![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 110 | ← | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | → | Archive 120 |
Three weeks ago, I proposed something along the lines of "Trump was also present during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak" in the lead. The discussion was archived before we really resolved anything, though it seems clear that the coronavirus' impact on the United States is very clear. There is now information about Trump's response about coronavirus pandemic in the body. p b p 04:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Go for itis bad advice, Purplebackpack89's editsum "consensus on TP to add this" is false, and I've reverted the addition. Lead or otherwise, do not add disputed content to this article without consensus to do so. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
To review Mandruss' reasons for opposing were a) that it shouldn't be in the lead because it wasn't mentioned in the body (which is invalid because now it is), and b) that you thought there was too much about his presidency in the lead, which wasn't (and isn't) a good argument because it doesn't specifically address this verbiage only. Is a major public health crisis that's shut down the entire country for several weeks and necessitated dozens of press briefings and actions by the President just not important enough for the lead? You could easily propose shortening the lead (or the body) by cutting something else; there are a half-dozen things in the lead that are of less importance than the coronavirus. p b p 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
It should be in the lead, but "was present" is so meaningless it might as well be left out. How about something like "The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, and its spread in the United States became the major focus of his attention during that year." Feel free to tweak this, but something along these lines seems called for. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Emmanuel Macron's fourth year in office, and its spread in France became the major focus of his attention during that year.Useless. — JFG talk 02:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a sizable section in the article, and it has dominated the news (and Trump's words and actions) for at least the last month. We need to have SOMETHING in the lead. But the section is so detailed, action by action, word by word, that I don't see any way to summarize it in a sentence except the way I suggested. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"largely due to Trump's having ignored it, fearing that any acknowledgement would adversely affect the buoyant capital markets that are a signal accomplishment of his term in office"? That is a degree of analysis that would not be lede-worthy. Bus stop ( talk) 18:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"reaction"isn't the relevant point because the spread of virus in the United States is unprecedented. His
"reaction"will require long term analysis. We don't know if his
"reaction"was highly problematic or merely suffered from the stumbles that anyone in the presidency might have suffered under such an event. The problem of this medical emergency is still ongoing. A separate article will probably focus on such a topic but it would be premature for the lede of this article wax eloquent on Trump's handling of the outbreak. Bus stop ( talk) 19:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"something significant about him"is that he was president during the Covid 19 pandemic. For the lede, that is sufficient. Readers are expected to look to the body of the article if they want to know more about this. It is in the body of the article that the reader might find a link to a yet-to-be-created article on how well or how poorly the Trump administration handled the Covid 19 outbreak. Bus stop ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
+/- 20 trillion, giving effect to the Fed portion being leverageable bank reserves. Got a source, or is that WP:OR / personal interpretation? — JFG talk 23:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
He asked for $2 billion. Congress and the Fed enacted +/- 20 trillion. That's baloney. — JFG talk 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN's wording is a fair way to mention coronavirus in the lead. I agree with Busstop that Specifico's wording of "largely due to Trump's having ignored it," is a partisan talking point, a non-biased analysis would concede that there were other factors at play including the slowness of China to communicate with the rest of the world, and their overall lack of transparency.
Amorals (
talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I concede that this is an actual big deal. No other issue of his presidency (aside from his presidency itself) has represented such a clear and immediate threat to the welfare of the country. This is the first time he has declared a national state of emergency. So I am no longer opposing an addition outright. To combat lead creep, we should remove a roughly equal amount of less important content. I suggest Soleimani. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico, I and other editors like Bustop I'm sure have read the links and I am not defending the fact that many in RS have been critical of Trump's response. However, this is a factor the suggestion that it is The Primary Factor is a partisan point. Regardless if China is a totalitarian regime, it's difficult for any country to fully prepare for a virus emanating thousands of miles away without proper intel from the country of origin. If you look at other countries like Italy and Spain suffering, you have to ask yourself are people there suffering too primarily because their leaders were inept and slow to respond? The preponderance of analyses suggests other factors were involved as well.
Amorals (
talk) 19:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus — the first of many — in the President’s Daily Brief.
There's no speculation regarding other countries. Death totals are facts. It's a perfectly relevant comparison as they are dealing with the same pandemic as the U.S., so it is fair to consider they may be dealing with similar obstacles. I suspect you are putting too much stock in the transparency of U.S. intelligence. The breadth of U.S. intel on this particular issue is not fully verified in RS (for obvious reasons, much of Intelligence and National Security intel is classified.) To definitively state that U.S. intelligence was on top of the outbreak soon enough to truly stop the spread and that Trump 100% ignored every aspect of this intelligence at the time, is what truly calls for speculation. Not to mention its veracity simply isn't available to the public.
