward Democrats" ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Respected by who? This is certainly not a more notable opinion than anyone else's. There's also no reason to regard a previous administration or Heritage Foundation as sufficient credentials. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Amendment

I felt that the delay by the administration was expressed satisfactorily in my proposed changes, but I am certainly willing to make that more prominent with the following.

In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China, spreading worldwide within weeks and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. Trump initially dismissed the severity of the threat of the virus on public health, focusing greater on economic and political considerations, leading to a delayed response from the administration. He further claimed that a vaccine was "months away", although HHS and CDC officials stated it would take 12–18 months to develop a vaccine. Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, claiming "anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though the availability of tests was severely limited.

On March 6, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law, which provided $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies. On March 11 he gave his first serious assessment of the virus in a nationwide address, providing reassurance that the outbreak was "a temporary moment" and that a financial crisis was not occurring. On March 13 he declared a national state of emergency, freeing up additional federal resources. In a March 16 press conference, Trump acknowledged that the pandemic was "not under control" and that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur. Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from the media, health experts, the World Health Organization, and the Chinese government.

From mid-March, Trump commenced daily press conferences accompanied by medical experts and others administration officials. He sometimes disagreed with the experts by promoting potential treatments, and continued to attack political opponents and journalists.

This version should clearly outline the delay in response, but in a more neutral and empirical perspective. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is actually worded well and sounds more encyclopedic but it's probably too big a chunk to cover in this discussion alone. Amorals (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: has preemtively inserted his version in the article with text very similar to the prose at the top of this section. I have asked him on his talk page to undo this edit. There is clearly no consensus for it. SPECIFICO talk 11:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The part that was contested by discussion participants has been severely changed. Only the rest is similar or identical. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Per my comment on your talk page, and the swift reversion of your edit, the point is you should not have done that and should not have claimed consensus on talk when you did. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't claimed consensus. I've made edits separate to those that discussion participants have contested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
One of the problems with it is that your recent edit was the second time you've made very similar changes. After the first time your edit was reverted, you can assume that the matter would need to be discussed, not just announced, on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, participants made it known which language they disliked, and I adjusted accordingly for that. The discussion can be found above. If you have any further suggestions, just as I've said before, please feel free to make them known as I am more than willing to discuss further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Your language was not favored by me, MrX, Neutrality, Evergreen Fir, O3000 (and others?). Under the circumstances, it was pointless to reinsert something with the same flaws in your second go-round. This is not a criminal offense. I'm just telling you, as I tried to do on your talk page, that it's not the most effective way to edit a tough article. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The language those editors had issue with has already been addressed, and is now substantially different. If you still think that is flawed, they would be different flaws. Again, happy to discuss your concerns, and I hope I've shown that I incorporate the views of others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Your changes were reverted. It is already taken care of. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Not exactly, but due to intervening changes. Since the content has been added further, I will be be making a new draft of alterations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Subsections

Why are you creating subsections in this thread? Please stop, thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Subsubsections

Also, just say NO to subsubsections! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on rewording of Conronavirus Body

This RfC was started by an account that's now been blocked as a sockpuppet. The substance of the RfC was to relitigate recent consensus article content, so I am closing it. If anyone has remaining concerns about these issues, they can be discussed on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

2 proposals on new wording

Proposal 1- Should section addressing the availability of testing, currently reading, "Trump over-promised on testing" be changed to:

Trump also issued conflicting statements on the availability of testing for the virus....afterwards health officials clarified that testing would be available only to those with a doctor's prescription. Yet, many still struggled to get a test even with a doctor's prescription.

Proposal 2- Should, "He [Trump] rejected health experts...be rephrased as Trump, "disregarded health experts?"

Amorals (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A survey

  • Support #1- Proposal 1 is better and (if it adds cites) should replace “ Trump also over-promised on the availability of testing for the virus, saying that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test."[556][557]”. Because as mentioned in the preceding thread, it is a better WP:V capture and is informative. RS generally phrased “said” or “insisted” or “claimed” about the informal remark, even the cites 556 and 557 given didn’t say this was a “promise”. And many RS definitely do mention ‘conflicting statements’ (e.g. of this vs his next statement, or this vs what Pence said), and ‘afterwards clarified’ certainly are said in RS. The “over-promised” is just obviously biased or theatrical fabrication. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Both proposals are unsourced and appear to be original research. Trump either lied or was horribly misinformed about the availability of testing for anyone who wants it. Yes, he did reject the advice of heath experts on numerous occassions. This is well documented in the sources cited in previous sections. - MrX 🖋 12:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposal #1 This text would be an astonishing obfuscation of the already euphemistic statement "overpromised" to refer to documented lies, now detailed in recent RS news accounts. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposal #2 This is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. Disregarded is a subset of rejected. As with proposal 1, we have abundant primary and secondary RS documentation that he rejected the advice of administration health and national security experts, focusing instead on the economic and political impacts of the impending crisis. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Abort horribly misguided RfC. This is becoming ridiculous! We can have discussion before the LAST RESORT of an RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support both proposals. MrX it’s far from original research as multiple RS were provided in the discussion prior, reflecting this wording as being accurate. Not to mention it sounds more encyclopedic and far less sensationalized. Again many seem to not fully understand what “rejection” means in the English language. It is a very strong sentiment. It’s “fuck you, get this out of my face.” Does that really describe Trump’s back and forth with his health advisors? In the RS, it sounds a lot more like it was, “this isn’t important, I’m going to focus on other things.” Gee what’s a word in the English language that more accurately describes this? “Disregard.” Lastly, sjsscey your calls to abort this RfC are what’s ridiculous, when more editors supported in the previous discussion than those who opposed and few editors have had a chance to fully weigh in on this RfC Bsubprime7 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That may be what "reject advice" means to you or to Trump ("fire Fauci"), but it is not the common English usage of "reject". But surely you don't prefer an alternative interpretation, e.g. that Trump was saying, in effect, "The prospect of 2 million American deaths due to my denial and inaction isn't important. I'm going to focus on the stock market and the election." SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what English language you speak Specifico, but the next time a friend chooses not listen to my advice, I’ll be sure to tell them it’s “a rejection.” Give me a break, that’s not the common usage of “reject” in the English language. It’s almost always an emotionally-charged word, not far off from the sentiment “F-you” (rather not repeat) that Bsubprime pointed out. Rejection from college, from romance, hell a rejection in basketball. Simply, choosing not to listen to someone’s advice sounds a lot more like “disregarding.” Amorals (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Did I not say clearly enough to you that Trump's reaction was indeed your hostile and angry kind of rejection. Not I nor anyone else has suggested the article should characterize it in such detail. SPECIFICO talk
No you didn’t. Please show one link that describes his reaction to his advisor’s warnings as “angry and hostile” and I will move to completely shelve proposal #2 and keep wording as is Amorals (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
fire Fauci -- because he told the truth on TV. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I see that someone User:MrX has removed from the article all the detail about testing problems; that's probably more appropriate for a biography. I have boldly replaced "over-promised" with "exaggerated," and included a simple qualification "even though availability of testing was severely limited at the time." I realize this was bold during an RfC, but I have considered all the commentary here and I hope that this meets most people's acceptance. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN you have my 100% approval for “over-exaggerate.” And in regards to “reject”, I continue to be concerned that this is too strong of a word and “disregard” would reflect the more accurate, encyclopedic tone. And Specifico merely posting a link about Trump retweeting a hash tag w/“fire Fauci” does not prove that he angrily “rejected” Fauci’s advice 2 months ago as you have contended. It just shows he didn’t take heed to Fauci’s advice at the time. How do you describe this in the English language, when you don’t take heed to advice, you “disregard.” Amorals (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN did not suggest "over-exaggerate", and I doubt that's what you meant to say. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Fire Fauci relates to whether Trump merrily disregarded dissent or whether his response was more along the lines of what concerned bsumbprime above. I'd say the latter. Maybe today's press tv event will tell us more. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss, I meant “exaggerate” my apologies for the typo. I merely was reenforcing my support for the edits MelanieN made. And Specifico I agree it seems this tv news conference will shed much more light, so we will see Amorals (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, the tv show just happened and it was more angry attacks on those who felt his initial response was inadequate. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico true, that was a very angry Trump in attack mode, wow! However, I do think Facui’s comments provide more clarity in that there certainly was no outright “rejection.” The segment detailing Trump ignoring experts’ recommendations should probably be re-worded slightly now that we got this updated info.
-On a side note regarding MelanieN’s edit, Trump “exaggerated by falsely claiming” should be corrected for redundant syntax, eliminating “falsely.” It’s linguistically obvious that people don’t exaggerate by making claims that are “true.”Amorals (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That is not redundancy. "Falsely claiming" reflects the sources. Fauci's forced contrition was akin to a hostage video and RS are already reporting it as such -- further evicence of Trump's angry rejection of expert advisers' roles and work product. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO—Fauci seems to be saying in today's comments that Trump promptly followed the advice of medical professionals on questions of mitigation. Does that square with the supposed downplaying of the threat? I don't think so. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
UTC)
Bus stop, please stop presnting your personal OR interpretations of events. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
“Falsely claiming reflects the sources” okay you’re seeming to miss my point. I’m not having a debate over the sources right now, I’m merely pointing out that in terms of English grammar and syntax, the statement, “exaggerated by falsely claiming” is grammatically redundant. That’s all I’m saying. If he exaggerated, it’s obvious his claims were “false” you don’t exaggerate by saying true statements. As for your 2nd point, RS have not reported Dr. Facui’s comments being akin to a “hostage video” that’s very over-dramatic. So you’ll have to show something to back that up, but I am fine waiting to hear what more RS say. It’s only a few hours old, so we’ll wait and see. Amorals (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources in place don’t say “exaggerated” or “falsely”. One source gave higher prominence to “needs a test”, but said “claimed” about the line wants a test, and phrases their opinion this was “wrong”, also “inaccurate” and “grossly oversimplifying”. The second cite also puts “needs a test” higher prominence but both about 12 swipes down, and used the word “said”, then phrases their opinion “his assurance was not true”. So ‘claim’, ‘said’,... the article is not reflecting these sources. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
RE On a side note regarding MelanieN’s edit, Trump “exaggerated by falsely claiming”: actually “falsely claiming” was added by MrX. My own edit was “exaggerated by saying” which I prefer. By noting that tests were actually difficult to come by, we make it clear that his claim was inaccurate. "Exaggerated" and a factual correction are enough, we don't need "false" on top of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources I've read do not characterize his untruths as exaggeration. They say false claims, unmet promises, and untrue. I guess you could say that him calling the test "beautiful" was an exaggeration, but I don't think that's what were talking about. - MrX 🖋 14:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN my apologies for attributing this edit to you. Your version is certainty better. This isn’t even a comment on RS at this point, the changes added by Mr.X are just grammatically redundant and awkward, your basic English teacher could tell you that. Amorals (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support both proposals. Proposal 1: Everything said is not a "promise" and there is no point in exaggerating. Proposal 2: "Rejected" overstates the point. "Disregarded" is milder and preferable. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1, while 2 is trivial / Abort. For 1, Trump indeed made a false claim, as sources pointed out. Also, as Scjessey said, we should have had more discussion before an RfC. starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 as the "over-promised" wording is short and to the point, frankly perfect. Oppose 2 because no one should be wasting anyone's time with an RfC on something so absurdly minor. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording for question #1

The last sentence of the first paragraph in the article currently reads

Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, falsely claiming that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though availability of tests was severely limited.[556][557]

Based on current discussion I propose changing it to

Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, saying that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though availability of tests was severely limited.[556][557]

Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fully support this change. Better grammar and it flows much more smoothly. Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Abort (and Oppose) This section is based on the false premise that there's a problem with the article wording. We should never consider euphemism, weasel wording, and equivocation contrary to RS factual narratives. This has already been discussed at some length. "Exaggerated" is unnecessary. It should simply say that "Trump falsely claimed..." -- compact and incontrovertible. At any rate, since we already have many comments based on the specific wordings in the RfC, I think adding new choices at this stage is going to confuse the resolution. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Exaggerated" is WP:OR. "falsely claiming" is a faithful paraphrasing of source 556 which says "Donald Trump’s Wrong Claim That ‘Anybody’ Can Get Tested For Coronavirus" and "he's wrong". Source 557 says "Trump Leaves Trail of Unmet Promises in Coronavirus Response" and "Whether it's a case of needing a test or only wanting one, his assurance was not true then, it's not true now and it won't be true any time soon." This source says "Below, 10 of Trump’s most damaging coronavirus false claims: 1. “Anybody that needs a test gets a test.”" There plenty of other sources that characterize Trump's claim as false, a lie, and an unmet promise. - MrX 🖋 18:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Mr. X you seem to miss the point that the grievance was not with the RS or any of the highlighting you did above, the grievance was the poor grammar and syntax this wording causes. Editors who have opposed some of these changes seem hyper-focused on the wording of RS, endlessly posting quote after quote of what an RS said. We don't merely reflect verbatim what the RS says. We have a burden to reflect what the RS says in a more encyclopedic tone by choosing our wording carefully. We don't merely say the exact words they print. Amorals (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Amorals: Since you said I missed the point, please point out the specific grammar or syntax error. By the way, staying close to what sources say is exactly how we are supposed to write. We are not to add our own interpretations or conclusions. - MrX 🖋 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
”exaggerating by falsely claiming” is redundant and grammatically poor. Stay close to what the sources say yes, but this does not mean using all the exact same words and phrases. So we don’t need to copy exact words just because “falsely claimed” was used more than once. These aren’t any “of our own interpretations of the RS” OMG, there are things in the English language called “synonyms.” There are many different words that mean roughly the same thing, but evoke different emotional responses. Certain phrasing is more appropriate for an encyclopedia and still 100% faithful to the facts in the RS. Honestly, I feel like we need to do a college English writing exercise with some of the editors in this RfC. Amorals (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? That is not the wording at all. The wording in both cases is proper grammar and I received As in all of my college English classes, thank you. If you don't like "falsely claimed", we can go with "lied", "concocted", or "fabricated". - MrX 🖋 19:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You say If you don't like "falsely claimed", we can go with "lied", "concocted", or "fabricated". Wording like that would misrepresent the subject: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, you made my point. "Falsely claimed" it is. - MrX 🖋 12:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - well it's a bit better but far worse than the Amorals submission. This is only looking at the line redundant phrasing, which just doesn't address the issues of the line being politicized and inflammatory phrasing, not using the wording of cites, and that WEIGHT is higher for how statements were conflicting or the "needs" phrasing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
-The article literally says "Trump exaggerated availability of testing by falsely claiming." You don't exaggerate by making correct statements so yes this syntax is redundant and it flows far better by deleting "falsely." Markbasset, I agree, however this is at least a compromise, so I would encourage you to support MelanieN's proposal. WP: good faith is important, but some editors here make it very difficult when they seem to be consistently bending over backwards trying to spin any and every policy, WP: Insert Anything, as a justification to include sensationalist language out of animus to the subject of the article. It does a disservice to those who are trying to improve the article. I will cautiously continue to assume good faith, but I really hope they take heed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorals (talk • contribs)
Actually, it says "Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, falsely claiming that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though availability of tests was severely limited.". By the way, I didn't add "exaggerated". I favor "over-promised". - MrX 🖋 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The good news is that there has been much coverage in RS about POTUS' daily misrepresentations and deflections on the subject of testing. If we ever do decide to change that language, there will be plenty of references to guide us. Meanwhile, the article text MrX restored is fine the way it is and there are other things we can work on. One of them is Trump's artful insinuation that there should now be a discussion about how to "reopen" by May 1, rather than whether it is feasible to reopen without the testing that experts say would be needed at whatever time the U.S. attempts to relax current restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
While mr.x and Specifico continue to talk about RS like they’re beating a dead horse, they repeatedly miss the point that this has nothing to do with the RS. Mr x’s wording is grammatically awful. We’re talking about basic writing and syntax skills now. As long as this Wikipedia article continues to be written in English, the current wording is far from “fine the way it is.” Bsubprime7 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bsubprime7 - if grammar is really an issue, endorse this: Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus. He falsely claimed that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test". However, availability of tests was severely limited.[556][557] starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The inappropriate bias in the language and wording in this section really jumps out at the reader. Try to report what actually happenned without inserting contextual judgements. (You don't need me to tell you this.) Example: On x date, Trump took x action. Instead of saying "he was slow", say "this entity criticized The President as being slow to take this action." (And then somebody will likely add the sentence "The President defended himself on this criticism by pointing out that xxx...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Also... the entire article is generally in chronological order. Logically, the Coronavirus article should come AFTER the Impeachment article. If a reader skips down to the bottom of the page currently, then he might think that nothing has happenned since 2/5/20 President Trump acquitted. The Virus should be placed sequentially as the most recent (indeed the current episode. So, after everything else, including the Impeachment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Stimulus checks