Amorals (
talk) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Commentary about his handling of the situation can be included in the text section, provided it is well sourced and reported by multiple sources. No such commentary should go in the lead IMO. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, wreaking widespread havoc on the United States."Bus stop ( talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico, the earliest significant "rousing" as you say cannot be confirmed to have taken place prior to January 30, so early January is not accurate. Peter Navarro is the only source mentioned by name in RS, and any unnamed sources prior to that cannot be verified as not being compromised in some way. "Wreaked havoc" is too theatrical a term and not encyclopedic. Neutral and fair wording would be something along the lines of, "During his fourth year in office, the 2019-2020 Coronavirus Pandemic broke out, causing widespread social and economic unrest, leading Trump to form the Coronavirus Task Force." Any analysis or criticism of the task force and Trump's response should be reserved for the body. However, since some editors seem hellbent on not saying anything that could be interpreted as positive in the lead, and Trump merely doing something (i.e. forming the task force) may fit this bill for some ideologs, I agree with Mandruss that if consensus cannot be reached in summarizing Trump's role, it should be left out entirely.
Amorals (
talk) 22:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There have been no reports of civic unrest or economic unrest in the USA. We need to get the facts right. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus — the first of many — in the President’s Daily Brief.
Specifico, Jan 3 was when the intel was first gathered from China but there is no way to know how dire of a threat the virus was treated by the intelligence community at this time. The only RS date we can point to in which the seriousness of the virus was outlined was Jan 30 through Peter Navarro. With respect to the source you've offered, we cannot speculate because a single publication says there were unnamed sources who sent these reports to the President's desk. We don't know who these sources are, nor do we know what specifically was in the reports and how exactly they were treated by the President's staff. Unless we have the names of individuals (i.e. like we do with Navarro) and specific concrete evidence, it falls in the category of WP:Undue.
Amorals (
talk) 01:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
. As cited. That's how we know. We are not detectives, just aggregators of reliable secondary source reporting. We often do not know how these RS publications discover and vet the facts they report. They are deemed RS because they have the practices, reputation, and history to demonstrate they check facts and publish well-sourced content. The sources are not unknown to the Washington Post, just not publicly disclosed. That is the key point. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump
Washington Post in a vacuum does not warrant inclusion for something this serious. Multiple publications that are RS need to have reported on this timeline for a claim of this magnitude to be made. We are not detectives, but we are here to evaluate what warrants inclusion based on a plurality of RS from different perspectives. However, the point of emphasis seems to be on the wording in the lead, and reference to the timeline would go in the body, which should be adressed in a separate discussion.
Amorals (
talk) 03:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
A number of people have referred to or supported my proposed wording, but that wording has likely gotten lost in all the discussion here. For clarity, what I proposed was The
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, and its
spread in the United States became the major focus of his attention during that year.
--
MelanieN (
talk)
22:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"It seems recent and after 2 years it probably wouldn't be suitable in the lead section."Why wouldn't mention of the epidemic not be suitable for mention in the lede after 2 years? Bus stop ( talk) 14:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and passed a $2 trillion stimulus package.
From the standpoint of this personal biography, the key one liner is that Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control. Do you disagree that is how it's been reported in RS? SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)From January 2020 to mid-March 2020, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, [1] [2] giving many optimistic public statements, [3] which were mainly aimed at calming stock markets. [4] He initially said he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic. [5] He went on to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control", and repeatedly suggested the virus would somehow vanish one day. [3] He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax". [5] [6] Trump eventually changed his tone on March 16 to a somber one. For the first time, he acknowledged that the coronavirus was "not under control", the situation was "bad" with months of impending disruption to daily lives, and a recession might occur. [2] [4]
References
"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control"is exactly correct. It's what we can objectively say from a historical perspective. The rest of the story is still being written. Who knows–maybe Trump will discover that over consumption of happy meals is the cure and the DJIA will bounce back to 26,000. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control"is a very special view. Any spin can be put on this. The point is not to put a spin on it. Bus stop ( talk) 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control"belongs in the lede. The lede involves noting the high points of the subject, not putting a highly idiosyncratic perspective on the subject. WP:NPOV is primarily a quality that has to permeate the body of the article. In my opinion what we are endeavoring to do in this thread is to simply to take note of a subject-area that will be more fully explored in the body of the article. Bus stop ( talk) 14:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
We can't quantify the level of which Trump's slowness to respond affected the pandemic. It's very possible that he could have reacted sooner, the results could still have been awful just in a lesser degree. We are not in the business of speculating. Even the RS haven't gone as far to make an absolutist statement like "Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control," including this in the lead or even in the body would turn the entire article into a farce. I would also caution editors from using inflammatory wording like "ham-fisted" and "happy meal" that make it very clear you personally dislike Trump as it discredits your POV, not to mention it calls into question the integrity of this entire article if you are playing a significant role in editing it.