In the section on the coronavirus pandemic section, should we include a sentence about how Trump has ordered Mnuchin to instruct the Treasury Department to include his name on the stimulus checks? It is an unprecedented move that could have election consequences. The original story is in the Washington Post, but other outlets are carrying it too (example). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably, since it's being covered in numerous sources. It's pretty outrageous even for Trump. - MrX 🖋 12:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Not in this article. Maybe in presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
UNDUE. There ought to be a 48-hour holding period. This mornings feed may be gone by tomorrow, or debunked, or whatever. But it is certainly UNDUE as just too young to have WEIGHT of prolonged coverage that sagas such as impeachment have. Come back if it hits 10 million or so on Google. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems premature, and possibly misplaced in this particular article. Wait and see until the picture is complete on the check signatures. We should always wait on anything potentially transient, like events that have yet to prove out. Lindenfall (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett, it's been reported in the UK and discussed here on radio and TV news, so it's clearly not nothing. Guy (help!) 16:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
user:JzG yes, since it got past being same-day, it had time for other coverage to show up and seems it got a couple corrections that apparently it’s his name not signature and no hypothesised delay actually occurred. So now it could more reasonably start a discussion. Not sure ‘his name appears on the checks’ is much a much, but at least someone could propose text and it could now be discussed with better facts and in terms of actual WEIGHT not hypothetical importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about a signature in my original post. And yes, checks were indeed delayed, despite claims from the White House stating otherwise. There are actual people out there who are dumb enough to believe Trump has personally sent them checks, or at least is personally responsible for them, and reliable sources agree that such a belief could have election consequences. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears that Steve Mnuchin is now falling on his own sword and playing the fall guy by claiming it was his idea in the first place. It takes a super narcissist to come up with that idea, and I doubt he can compete... -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Mnuchin states "That was my idea...I think it’s a terrific symbol to the American public." Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
What Mnuchin states is not relevant to Donald Trump's bio. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
And of course, nobody believes what Mnuchin said because Trump already stated that he "asked Steve if it was possible" in a White House press briefing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Moving far off topic PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Enough with the "48-hour holding period" bullshit, Mark. You have already been told eleventy-billion times that it is not a thing. Every news outlet is talking about the checks thing. Can you imagine what Republicans would've said if Obama has wanted his name on the 2009 stimulus checks (and he wasn't even up for reelection that year)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scjessey (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:STICK generally applies when an editor is both persistent and alone. Mark is hardly alone in the feeling that we need to stop reacting to today's headlines and adopt a longer-term approach to editing this single-page biography of Donald Trump. If you pay attention, you see some editors, even experienced editors, pay lip service to that concept, then continue reacting to today's headlines. I don't know that "48-hour holding period" is the answer, but I know there is a serious need for some change. #Current consensus #37 has proven inadequate. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Look Mandruss, you know I'm a NOTNEWS advocate myself, but I hate to see you pin this on Scjessey in this context. You could start a thread if you have a proposal we should consider? SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Mark, please separately propose your 48-hour holding period or permanently drop it. I will give some thought to a proposal of my own, and I encourage other editors to do likewise. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Mandruss thanks but I’d prefer neither unless you insist. I suggest in fairness you instead propose that Scjessey do the same for his behaviour as generally same-day was strongly disliked, just not to the level of wanting a formal limit, so Scjessey seems exhibiting STICK or IDHT. But as to banning me voicing a phrase about it being bad, I think it would have to be obscenity or such before you should even be thinking of that. If you have an alternative phrasing to capture opposing same-day, how DUE weight takes time to show up, etcetera, then I’ll be glad to try it out. Personally, I suggest we just continue to let same-day be posted and shot down with whatever phrasing as just simpler. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see how saying There ought to be a 48-hour holding period., in one content discussion after another, is not calling for a "formal limit" – but calling for it in the wrong way. You can't keep claiming wide support based on a few scattered and disorganized comments while refusing to demonstrate that support in a separate and focused discussion. I would characterize that as talk page disruption. You're the one calling for change, so that onus is on you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Mandruss Hanh? Voiced to a specific post, it simply is MY voicing about or recommendation to a poster that this one is UNDUE and should have waited a bit instead of a Same-day ask. (Unstated: I don’t think that one has a prayer.). How I phrase things in similar we-will-see situations just tends to be about the same. Again, if you have some other wording that you feel would be equivalent and more effective I’d be happy to try it out. To this OP it should be more a reminder that {{Consensus already exists about dislike for same-day posts}}, not my call for a consensus, much less a call for a formal WP page item. But Say whaaaaa??? You seem asking me to do such a call, and I’m willing to try if you insist, but *that* would be contrary to that existing feel of folks don’t want same-day posts, AND they don’t want a formal rule about it. And if you’re going to censor TALK wording down to the level of banning “UNDUE. Wait 48 hours”, then I’m going to ask for explanation of how that necessary. How are you even considering this being put on a level of censorship treatment equivalent to obscenity or threats or legal issue ??? Again, my suggestion is just chill - ignore offenders who want you to censor opposition - and just let TALK be TALK, with same day posting happens, and let it get shot at as “UNDUE. There ought to be a 48-hour waiting period.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually is there anyone in this discussion that straight up disagress with the 48-hour wait? Seems like just Scjessey. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
User:PackMecEng People generally favor waiting a bit and are OK with saying that, except obviously those who haven’t gotten the idea. But they do NOT want a hard policy or fixed time about that other than the existing policies and guidances (UNDUE, NOTNEWS, etcetera). The idea and actual many same-day posts are generally not welcome, but that is FAR from annoying enough for formal blocks. This one also is somewhat violating WEIGHT by trying to set hypothetical importance as a replacement basis to use, but that too is just in minor malfs. It did at least propose a location for edit if not content, but ehhh, not serious candidate here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the 48 hour wait idea. Makes a lot of sense to avoid issues. There is no rush. PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have no problem with 48 hours. But this[1] is vastly more important than his attempt to get massive free advertising at government expense basically suggesting he is personally giving away billions. I don't believe Congress has ever been forced to adjourn by a POTUS. His threat is that he will appoint people at his will completely removing the advise and consent power of the Senate. Of course, I'd wait on this also as he'll probably walk it back. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
    It is speculation at this point. Trump blusters a lot and says all kinds of things he has no intention of ever doing. Better to wait and see if it happens before we include it. Otherwise just noting that he threatened to do that is in NOTNEWS territory. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree that it should wait and it may be bluster. But, the fact that a POTUS would even make an empty threat of such is chilling. O3000 (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Off topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malerooster (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Nothing surprises me anymore. Just imagine the worst possible thing Trump can do and then the next day you'll find he did something even worse. There's no bottom. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't you be conducting this off-topic conversation on your User talk page instead of on the Talk page of this biography of a living person? Are we interested in the opinion that "the next day you'll find he did something even worse"? I have said this before therefore I am tending to conclude that you aren't grasping what I'm saying—the problem is that you could be entirely wrong. "History" will make these judgements. In contrast to "history" you are pontificating at the moment that the Covid 19 pandemic is unfolding. You have zero perspective. Neither do I. But am I pontificating? Of course not. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This article needs to mention that Trump's unnecessary signature was added to the checks at his insistence, possibly holding up their printing and mailing to the people who most need them (i.e., people without bank accounts). The move is contrary to established protocol and procedure at the IRS, which aims to avoid at all costs the politicization of the tax system. Since he's not legally authorized to sign the checks, the administration is accommodating Trump’s desire for branding six months before an election by wedging his signature into the memo line of the checks along with the actual memo line “Economic Impact Payment. Slate Instead of next week, the mailing of the checks won't begin until May 4. Also, it's the taxpayers' money, and the stimulus was authorized by Congress. Shouldn't Pelosi's and McConnell's signatures be on there, too, since it would be difficult to add every taxpayer's signature? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
And the blame game is about to start: "glitches" delaying deposits into bank accounts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
We should wait to see the consequences of this, to determine how actually big of a deal this is, if at all. It could very well just be another oddity to come from this president that is duly forgotten about. After reading this discussion, in which good points have been made by several people, I would like to urge a much higher degree of civility. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Have you noticed, there was a one-inch thread about some recent news and then after your complaint it grew to 18 inches-plus. Better to let it pass. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

(AUTHOR'S NOTES: (CAPS) DELETE BEFORE PUBLISHING) (NOTES FOR FUTURE EDITOR, NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT EDIT BY CONFIRMED USER. APOLOGIES FOR ANY MISTAKES, WAS READING THROUGH AND THIS THIS HAD NOT BEEN ADDED AS OF YET.) (TOPIC IS CURRENT BUT BRIEFING AND RELEASED STATEMENTS UNLIKELY TO CHANGE. WORDING OF ADDITION MAY NEED ADJUSTMENTS. MAY NEED A WAIT PERIOD BEFORE EDIT AND PUBLISHING, DUE TO ONGOING STATIS.)

In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized anti-lockdown protests against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic;[574][575] Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter.[576] (< LEFT UNCHANGED. NO EDITS MADE, JUST A STATEMENT OF PLACEMENT.) (ADDITION >) During a Press Briefing, Trump implied to combat the virus via injection or cleansing of the lungs directly, through disinfectant or similar, or ultraviolet light [1], though this was been met with media backlash [2]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later released a report on safe chemical handling and usage [3], though a direct connection to Trump's statement is not noted. Swordbird98 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177
  3. ^ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6916e1.htm
WP:Edit requests: "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." At this article and all Trump-related articles, that describes almost anything except trivial spelling, grammar, etc, and it certainly describes this. In the future, use the "New section" link at the top of this page to start a discussion thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a current discussion on whether to include this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have read this more closely and spotted that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Section on retaliatory dismissals

I believe we should have a section on Trump's use of retaliatory dismissal, as it's very much a characteristic of both his personality and presidency. We could start with something like this:

Allegations of government retribution

According to media reports, Trump has fired, demoted or withdrew personnel on numerous occasions in retribution for various actions:

References

  1. ^ Baker, Peter; Benner, Katie; Shear, Michael D. (2018-11-07). "Jeff Sessions Is Forced Out as Attorney General as Trump Installs Loyalist". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  2. ^ a b Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie; Hakim, Danny; Schmidt, Michael S. (2020-02-07). "Trump Fires Impeachment Witnesses Gordon Sondland and Alexander Vindman in Post-Acquittal Purge". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  3. ^ Pettypiece, Shannon (2020-02-15). "Inside Trump's week of rage and retribution". NBC News. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  4. ^ Cooper, Helene; Edmondson, Catie (2020-03-02). "Trump, Returning to Retribution, Withdraws Pentagon Nomination". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  5. ^ a b "This is Trump's vilest act of retribution yet". Washington post. 2020-04-07. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  6. ^ Cooper, Helene; Schmitt, Eric; Gibbons-Neff, Thomas (2020-04-24). "Navy Leaders Recommend Reinstating Roosevelt Captain Fired Over Virus Warning". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-25.

What do you think? François Robere (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: - they should be included, maybe with a different section header though. Crozier, though, shouldn’t be on the list, he was not fired by Trump, but by Modly, your source said that. By the way, remember, "YOU'RE FIRED!" Think he got that from his friend Vince McMahon. starship.paint (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it should go in the Presidency article, not this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't possibly agree more. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree with melanie. It's probably a bit too focussed for this BLP. Mgasparin (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Presidency article, if these are not already there. But formatting like that seems to be UNDUE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Taken to relevant article. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not BLP material, and also just not realistic speculative hyperbole. In any administration, an appointee serves at the whim of the President and anyone that loses the trust is out. That’s just the terms of the deal. When parties shift the common practice is to boot them all, and even when parties don’t shift there is turnover for new favourites. Factually, I believe the dismissals above are not in some “allegations” of an HR complaint, and descriptive ‘retaliation’ or ‘retribution’ is just speculative hyperbole imputing one knows the internal thoughts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Study of Trump attacks on media

A significant new study has been published by the Committee to Protect Journalists here. This presents a long-run perspective on Trump's attacks on the press and its effects on the US and other countries. I'm not sure that this belongs in the "relation with the press" section, because it focuses on the larger impacts of his behavior. A separate section may be more appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No reason yet to place particular prominence on this publication. Most likely this should become used as a citation for a summarising sentence, as there are many high quality sources on this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not so much a much. Doesn't seem significant, just another reiteration of prior complaints of no particular WEIGHT and obviously an advocacy group in NYC so meh. Better sources available. See if you can find something of an *independent* study which isn't either of the two parties, and is more *comprehensive* about the "relationship with the press" such as includes press misbehaviours and press hype or falsehoods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m not seeing why this advocacy group’s story is DUE here. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes this should be included. The study is by a respected authority on the subject and has been cited by at least two reliable sources. It should go in the existing section. - MrX 🖋 11:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It's undue to include this story in this biographical article, let alone creating a separated section for it .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it does relate most clearly to his biography. None of what's described could remotely be considered official policy within the framework of U.S. governance. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should create an article on the relationship between Trump and the press. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Include in some Trump article as a report from a respected organization on a much discussed subject related to the article.
I don't see what "obviously an advocacy group in NYC" means. The ACLU, Human Rights Watch, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, are advocacy groups in NYC. Are they to be excluded as sources? WP:DUE O3000 (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 An advocacy group for journalists is by definition biased ("advocacy" - pushing a viewpoint is what they're supposed to do) and would need to be handled per WP:BIASED by attribution. Since their putting forward this view has no obvious effect and is repeats of things more widely available from better sources, ... meh a rerun of selections from one of the two sides is just not really a valuable item. Not worth mentioning here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
That's like saying the police are biased against crime or doctors are biased against disease or any Holocaust organization is biased against genocide. Any your inclusion of NYC appears to show your bias. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is logical to consider a group's core area of competency. How would the Committee to Protect Journalists know that dictators take their cue from Trump? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's what they do. As one type of example: Venezuela, Syria, Myanmar, China, Russia.[2] But this is only a part of the problem. There are numerous RS reporting on the assault on the First Amendment.[3] O3000 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "the term has also been borrowed by leaders of countries around the world". This is not saying Trump is responsible the actions taken by these so-called "leaders". The source is saying "Trump has popularized the term fake news". That's like holding The Beatles responsible for long hair in Myanmar. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No one said he is responsible for the actions of authoritarians. That’s another straw man. But, when the leader of the “free world” says the press is the enemy of the people, attacking it on a near daily basis, calling for limitations on the press, referring to legitimate stories as fake news, cheering dictators; other leaders listen. A study on the dangers to the press is important, given the huge number of related stories on RS. And yes, this organization is biased against the intimidation, jailing, and killing of journalists. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 Yes, President Trump is not responsible for behaviour which was long-standing before he got elected, and ignored by the U.S. of both parties when convenient. Is it so hard to expect the press itself is at least somewhat to blame for their being disrespected and controlled due to decades now of their own sensationalising, misinformation, rudeness, attack articles, biased reporting, fake news, dangers of viral media, etcetera ? Or a surprise that a study from a NYC journalist advocacy group skipped by that the world and they changed to instead blame it on Trump ? But that really doesn’t matter - since this is still just not an item of WEIGHT, so UNDUE to highlight any of that in article edits here. Maybe in an article about the press which drew from independent sources that would at least mention press behaviour as part of the situation, but not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The United States is an influential country. President Trump is a larger-than-life figure. It is hardly surprising that the use of language would travel around the world this way. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. And this study talks to the upshot of that influence with this particular POTUS. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it’s like saying an advocacy group study in an adversarial situation is portraying a view favorable to just one side. That’s the *job* of an advocacy group. In other words, may be of no more value than a tobacco industry group study of whether smoking causes cancer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What part of this new study is redundant to the "voluminous coverage" currently in the article? I don't see it. This study is considerably broader and more directly about Trump the man. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, indeed we should. You make a very powerful case. -- Valjean (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Haven't there been a fairly large number of RS sources that have stated that he has empowered such (e.g. China, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, N. Korea, Syria, off the top of my head)? Why would we whitewash this? O3000 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The article at present fails to mention that "Trump’s attacks also appear to have empowered autocratic foreign leaders to discredit and restrict the press in their own countries." We have a reliable source to support an assertion derived from that source. Should we include such an assertion? Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
You mean we haven't already? O3000 (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't be silly - that's pretty hyperbolic and speculative causation there. The fake news and death of truth existed well before President Trump took office, as did censorship or propaganda, as did some opinions that the main cause of climate denial/antivaxxing/etcetera is that Facebook exists. Buzzfeed claims they popularized the term in 2014. (Dittos from BBC) Although The Guardian notes it is much older, and Medium might point to disinformation in the 2008 election and Swift Boat Veterans. Blaming President Trump for dictators may be amusing, but it's just not credible. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I did no such thing. The exaggeration here appears to be on your part. Please don't resort to straw man arguments. O3000 (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Language means something. We are misconstruing the import of something when we repeat in the context of our choosing. Often what we are doing is taking that which should be understood figuratively and presenting it as though it was meant literally. Or we are taking something that should be understood "with a grain of salt" and repeating it in such a way that it is likely to be understood as an unalloyed statement of fact. Wikipedia editors should be acting responsibly. The misconstruing sources is not what we are about.