Amorals (
talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"quantify the level of Trump's slowness"then why say this in the lede? It is "spin" if it is only said to lay blame at the door of Trump. Some degree of
"slowness"is likely to be present in any response. One perceives information, processes information, formulates a response—by definition this takes time. Of course there is
"slowness"attributable to Trump, just as there would be
"slowness"attributable to anyone in the presidency at the time of the outbreak of a new epidemic that was spreading worldwide. Bus stop ( talk) 16:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"he ignored it". If a source said "he ignored it", that could warrant inclusion in the body of the article, with attribution to the source. Bus stop ( talk) 17:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Several officials told the Post that the president ignored the matter since he did not believe that the virus would spread across the United States. This coincides with the public statements made by Trump, who on February 19 said that “It’s going to work out fine” and that by April, “warmer weather” will halt the spread of the virus.
— [13]
President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday.
— [14]
Nevertheless, Trump’s apparent decision to ignore his own intelligence experts’ warnings in the early stages of this crisis — to say nothing of the warnings from other experts and organizations — has important implications for how we think about the relationship between policymaking and intelligence broadly, and with respect to public health in particular.
— [15]
Trump has reportedly ignored a step-by-step guide from the Obama administration detailing how to fight a pandemic. Even when U.S. intelligence officials directly warned Trump in January and February that a pandemic was likely, he failed to act—all the while playing down the threat the virus posed to Americans.
— [16]
We can't quantify ... just in a lesser degreeis a contradiction. But has been explained in previous replies, there's no proposal to quantify the effect of Trump's inaction and public deflections. The deflections, btw, are ongoing -- just yesterday he said the USA is going to open up "with a bang" on May 1. Reports indicate a huge amount of valuable executive and scientific staff time is being spent trying to reduce the self-inflicted damage done by Trump's daily TV walk-ons. Since early March, even Trump's ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has repeatedly criticized POTUS on his response. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking delete the footnote a about other measures of Trumps wealth, anyone prefer to do otherwise ?
This is from 2019 items and appears in the lead and the template. It was mentioned in the earlier TALK Forbes cuts net worth estimate by a billion but no further discussion or action happened. I'm thinking the newer Forbes makes those interim numbers excess, but perhaps there is a rationale for keeping them ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 06:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Personal conversation best suited for user talk pages — JFG talk 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:MelanieN - The line saying "Aside from that, Trump was slow to address the pandemic" is not supported by the Washington Post Blake cite attached to it. That cite only provides a timeline, saying that he was "relentlessly optimistic" and "a timeline of Trump’s commentary downplaying the threat" from the end of January thru late March.
I refer you the top section of
WP:V All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an
inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material
about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
I did try to resolve some of this by merging the next line with the NYT Lipton cite, and rephrasing where neither cite supports the prior phrases. But yourMrX revert
here undid that edit.
In this case, I think the line as stated is a bit false to fact, which has distorted or missed events of both cites or is pulling from sources not shown. Please provide additional cites to provide WP:V, or rephrase the line to suit the cites present. In particular the next line has issue with the NYT cite:
Again, please provide cites to provide WP:V for the text you have entered, or rephrase the line(s) to suit the cites presented. Perhaps others will suggest candidate cites or edits here. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 19:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no controversy here that can't be solved by references. If you need a reference saying "slow to address" - that exact language - we can easily supply one or several.
The references MrX added are fine. Or pick one of these references for the exact language and put it in the article. Problem solved. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
"compact"but presenting characterizations as facts imbues the article with an unwanted bias. Bus stop ( talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: I don't think the new header is neutral. It's not criticism, it's verified fact according to our sources. Mischaracterizing it as "criticism" is the false narrative that, as I understand it, is preferred by Markbassett. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
AP When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances.
NYT Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action. 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.
Kaiser Health News / Politifact: Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale.
Politico: The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak.
NPR: The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.
Time At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus.
Really, this whole thread is a waste of time. The language is obviously fully supported by umpteen sources. We shouldn't indulge this kind of nitpicking, to be honest. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Mark, you hatted a HUGE portion of this conversation, and the edits of several users. Basically everyone who disagreed with you. I undid it. Don’t do that again. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
We are getting some additional information now about the first trials of Hydroxychloroquine, after POTUS promoted it and said he had ordered (I believe the number was) 7 million doses from a manufacturer in India. See here and [26] SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Woopsie Trump dismisses doctor for questioning Hydroxychloroquine treatment 2. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Three people with knowledge of HHS' recent acquisition of tens of millions of doses of those drugs said that Bright had supported those acquisitions in internal communications, with one official saying that Bright praised the move as a win for the health department. starship .paint ( talk) 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)“I was asking the question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen,” Trump said at an Oval Office signing for the Paycheck Protection Program. “I was asking a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands, and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.”