How can Trump empower autocratic foreign leaders by attacking the press? To take this literally is to embrace nonsense. You mean autocratic foreign leaders were waiting for Trump to set an example? Would a brutal dictator seek permission for anything? Yes, they might say that somebody else, such as the president of the United States, serves as a template for their actions or gives them permission for doing something monstrously unfair to their detractors—like making them disappear—but who would believe them?

If this source is considered worthwhile for the support of material for placement in this article, I think some other material on this general subject should be removed, because a lot of verbiage is already devoted to the relationship between Trump and the press. I don't think we should be larding more onto an already considerably large section on Relationship with the press. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the language used does mean exactly what it says, and what observation and history has shown, that Trump's example has emboldened other autocrats to be even harsher with the press, thus threatening the free exercise of the press in those lands. This should not be taken figuratively when there is nothing to indicate it is other than a description of facts. If you haven't seen this happening, then you haven't been reading what RS have been describing for a long time. Even in the United States, reporters are now regularly threatened and even attacked, and Trump's rallies are dangerous places for journalists. Only by ignoring his history with the press can one come to any other conclusion. He demonizes the press and uses Hitler's Lügenpresse attacks on them by calling them "fake news". That has consequences. American journalists didn't used to live in fear. Now they do. -- Valjean (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Not credible fantasy -- that's just asserting knowing the thoughts of some unnamed autocrats and some unnamed actions. But it's just not logical, and just isn't coming except from a WP:BIASED source. In reality, no autocrat be it Russia or China or whoever needed any lessons on censorship or to be 'encouraged' by someone else, being an "autocrat" means already being there -- and they were doing such things long before Trump showed up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed they have before Trump's arrival. The difference is that the leader of the United States no longer attacks them for doing it, but does it himself and remains friends with those autocrats who do it. This is a very different world we live in. America has lost its leadership position as a champion of the free press. -- Valjean (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a useful addition to our treatment of Trump's "war on truth". And that's an important facet of the Trump Presidency, because in a very short time nearly half the US population has become effectively isolated from fact-based reporting. Guy (help!) 17:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, I can' figure out which direction you're going. You start your comments with very strong arguments that confirm that Trump has a very pernicious and negative influence, and then you say it means nothing. You can't have it both ways. The President of the United States has always wielded an inordinately great degree of influence in the world, and it's as if you're saying that suddenly Trump is an exception, that he can do and say all these terrible things, and that it has no influence at all. RS do not agree with that part, but they do agree with your opening statements. -- Valjean (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • “War on truth” is fairly sanctimonious in this context. It would be one of these parties claiming only they and always they give “truth”. Not language WP should use. Actually, the phrase historically seems to refer to controlling war coverage, see 2005 book on War on Terror, or 1990s, Vietnam, back to WWI censorship. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The article needs a review

This has gone far enough in my opinion. Androvax was advised in the very first reply that s/he is free to make specific, policy-based proposals for improvement. Markbassett already knew that. For organization's sake, I think we should do that separately, one thread per specific, policy-based proposal. As a wide-open "How can this article's lead be improved?" discussion, I could easily imagine this thread becoming completely unmanageable, therefore largely useless. Sound fair? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. While I appreciate Androvax and his desire to improve this article, the argument that the lead is biased is brought up so often it's nauseating. Besides, a peer review is a better avenue for advice on improving articles. Mgasparin (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

After reading the lead section, it is clear that it doesn’t follow the neutral and encyclopaedic point of view. Part of the section seems to be a conglomeration of some of Trump’s failures and controversies, when in reality it should be a brief outline of his life and political position. Whilst I fully concur with everything that was said and believe they are necessary components of the article, out of context (e.g not under their own section) they are just a depiction of why he is a bad president—which, as mentioned, is not neutral. In order for it to seem unbiased, I feel they strictly belong under the “Public Profile” section.

Please feel free to correct and educate me though—I’m fairly new to Wikipedia so any educational correction is definitely welcomed! Androvax (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You might start with a read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and I think you'll find that it doesn't closely correspond to common notions of "neutrality". Basically we are required to report the bad with the good, in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, in this case largely major news outlets. The lead is simply supposed to summarize the most essential points of the rest of the article, and that's the topic of continuous discussions. I don't know what a "review" would look like beyond what we are already doing every day – if there's a mechanism for independent review of an article's general neutrality, I'm not aware of it – but any editor including you is welcome to suggest a specific, policy-based improvement to any part of the article. That initiates a discussion which may yield a consensus that results in a change to the article.
All that said, education of new editors is really outside the function and purpose of this page. Your best learning resources are policies and guidelines (you could start at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) and editor assistance pages including WP:Teahouse and WP:Help desk. And you might be interested in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I made a similar comment (elsewhere on this talk page) just yesterday. The tone of the article creates an impression on a reader that would tend to diminish the credibility of the website as a whole. Worded as they are, a reader would accept many or most of these statements as editorial. - Drsruli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The language of this article is the result of a carefully worked out consensus with dozens of contributors. Can you offer a more concrete suggestion for improvement than a vague "impression" and general condemnation of the credibility of the project? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drsruli and Androvax: at stated at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. If the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that "Trump is funny", then Wikipedia will prominently reflect: "Trump is funny". If the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that Trump is doing many bad things, then that is also what this article will reflect. starship.paint (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Drsruli Yes, the article is biased. Part of it is from WP policy saying to show material according to the WP:WEIGHT, and the media is what it is. The article goes further, but that’s a result of WP:VOLUNTEER - editors are whoever want to edit here, including whatever biases they have. At worst, when WP articles have an obvious bias, it becomes obvious and readers will be able to discount some of it as they wish. Call that WP:READER! Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This is utter nonsense, Mark. Please STOP claiming Wikipedia, this article, and its editors are biased. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you, since you seem unable to assume any sort of good faith from your fellow editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Scjessey Thank you for providing an example. WP:AGF would apply to the many who have remarked upon this article bias, yes? And remarking on use of WP:BIASED sources and of editor POVs or exaggeration in edits is normal and should be normal. That in this article even these simple matters are hotly denied and denounced or proclaimed and accused in TALK seems just natural. This is a partisan topic, so one has to expect WP:PARTISAN sources and editor views - and things to just not be easy. Just not credible to say there is no bias about. As to this and AGF - note that a BIASED source or flawed edit is certainly possible in good faith, and part of POV is that every editor actually has a limited and flawed view - AGF just is trying to view flaws in the light of honest mistakes. Cheers 2604:2D80:911A:8900:45CB:ACA:A78B:2B33(talk) 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
While it is understandable that some will constantly make broad based claims of biased sources and editor POV and exaggeration because of their own biases, it does not contribute to consensus. O3000 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I assume 2604:2D80:911A:8900:45CB:ACA:A78B:2B33 is Markbassett (talk · contribs), right? It just makes me laugh out loud when some editors cry "bias!" when Wikipedia dispassionately reports the unvarnished facts about politicians. You cannot claim something is biased just because you disagree with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Scjessey Thanks, I’ve fixed my signature above. And I think it obvious your second part is factually and logically incorrect. Factually many have claimed something is biased just because they disagreed with it, and logically that’s a prerequisite for finding actual bias. Such as the over 100 mentions of bias in the TALK archives. Think I need to talk about the edit now, cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Androvax in trying to seem less biased by not leading with the conglomeration of controversies and failures, to have only a shorter summary form in lead section, can you highlight bits in particular you have in mind? For example, are you looking to prune the end part of the second paragraph when it starts running into criticisms, something like the below?
Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated 16 other candidates in the primaries. His political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Despite not being favored in most forecasts, he was elected over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president,[b] and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

post closure

@Scjessey I can, and I did above, in my actual original comment.

Aside from the inappropriate style, I would also mention... it should be obvious by now, that standards for neutrality won't be adhered to when quoting from transparently biased sources. Newspapers are generally "liberal" or "conservative", and some more heavily in their reporting than others. TNYT is a good newspaper, but it makes no secret of its political leaning, and this goes beyond the designated editorial page. That's acceptable for a newspaper. But it is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. EVEN if only a minority of the voices here noticed it (and I'm not sure that it is a minority) the fraction is certainly large enough, that the point must be considered. - Drsruli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


@Scjessey (This was my original comment. It's an example of what led me to this (part of the) discussion. It's not difficult to clean up some of these.) (I understand a bit more now than I did even a few days ago, but I'll reproduce the whole thing, because it indicates my initial impression, and I see similar, reproduced by several, above.) "The inappropriate bias in the language and wording in this section really jumps [out at the reader]. Try to report what actually happenned without inserting contextual judgements. (You don't need me to tell you this.) Example: On x date, Trump took x action. Instead of saying "he was slow", say "this entity criticized The President as being slow to take this action." (And then somebody will likely add the sentence "The President defended himself on this criticism by pointing out that xxx...")

"Also... the entire article is generally in chronological order. Logically, the Coronavirus article should come AFTER the Impeachment article. If a reader skips down to the bottom of the page currently, then he might think that nothing has happenned since 2/5/20 President Trump acquitted. The Virus should be placed sequentially as the most recent (indeed the current episode. So, after everything else, including the Impeachment.)" (As it appears currently, the chronological narrative skips, so that it appears that nothing happenned between 2/17 and 12/19.) Drsruli (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Protests against state measures

Re: [4][5]

The coronavirus section of this article was already too large and too detailed for a one-page Trump biography. A prime example of the slippery slope issue that occurs when you write at that level of detail, this new subsection has nothing to do with Trump except "encouraged by Trump in tweets", and that hardly warrants the new content. The connection to Trump is tangential in the extreme. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

These have apparently been fomented by Trump and his coterie. Why do you say thay are not about Trump? He personally insinuated guns into the health briefings on 2 recent days. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say the issue is not about Trump, I said the new subsection has little to do with Trump. It's mostly about:
  • Republican-connected groups.
  • Protests against the measures.
  • The far-right.
  • Conservative pundits.
Regardless, simply being "about Trump" does not automatically qualify something for inclusion in this one-page account of an entire life (so far). Presidency-related content now comprises almost 60% of the article's content, for no reason but that this article has high visibility, not an encyclopedic use of this space. Meanwhile, the article's readable prose is at 98% of the size where it "almost certainly should be divided" per guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
These were the original edits adding large parts of two other articles: [6], [7], [8]. I considered removing all of it but then left the one sentence because it's remarkable that he is encouraging protests against his own policy. I wouldn't mind losing the subsection title and the "main article" link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I would remove them but I already reverted another edit and don't know whether removing title and link would be a 1RR violation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It's also remarkable who's organizing these "grassroots" protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss this segment should be deleted and does not warrant its own sub-section. A simple mention that Trump offered his support for the protests, (you can even say this drew criticism from governors) with a link to the article on the protests is fine. Not to mention, the current wording of this sub-section reads like a poorly written-run on sentence, like who writes this stuff? Amorals (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on good writing, Amorals. I was, like, partially responsible for that stuff poorly written-run on sentence. I will strive to attain your level of excellency in the future. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point I don’t think his comments belong in this biography beyond a mere mention. Trump’s comments about the protests are spelled out in detail at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#President Trump, and the protests themselves are mentioned under 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Public response. Plus apparently there is now an article about the protests themselves, which can be linked to and his involvement laid out in detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the section heading and the "main article" link, replacing it with an inline Wikilink. Also trimmed and edited the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Good edits MelanieN, I would suggest, however, being a little more specific in the wording, protesting “the measures to combat the virus.” RS seem to indicate that the protests were devoted specifically to strict stay-at home orders. And obviously there have been other measures governments have taken to stop the pandemic other than the the stay-at home orders. It’s not clear that they were protesting all of those too. Amorals (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Amorals. I went through our references and there is not just one thing they are protesting for. Sometimes it’s the stay-at-home orders, sometimes it’s about jobs lost when businesses were closed, sometimes it’s generic “freedom” and “constitutional rights”. From one of our references: “While protesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and other states claim to speak for ordinary citizens, many are also supported by street-fighting rightwing groups like the Proud Boys, conservative armed militia groups, religious fundamentalists, anti-vaccination groups and other elements of the radical right.” (Sure enough, I did see an anti-vaccination sign in footage of one of the rallies.) So I think I'll keep it generic. That's too much detail for this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Very tangential indeed. I support MelanieN's edit. — JFG talk 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic section - BOLD add January items, fix order of occurrence

From the discussions above, it was apparent that major January events were MIA, and the 30 March pandemic declaration as the second line was out of sequence. So I've BOLD-ly added those events and put the pandemic declaration lower down. I've left the language there neutral, skipping the China criticisms for just conveying the more on-topic U.S. and WHO actions . I've also shifted the late March and April parts in debate about "slow" into a closing -- since those are late March and April. The start is changed to "was criticized as slow" instead of "was slow" but otherwise left the same. Leaving "Reducing editorialising and sensational language" to work on the language of it further.

On December 31, 2019, China notified the World Health Organization China office that it was treating cases of an unknown illness in Wuhan, Hubei, China.[1][2] By 17 January, the CDC announced enhanced health screening at three airports for “2019-nCoV” on flights thru Wuhan.[3] The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020.[4] A day after the 30 January announcement by WHO that coronavirus was a public health emergency of international concern, HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency for the U.S. for the novel coronavirus and announced travel restrictions to and from China.[5]

On March 6, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law, which provided $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies.[6] The spreading worldwide within weeks was recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020.[7][8] On March 11, President Trump gave a nationwide oval office address, announcing travel prohibitions would now include Europe and giving reassurance for businesses that "This is not a financial crisis, this just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world.”[9][10] On March 13 he declared a national state of emergency, freeing up additional federal resources.[11][12][13] In a March 16 press conference, he acknowledged for the first time that the pandemic was "not under control", that the situation was "bad", acknowledging that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur.[14] Trump's repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" or "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from the media, health experts, the World Health Organization, and the Chinese government.[15][16][17]

By mid-March, Trump started having daily press conferences with medical experts and other administration officials.[18] He sometimes disagreed with the experts by promoting possible but unproven treatments,[19] and he frequently used his time at the podium to criticize Joe Biden, praise his own response to the pandemic, or attack the media.[18][20][21]

Trump has been criticized as slow to address the pandemic, initially playing down the threat and ignoring calls for action from government experts.[22] He rejected persistent public health warnings from officials within his administration, focusing instead on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[23] He continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and CDC officials repeatedly told him it would take 12–18 months to develop a vaccine.[24][25] Trump also exaggerated the availability of testing for the virus, falsely claiming that "Anybody that wants a test can get a test," even though availability of tests was severely limited.[26][27]

  • Feel free to add February events ...