There's quite a bit of reporting on Hydroxychloroquine in Vanity Fair today. Among other things, those millions of doses he bragged having on order from India were to be pushed out and fed to New Yorkers in an attempt to... unclear what. Worth a careful reading. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Shortage of the medication for Malaria patients, see here and da Beeb, here. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This reads 8 on the
forumeter. Please hold general discussions about Trump, politics, etc, on user talk pages. ―
Mandruss
☎
00:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I agree, that Vanity Fair article is worth a careful reading. I have added information from that article, documenting the White House pressure on health agencies, to the fourth paragraph of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Research into vaccine and drug therapies. It’s probably better there than here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this:
On 19 March, President Donald Trump encouraged the use of unproven and potentially hazardous drugs - chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine - during a national press conference. These endorsements led to massive increases in public demand for the drugs [1]
After the following section:
Beginning in mid-March, Trump held a daily press conference, joined by medical experts and other administration officials,[575] sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting unproven treatments.[576] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.178.212 ( talk) 01:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ANTI-TRUMP reporting to TRUMP-NEUTRAL reporting
Hello, I would change the article page about Donald Trump to reflect both sides (like him, dislike him) because I see this article currently as being only one sided (only editors that dislike him). I want to be clear, I see an enormous amount of content on his page and multiple links to references. But there is clear bias here. If the source is pro-trump it is either absent or qualified as conspiracy or just brushed upon. If a topic has any anti-Trump perspective (and people are good to find that perspective), it is explained at large with multiple references to provide a false sense of credibility. This creates bias and does not reflect the reality we live in.
If your articles only reach part of the facts, they misrepresent the topic. If I only talk about the darkside of the moon in an article and provide plenty of references, people will be misled to believe the moon is dark and it is not the case. I do not have the time or the will to go through the article and try to make the article more representative of reality. Here is an article that contradicts the essence of much of your article: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/495627-flynn-documents-are-the-smoking-gun-on-comeys-fbi
But finally, all I want to let you know is that I am disappointed at seeing this from Wikipedia. Since I started consulting your pages, I felt that because of the open nature of your platform, we could truly have an online encyclopedia. Since reading this article, my illusions are shattered. I do not want to use Wikipedia in the future and if asked, I will let people know that IMO, Wikipedia is not impartial, nor does it seek to provide contextual information and complete information. Of course it depends on the topic because many of those are still fully impartial. But it only takes one exemple to discredit the whole. As such, it is the credibility of all of Wikipedia that is being affected here.
Thank you, Philippe Jacques, Montreal, Canada. 66.130.70.219 ( talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
We do a good job here of moving content to the presidency article when needed, but judging by the pretty striking disparity in viewing statistics, we do much worse job of redirecting readers who might be better served there. Adding a link in the first paragraph might help remedy that. For reference, what we currently have is
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
The easiest way to do this might be to just modify the wikilinking a bit, to
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
(I also added wikilinks to his business and media career articles in the above; if that's controversial, then disregard.)
I think the presidency article will be much more useful than the generic
President of the United States article up top. We could link the presidency article later on in the intro by switching He became the
oldest first-term U.S. president
to He became
the oldest first-term
U.S. president
. Does that sound alright? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
09:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Before entering politicsto
Before he became president. If politics is defined as
the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power- nah, that's not what we've been witnessing since he came down that escalator. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Alternatively:
Before assuming the presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before he became president, he was a businessman and television personality.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States. Before his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality.But that seems like a bridge to cross when the time comes. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
![]() | This
edit request to
Donald Trumpeta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.161.188.73 ( talk) 02:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, EditQwerty ( talk · contribs) removed the image caption. I reverted the edit with an explanation. Mandruss ( talk · contribs) kindly pointed out it was technically a 1RR violation, so I went back to self revert and found EditQwerty had changed it again. I think it would be silly for me to try to self revert now, so I wanted to post this here by way of an explanation. With that said, I still think the original caption should remain. Thoughts? -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: I'm confused, do you want me to remove the caption? Stay safe, EditQwerty ( talk) 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We currently have Business career of Donald Trump and Political career of Donald Trump, so as a corollary I created Media career of Donald Trump, using the "Media career" section from this article as a starting point, and integrated it in various places. Please feel free to add on to it so it can grow. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is currently in the article:
Trump first supported, then later criticized Georgia Governor Brian Kemp's plan to reopen some nonessential businesses.