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • User:Onetwothreeip Whupsa -- all my edits hit an edit conflict, as you were doing a number of edits too. I've tried to merge your content changes and will go back to adjust what you also did to the internal structure of cites as best I can. Sorry, that's not intended as a revert or alteration of your work, just ... well you can see it wasn't an easy merge. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the ref changes (putting the part into template order ?) are also included. Please check and correct as needed. FWIW, I think one of the URLs was malfed before either of us got there - the one on the oval office address that says "url=at that day's press briefing ". Markbassett (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett: What is "template order"? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I think I've now changed all the cites in the section back to the coding conventions that have been widely used in this article for at least two years. If any editor wants to change those conventions, I'd ask them to (1) get consensus for the change, and (2) agree to edit the entire article to reflect the change, so as to preserve the consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Mandruss Template order is what it looked like -- moving the parts into the order shown in the WP:CITEHOW templates. For example, where cites to web put the URL late or last, this moved the URL into first like the template at WP:CITEWEB -- "cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=". Similarly where a cite to news gave the firstname first or the URL first, this moved parts to the template order "cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |work= |location= |access-date= ". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this and the some of the edits made by Onetwthreeip are not good. The section now improperly emphasizes non-biographical information, reframes content differently than presented in sources, adds unnecessary esoterica ("2019-nCoV" ), and it is worded awkwardly ("The spreading worldwide of the disease within weeks was recognized..."). The edits have managed to strip the most important aspect, which is that Trump ignored/minimized/joked about the impending pandemic for six weeks. Any sentence that starts "Trump was criticized..." based on an editor's interpretation of sources is violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 12:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Trump, ignored/minimized/or joked at campaign rallies is hardly the most important part of the article. Many of the edits by Onetwthreeip were legit and should not be immediately dismissed. Your personal interpretation that this is what's most important is what is in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Amorals (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Trump put the entire nation at risk by ignoring it according to numerous very good reliable sources. That is an key aspect of his involvement with pandemic. This is not complicated. Simply read the leads of feature articled about the subject and see what they are emphasizing. I don't know what you mean by "legit". Feel free to explain point by point, being sure to cite sources along the way. - MrX 🖋 15:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This blind obsession with RS seems to be clouding editors’ ability to write in an encyclopedic tone. “Simply read the leads...”” you mean the leads that are written in a manner to get people to buy papers? Again we’re an encyclopedia, not a for profit newspaper. There seems to be a big disconnect overall between getting info from the RS and actually transferring them into quality writing in the article. Bsubprime7 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bsubprime7: "This blind obsession with RS" Aww... that may be the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me on Wikipedia. I dispute that online news article leads are written in a manner to get people to buy papers. Traditionally, leads are written to give an overview of an article and to induce readers to read the rest of the article. Our job is to derive content from a variety of reliable sources, while remaining faithful to how they represent the subject. It is not our role to editorialize what is written in reliable sources. This is covered in WP:NPOV, right near the top of the policy page. It's too bad if editors don't like the adjectives or characterizations of a subject in reliable sources. We are not supposed to neutralize them to accomodate our personal preferences. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr. X- all that and you still didn’t address that the current wording is grammatically incorrect. And yes headlines are written to sell papers, let’s dispense with that notion and start living in reality. For the 100th time, there are synonyms in the English language where you can make the wording sound more encyclopedic and still be 100% faithful to RS and not violate WP:NPOV. “Blind obsession with the RS” is by no means a compliment, the only thing it proves is a bot could do the same quality of editing as you. You can cite as many wiki policies as you want it does not change the fact that your wording is grammatically inaccurate and poorly written. Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
MrX—numerous factors are taken into consideration. You refer to Trump "ignoring it". Trump was weighing numerous factors, including but not limited to the economy. You're saying it's "not complicated". Actually it is. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The text MrX reinstated, which was a team effort by several experienced editors, specifically refers to the two most important of the "numerous factors" Trump weighed -- namely, the political and economic factors. Please don't add opinions "Actually it is". Just sources and text. It's much simpler for us all to collaborate that way. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean the situation on the ground wasn't complicated. I meant that determining the most significant facts reported by sources is not complicated. You read a few articles and they practically jump off the page. I agree that Trump was probably weighing different things like his re-election, his real estate holdings, and the stock market while he publicly downplayed the seriousness of the impending pandemic. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Closing down the economy also puts "the entire nation at risk". Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Please again. No OR and no repetition. I just directed you to the article content that mentions economic factors as among Trump's determining factors in the neglect. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO—you are indulging in exaggeration in your use of the term "neglect". Here is Webster's definition of "neglect". Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
no. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The January events simply have much more WEIGHT -- If one googles "Trump declares state of emergency for covid" you'll see circa 39 million Ghits. "Trump travel restrictions for pandemic" are 73 million ... and "Trump slow responding to pandemic" is only 21 million Ghits. Time matters and the months of events gathered more notes and for now they have more WEIGHT, When inserting January events, the obvious spot was after the December mention so the April criticisms became the closer. If you wish to put all the actual events as the endpiece, and make THAT the closing impression folks are left with, meh... I think that's wierd and the reader would wonder why January comes last. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
For the google file: Trump virus failure 112 million, Trump virus not true 157 million. Your turn. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Poll concerning article edits

I see that the section has basically been restored to what it was before Mark’s changes. But I do agree with him about a couple of problems in the current first paragraph - which is basically about January and February.

  • "and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020" has no business in the first paragraph; it’s way out of chronological order. It should be moved to the second paragraph, or better yet left out entirely, as not relevant to Trump’s biography and his actions to deal with the U.S. situation.
  • We should add that on January 31 he announced a partial ban on travel to the U.S. from China, effective February 2. That is the one thing he DID do before March and we have no justification for leaving it out.