While I think this is perfectly legitimate content, I think it is excessive detail for this biography. It just isn't significant in the life of Donald Trump. This is an example of the kind of thing that should be in Presidency of Donald Trump, but currently isn't. That said, I think Trump's handling of the coronavirus crisis warrants its own article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: has done lots of work on Trump's pandemic communications. We need to adapt some of the content from Trump administration communication during the coronavirus pandemic. I particularly favor using yesterday's exhaustive analysis of Trump's words and speech related to the pandemic. It gives the kind of RS summary report we need to use, while avoiding editors' own evaluations of WEIGHT for each statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip reverted (using vandalism reversion software Twinkle) my addition of:
References
using this edit-summary:
Article not merely a receptacle for moronic statements by the subject (TW)
I am a bit confused by this reasoning. If the WP:RS talks about "moronic statements by the subject", which I believe it does, then we include them in the article. Here is some of the WP:RS that I easily dug up using this Google search:
The list goes on. The question is not who covered it, but who did not.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
{1} Playing down the severity of the pandemic, {2} Overstating potential treatments and policies, {3} Blaming others, (4) Rewriting history. starship .paint ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
When Trump said “inject” he pointed to his mouth- no, he did not - see video footage, 2:07.
He meant inhaling disinfectant.- no, he could not have been talking about that, because as he said, he was actually being "very sarcastic" - see video footage, 0:53. I seriously question the sources that you are reading. starship .paint ( talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Beginning in mid-March, Trump held daily press conferences, joined by medical experts and other administration officials, sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting various unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine. After one such briefing in which Trump suggested that patients might be treated with " tremendous light" or by injecting disinfectant. Lysol's manufacturer, medical experts, and government officials warned that injecting disinfectant is dangerous and could be deadly. Trump later falsely claimed he was being sarcastic, and his administration took steps to minimize his involvement with future press briefings.
I was mistaken above, he did say "inject" disinfectant. I have seen reports today that local poison control centers have received calls about people who ingested disinfectants. Also there has been widespread state and local messaging repeating Dr. Birx' call for people not to poison themselves. It's hard to believe, but there apparently is a large number of people for whom Trump confers some sort of credibility on ideas that would otherwise seem ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
With this edit, I removed a whole paragraph dedicated to a hypothetical pardon of Julian Assange, and it was reverted. Do editors think that this non-event belongs in this biography? — JFG talk 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
On 20 February 2020, Rohrabacher confirmed that conversation anew. "I spoke to Julian Assange", said Rohrabacher, "and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails, I would petition the president to give him a pardon." Rohrabacher added that he followed up with then White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly, who was courteous but noncommittal. Rohrabacher said he never spoke to Trump about it.
I have created the page Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. More knowledgeable editors may want this moved to a different page and given a particular classification within our framework. (User space won't work. We already have an example of that at WP:TRUMPBIAS, and this needs to be more than "one editor's view" or it won't be worth the effort. I don't think there is anything particularly controversial there as currently written, among experienced editors.) Once that's settled, a shortcut can be created for use within replies on this page. Of course it can be further developed, but it needs to stay somewhat concise and that could easily be taken too far. It should be treated as a substitute for replies on this page, not as a thorough explanation of the relevant policies. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mandruss for writing that, and thanks Valjean for the other essay. starship .paint ( talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 110 | ← | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | → | Archive 120 |
Three weeks ago, I proposed something along the lines of "Trump was also present during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak" in the lead. The discussion was archived before we really resolved anything, though it seems clear that the coronavirus' impact on the United States is very clear. There is now information about Trump's response about coronavirus pandemic in the body. p b p 04:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Go for itis bad advice, Purplebackpack89's editsum "consensus on TP to add this" is false, and I've reverted the addition. Lead or otherwise, do not add disputed content to this article without consensus to do so. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
To review Mandruss' reasons for opposing were a) that it shouldn't be in the lead because it wasn't mentioned in the body (which is invalid because now it is), and b) that you thought there was too much about his presidency in the lead, which wasn't (and isn't) a good argument because it doesn't specifically address this verbiage only. Is a major public health crisis that's shut down the entire country for several weeks and necessitated dozens of press briefings and actions by the President just not important enough for the lead? You could easily propose shortening the lead (or the body) by cutting something else; there are a half-dozen things in the lead that are of less importance than the coronavirus. p b p 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
It should be in the lead, but "was present" is so meaningless it might as well be left out. How about something like "The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, and its spread in the United States became the major focus of his attention during that year." Feel free to tweak this, but something along these lines seems called for. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Emmanuel Macron's fourth year in office, and its spread in France became the major focus of his attention during that year.Useless. — JFG talk 02:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a sizable section in the article, and it has dominated the news (and Trump's words and actions) for at least the last month. We need to have SOMETHING in the lead. But the section is so detailed, action by action, word by word, that I don't see any way to summarize it in a sentence except the way I suggested. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"largely due to Trump's having ignored it, fearing that any acknowledgement would adversely affect the buoyant capital markets that are a signal accomplishment of his term in office"? That is a degree of analysis that would not be lede-worthy. Bus stop ( talk) 18:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"reaction"isn't the relevant point because the spread of virus in the United States is unprecedented. His
"reaction"will require long term analysis. We don't know if his
"reaction"was highly problematic or merely suffered from the stumbles that anyone in the presidency might have suffered under such an event. The problem of this medical emergency is still ongoing. A separate article will probably focus on such a topic but it would be premature for the lede of this article wax eloquent on Trump's handling of the outbreak. Bus stop ( talk) 19:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"something significant about him"is that he was president during the Covid 19 pandemic. For the lede, that is sufficient. Readers are expected to look to the body of the article if they want to know more about this. It is in the body of the article that the reader might find a link to a yet-to-be-created article on how well or how poorly the Trump administration handled the Covid 19 outbreak. Bus stop ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
+/- 20 trillion, giving effect to the Fed portion being leverageable bank reserves. Got a source, or is that WP:OR / personal interpretation? — JFG talk 23:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
He asked for $2 billion. Congress and the Fed enacted +/- 20 trillion. That's baloney. — JFG talk 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN's wording is a fair way to mention coronavirus in the lead. I agree with Busstop that Specifico's wording of "largely due to Trump's having ignored it," is a partisan talking point, a non-biased analysis would concede that there were other factors at play including the slowness of China to communicate with the rest of the world, and their overall lack of transparency.
Amorals (
talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I concede that this is an actual big deal. No other issue of his presidency (aside from his presidency itself) has represented such a clear and immediate threat to the welfare of the country. This is the first time he has declared a national state of emergency. So I am no longer opposing an addition outright. To combat lead creep, we should remove a roughly equal amount of less important content. I suggest Soleimani. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico, I and other editors like Bustop I'm sure have read the links and I am not defending the fact that many in RS have been critical of Trump's response. However, this is a factor the suggestion that it is The Primary Factor is a partisan point. Regardless if China is a totalitarian regime, it's difficult for any country to fully prepare for a virus emanating thousands of miles away without proper intel from the country of origin. If you look at other countries like Italy and Spain suffering, you have to ask yourself are people there suffering too primarily because their leaders were inept and slow to respond? The preponderance of analyses suggests other factors were involved as well.
Amorals (
talk) 19:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus — the first of many — in the President’s Daily Brief.
There's no speculation regarding other countries. Death totals are facts. It's a perfectly relevant comparison as they are dealing with the same pandemic as the U.S., so it is fair to consider they may be dealing with similar obstacles. I suspect you are putting too much stock in the transparency of U.S. intelligence. The breadth of U.S. intel on this particular issue is not fully verified in RS (for obvious reasons, much of Intelligence and National Security intel is classified.) To definitively state that U.S. intelligence was on top of the outbreak soon enough to truly stop the spread and that Trump 100% ignored every aspect of this intelligence at the time, is what truly calls for speculation. Not to mention its veracity simply isn't available to the public.
Amorals (
talk) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Commentary about his handling of the situation can be included in the text section, provided it is well sourced and reported by multiple sources. No such commentary should go in the lead IMO. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, wreaking widespread havoc on the United States."Bus stop ( talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifico, the earliest significant "rousing" as you say cannot be confirmed to have taken place prior to January 30, so early January is not accurate. Peter Navarro is the only source mentioned by name in RS, and any unnamed sources prior to that cannot be verified as not being compromised in some way. "Wreaked havoc" is too theatrical a term and not encyclopedic. Neutral and fair wording would be something along the lines of, "During his fourth year in office, the 2019-2020 Coronavirus Pandemic broke out, causing widespread social and economic unrest, leading Trump to form the Coronavirus Task Force." Any analysis or criticism of the task force and Trump's response should be reserved for the body. However, since some editors seem hellbent on not saying anything that could be interpreted as positive in the lead, and Trump merely doing something (i.e. forming the task force) may fit this bill for some ideologs, I agree with Mandruss that if consensus cannot be reached in summarizing Trump's role, it should be left out entirely.
Amorals (
talk) 22:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There have been no reports of civic unrest or economic unrest in the USA. We need to get the facts right. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus — the first of many — in the President’s Daily Brief.