If there is no objection I intend to do these two things, which I believe should be obvious and non-controversial. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for coming to this very reasonable consensus. I’m sure some of the usual suspects will object to this, but it is absolutely the right decision and improves the article. Bsubprime7 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
She has not "come to a consensus" -- she is asking whether there are objections. For my part,
  • #1 yes I think the first suggestion is good.
  • #2 no *#2 no I think the second would need lots of context. The travel ban came a month after Trump received an urgent national security warning, with nearly 400,000 travelers having arrived from China to a dozen U.S. cities in the interim see here. By the time of the warning there was little or no air travel to the US from China. And more. This is a talking point that Trump has highlighted by repetition as the criticism of his actions has increased in recent weeks. I think it's just as well to leave it out, but certainly it would need lots of collateral information and recent RS contextualization. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
By the time of the warning there was little or no air travel to the US from China. Not true. Just in the time since he imposed that travel ban, 40,000 people entered the U.S. from China (that's why I call it a partial ban).[9] And just because Trump likes to brag about it and exaggerate its importance is not an excuse for leaving it out. He did it, it was the one and only early action he took, and we should report it. (I loved a comment from one commentator at the time: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a wall, everything looks like an invasion.") -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, @MelanieN: I didn't see this. I began replying below MrX's !votes below and was no longer looking up here. RS have said that air travel was slowed to a fraction of that January 400,000 rate by the end of the month. I'd have to look up the sources that address that specifically. I will look later. However meanwhile, I think the factcheck.org link I gave below is the best source we can use for context about the China travel ban. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, About 300,000 people came to the U.S. from China during the outbreak and before his ban. Another 40,000 arrived after his travel ban, so it cannot be true that “there was little or no air travel to the US from China”. At the time it was imposed and afterward, there was obviously still air travel from China, or else how did the 40,000 get here? Yes, the U.S. airlines had suspended scheduled flights, but the Chinese carriers were still flying - not to mention the many charter flights. Anyhow, that’s not important. Your claim below that “We should require a recent RS that tells us it was significant, not just boiler plate or PR” is the mirror image of Bus stop’s saying that we can’t say he got off to a slow start until somebody spells out exactly how many deaths his slow start caused. I reject that line of reasoning in both cases. We report major (highly reported at the time and afterward) actions. We don’t wait to mention them until we find out, maybe years later, what the final effect of those actions was. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
RE: "so it cannot be true" - actually I think it is true. Because the airlines themselves canceled flights shortly before Trump announced his ban. In other words (and I know neither of us is or aspires to be an air traffic expert) to check what I said (which I got from sources but I don't recall which) -- one needs to consider the rate of travel at the end of the month of January and not the average rate or total over the month, during which traffic was falling rapidly. From this chart [10] it appears that steady-state traffic to the US from China was about 700,000 passengers a month in 2019. So 300-something thousand in January 2020 would be consistent with a decline during the month from the normal 700,000 level to near zero at month's end when Trump announced his travel ban. I think the factcheck.org link I gave below is our best bet for a balanced view of this. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
RE: "so it cannot be true" - actually I think it is true Well, those 40,000 people got here after the ban somehow. Maybe they swam? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN: There are many carve-outs from the "ban" that account for the 40,000. You can read them at the text of the presidential proclamation or in some of the news coverage. No swimmers. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Like I've been saying. Especially, American citizens were exempt, which probably accounts for the vast majority of the 40,000. So what does the suspension of American-carrier flights have to do with anything? Can we quit talking about that as if it meant something? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN—you can't put quotes around something like this: Your claim below that “We should require a recent RS that tells us it was significant, not just boiler plate or PR” is the mirror image of Bus stop’s “we can’t say he got off to a slow start until somebody spells out exactly how many deaths it caused”. It is in fact not a quote of anything I said. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. It's not a quote. I'll remove the quotation marks. It's actually a paraphrase of what you have been saying, over and over. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted and I thank you for that. But it is not "a paraphrase of what [I] have been saying, over and over". Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN and Bus stop: I've said 2 or 3 times now, let's use the factcheck.org reference to contextualize the ban. Nobody, least of all I, said we should wait until ultimate outcomes are known. I don't see any similarity between Bus stop's denial of abundant RS narratives RE: Trump's neglect of the virus and my suggestion we use factcheck.org to contextualize the travel ban. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, RE the factcheck report: it is partly about the ridiculous expansion of Trump's claims about how many lives the travel ban saved, and partly discussing the efficacy of travel bans in general. Their conclusion: not very effective, but we can't tell about its effect on the U.S., because we know so little about the state of the outbreak at the time, due to lack of testing. I don't find anything there to imply we shouldn't put in a sentence about him imposing the travel ban. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what two things are you referring to MelanieN? 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)
My two bullet points: move the WHO designation as a pandemic to the next paragraph, and add his China travel ban.
OK, I support #1 (and considered doing myself). I don't think that #2 is important for this article (but probably for the presidency article). It just seems too routine to me. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Routine? Sources called it unprecedented.[11][12] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
For context, I was thinking of something along these lines in the first paragraph: "The first confirmed case in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020.[551] On January 31 he announced a partial ban on travel to the U.S. from China, effective February 1.[reference] Otherwise (or "aside from that") Trump was slow to address the pandemic, initially playing down the threat…" -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess I'm fine with it, while noting that there's almost nothing about this president that's not unprecedented.- MrX 🖋 19:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
To reiterate, this travel ban is being promoted every day in the TV press briefings. It was a month after Trump received dire warnings from national security professionals and two weeks after his China hawk adviser Navarro and Sec'y Azar both warned him of the worsening situation. In the interim nearly half a million potentially infected persons arrived at 17 U.S. cities. Trump knows that "travel bans" are a great thing with his base. This one had little prophylactic effect -- arrivals from China having all but halted by then -- but this ban has provided useful tv and cable news fodder that is still paying dividends. We should require a recent RS that tells us it was significant, not just boiler plate or PR. Here's a link to Factcheck.org for starters. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
arrivals from China having all but halted by then SPECIFICO, did you not happen to see my reply to you above? I don't want to accuse you of WP:IDHT. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't mention the China travel ban, or that we should add more context to it? If the latter, would you propose some wording? - MrX 🖋 22:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The simplest solution would be to leave it out. Were it not for his recent daily carping on it, this insignificant and ineffective proclamation would not be on our minds. I'm confident of that because if it were deemed significant, we would not have omitted it from the current much-scrutinized version. There is much more reason for it to be in the Trump Presidency article than in this biography. If we add the travel ban directly after the sentence about his neglect of public health warnings, that would be a reasonable way to establish context. I don't think any of us wants to spend much more effort on this. If we do, the next step would be to include the context from factcheck.org that makes clear that hundreds of thousands arrived here while Trump dallied and that the ban itself did little to reduce virus transmission risk. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico, Trump ordering a travel ban is something he factually did. Any President instituting a travel ban is unprecedented as described by the RS. The fact that its something Trump likes to tout when he appeals to his base is irrelevant. We’re not passing judgement whether his travel ban was effective or ineffective just merely that he did it. Your narrative about warnings he received prior are inadmissible relative to the travel ban cause it’s not clear if any of those prior warnings specifically advised him to ban travel from China, the RS merely said advisers warned him of a pandemic he needed to pay attention to, and we’ve addressed Trump’s downplaying and disregard ad nauseam. There is no logical reason to not include MelanieN’s proposal #2 unless you are pushing a partisan perspective which you continue to purport you are not. So hopefully we can stick to the logical points. Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's where I come from: I think it is deceptive for us to point out that he was slow to address the epidemic, while deliberately leaving out the one thing he DID do. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts exactly as I said in my comments above. Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see this story from the New York Times. The airlines themselves, not Trump, suspended flights from China. Trump's "travel ban" came after there was virtually no air traffic scheduled. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Third or maybe fourth time you've raised this irrelevant point. Whether or not the U.S. carriers were still operating scheduled flights, those 40,000 people got here somehow. That's from your own references. And they were presumably most or all U.S. citizens. It can be argued that without Trump's ban on foreigners there would almost certainly have been a lot more. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
That's an empirical question, and while it could be (falsely 😉) argued as you say, I have seen no RS that shares your view. Anyway you'll be pleased to see I've given up on this one. It's boilerplate, it's puppeting a Trump/Fox talking point, but it won't kill our article. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico that's all well and good, but his travel ban still suspended other types of travel that aren't commercial. There is a segment of the population who do not use commercial airlines to fly from China. The ban cemented this by eliminating other types of travel as well (i.e. private flights). Amorals (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like nobody objects to moving the WHO pandemic statement, and I will do it. The China travel ban remains under discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if you have a source for that. Quite the contrary is true. There were many exceptions to the so-called "ban", and if you're thinking of American Corporate CEOs returning to the US on private jets, bingo. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The very fact that the source you presented only included mention of commercial airlines and the lack of mention of private travel tell us this. Believe it or not there are Chinese Corporate CEOs who take private jets to the U.S. American CEOs aren't the only ones who own private jets. Amorals (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You are narrating some rather unconvincing Original Research. Even from the level of your intuitive guess, you could check the ratio of commercial to private air traffic China-US and you could verify that, contrary to what I just said, private corporate jets were not one of the numerous exceptions. Please, no more OR or "common sense" arguments. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO and Amorals, it's not just a matter of private corporate jets. The article you posted said that U.S. commercial flights had been discontinued but that Chinese and other foreign flag flights were continuing. Not to mention (again) all the charter flights that were being organized to bring Americans out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes true, telling another editor to stop with "common sense" is a ridiculous statement. There is something called "subtext." Reading the subtext of an article does not make it original research. We are humans with brains not robots. If the NYT is deemed reliable then we are left to believe they would be reporting all the flights that were discontinued. They would not just selectively be giving their readers incomplete information. It's not just what the sources say, but what the sources don't say. The very fact that an RS, who has a proven journalistic process, did not include these other types of flights in their list of those that had been discontinued tells you they weren't. Amorals (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear statement. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty confident you're mistaken. The mission of great journalists is to be clear enough that "subtext" plays no role in their message and that the message is stated in a way that precludes misinterpretation. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---Moreover, I haven't explicitly made my position on MelanieN's proposals clear, so: Support proposals #1 and #2 Amorals (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the China travel ban even needs further discussion, is just a microcosm of why people accuse Wikipedia political articles as being partisan mouthpieces. Makes me sad for those trying to improve the article. I encourage editors to put nonsense aside and remember this is an “encyclopedia.” Bsubprime7 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if SPECIFICO has dropped their objection to mentioning this in the "January-February" paragraph. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to it? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Now to mention 11 March adding Europe travel restrictions, and to correct misquote. Yes ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_115&oldid=1256561766"