Specifico, Jan 3 was when the intel was first gathered from China but there is no way to know how dire of a threat the virus was treated by the intelligence community at this time. The only RS date we can point to in which the seriousness of the virus was outlined was Jan 30 through Peter Navarro. With respect to the source you've offered, we cannot speculate because a single publication says there were unnamed sources who sent these reports to the President's desk. We don't know who these sources are, nor do we know what specifically was in the reports and how exactly they were treated by the President's staff. Unless we have the names of individuals (i.e. like we do with Navarro) and specific concrete evidence, it falls in the category of WP:Undue.
Amorals (
talk) 01:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
. As cited. That's how we know. We are not detectives, just aggregators of reliable secondary source reporting. We often do not know how these RS publications discover and vet the facts they report. They are deemed RS because they have the practices, reputation, and history to demonstrate they check facts and publish well-sourced content. The sources are not unknown to the Washington Post, just not publicly disclosed. That is the key point. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump
Washington Post in a vacuum does not warrant inclusion for something this serious. Multiple publications that are RS need to have reported on this timeline for a claim of this magnitude to be made. We are not detectives, but we are here to evaluate what warrants inclusion based on a plurality of RS from different perspectives. However, the point of emphasis seems to be on the wording in the lead, and reference to the timeline would go in the body, which should be adressed in a separate discussion.
Amorals (
talk) 03:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
A number of people have referred to or supported my proposed wording, but that wording has likely gotten lost in all the discussion here. For clarity, what I proposed was The
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office, and its
spread in the United States became the major focus of his attention during that year.
--
MelanieN (
talk)
22:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"It seems recent and after 2 years it probably wouldn't be suitable in the lead section."Why wouldn't mention of the epidemic not be suitable for mention in the lede after 2 years? Bus stop ( talk) 14:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and passed a $2 trillion stimulus package.
From the standpoint of this personal biography, the key one liner is that Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control. Do you disagree that is how it's been reported in RS? SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)From January 2020 to mid-March 2020, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, [1] [2] giving many optimistic public statements, [3] which were mainly aimed at calming stock markets. [4] He initially said he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic. [5] He went on to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control", and repeatedly suggested the virus would somehow vanish one day. [3] He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax". [5] [6] Trump eventually changed his tone on March 16 to a somber one. For the first time, he acknowledged that the coronavirus was "not under control", the situation was "bad" with months of impending disruption to daily lives, and a recession might occur. [2] [4]
References
"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control"is exactly correct. It's what we can objectively say from a historical perspective. The rest of the story is still being written. Who knows–maybe Trump will discover that over consumption of happy meals is the cure and the DJIA will bounce back to 26,000. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control"is a very special view. Any spin can be put on this. The point is not to put a spin on it. Bus stop ( talk) 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control"belongs in the lede. The lede involves noting the high points of the subject, not putting a highly idiosyncratic perspective on the subject. WP:NPOV is primarily a quality that has to permeate the body of the article. In my opinion what we are endeavoring to do in this thread is to simply to take note of a subject-area that will be more fully explored in the body of the article. Bus stop ( talk) 14:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
We can't quantify the level of which Trump's slowness to respond affected the pandemic. It's very possible that he could have reacted sooner, the results could still have been awful just in a lesser degree. We are not in the business of speculating. Even the RS haven't gone as far to make an absolutist statement like "Trump ignored the threat until it was impossible to control," including this in the lead or even in the body would turn the entire article into a farce. I would also caution editors from using inflammatory wording like "ham-fisted" and "happy meal" that make it very clear you personally dislike Trump as it discredits your POV, not to mention it calls into question the integrity of this entire article if you are playing a significant role in editing it.
Amorals (
talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"quantify the level of Trump's slowness"then why say this in the lede? It is "spin" if it is only said to lay blame at the door of Trump. Some degree of
"slowness"is likely to be present in any response. One perceives information, processes information, formulates a response—by definition this takes time. Of course there is
"slowness"attributable to Trump, just as there would be
"slowness"attributable to anyone in the presidency at the time of the outbreak of a new epidemic that was spreading worldwide. Bus stop ( talk) 16:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"he ignored it". If a source said "he ignored it", that could warrant inclusion in the body of the article, with attribution to the source. Bus stop ( talk) 17:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Several officials told the Post that the president ignored the matter since he did not believe that the virus would spread across the United States. This coincides with the public statements made by Trump, who on February 19 said that “It’s going to work out fine” and that by April, “warmer weather” will halt the spread of the virus.
— [13]
President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday.
— [14]
Nevertheless, Trump’s apparent decision to ignore his own intelligence experts’ warnings in the early stages of this crisis — to say nothing of the warnings from other experts and organizations — has important implications for how we think about the relationship between policymaking and intelligence broadly, and with respect to public health in particular.
— [15]
Trump has reportedly ignored a step-by-step guide from the Obama administration detailing how to fight a pandemic. Even when U.S. intelligence officials directly warned Trump in January and February that a pandemic was likely, he failed to act—all the while playing down the threat the virus posed to Americans.
— [16]
We can't quantify ... just in a lesser degreeis a contradiction. But has been explained in previous replies, there's no proposal to quantify the effect of Trump's inaction and public deflections. The deflections, btw, are ongoing -- just yesterday he said the USA is going to open up "with a bang" on May 1. Reports indicate a huge amount of valuable executive and scientific staff time is being spent trying to reduce the self-inflicted damage done by Trump's daily TV walk-ons. Since early March, even Trump's ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has repeatedly criticized POTUS on his response. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking delete the footnote a about other measures of Trumps wealth, anyone prefer to do otherwise ?
This is from 2019 items and appears in the lead and the template. It was mentioned in the earlier TALK Forbes cuts net worth estimate by a billion but no further discussion or action happened. I'm thinking the newer Forbes makes those interim numbers excess, but perhaps there is a rationale for keeping them ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 06:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Personal conversation best suited for user talk pages — JFG talk 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:MelanieN - The line saying "Aside from that, Trump was slow to address the pandemic" is not supported by the Washington Post Blake cite attached to it. That cite only provides a timeline, saying that he was "relentlessly optimistic" and "a timeline of Trump’s commentary downplaying the threat" from the end of January thru late March.
I refer you the top section of
WP:V All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an
inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material
about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
I did try to resolve some of this by merging the next line with the NYT Lipton cite, and rephrasing where neither cite supports the prior phrases. But yourMrX revert
here undid that edit.
In this case, I think the line as stated is a bit false to fact, which has distorted or missed events of both cites or is pulling from sources not shown. Please provide additional cites to provide WP:V, or rephrase the line to suit the cites present. In particular the next line has issue with the NYT cite:
Again, please provide cites to provide WP:V for the text you have entered, or rephrase the line(s) to suit the cites presented. Perhaps others will suggest candidate cites or edits here. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 19:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no controversy here that can't be solved by references. If you need a reference saying "slow to address" - that exact language - we can easily supply one or several.
The references MrX added are fine. Or pick one of these references for the exact language and put it in the article. Problem solved. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
"compact"but presenting characterizations as facts imbues the article with an unwanted bias. Bus stop ( talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: I don't think the new header is neutral. It's not criticism, it's verified fact according to our sources. Mischaracterizing it as "criticism" is the false narrative that, as I understand it, is preferred by Markbassett. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
AP When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances.
NYT Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action. 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.
Kaiser Health News / Politifact: Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale.
Politico: The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak.
NPR: The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.
Time At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus.
Really, this whole thread is a waste of time. The language is obviously fully supported by umpteen sources. We shouldn't indulge this kind of nitpicking, to be honest. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Mark, you hatted a HUGE portion of this conversation, and the edits of several users. Basically everyone who disagreed with you. I undid it. Don’t do that again. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
We are getting some additional information now about the first trials of Hydroxychloroquine, after POTUS promoted it and said he had ordered (I believe the number was) 7 million doses from a manufacturer in India. See here and [26] SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Woopsie Trump dismisses doctor for questioning Hydroxychloroquine treatment 2. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Three people with knowledge of HHS' recent acquisition of tens of millions of doses of those drugs said that Bright had supported those acquisitions in internal communications, with one official saying that Bright praised the move as a win for the health department. starship .paint ( talk) 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)“I was asking the question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen,” Trump said at an Oval Office signing for the Paycheck Protection Program. “I was asking a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands, and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.”
There's quite a bit of reporting on Hydroxychloroquine in Vanity Fair today. Among other things, those millions of doses he bragged having on order from India were to be pushed out and fed to New Yorkers in an attempt to... unclear what. Worth a careful reading. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Shortage of the medication for Malaria patients, see here and da Beeb, here. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This reads 8 on the
forumeter. Please hold general discussions about Trump, politics, etc, on user talk pages. ―
Mandruss
☎
00:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I agree, that Vanity Fair article is worth a careful reading. I have added information from that article, documenting the White House pressure on health agencies, to the fourth paragraph of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Research into vaccine and drug therapies. It’s probably better there than here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this:
On 19 March, President Donald Trump encouraged the use of unproven and potentially hazardous drugs - chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine - during a national press conference. These endorsements led to massive increases in public demand for the drugs [1]
After the following section:
Beginning in mid-March, Trump held a daily press conference, joined by medical experts and other administration officials,[575] sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting unproven treatments.[576] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.178.212 ( talk) 01:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ANTI-TRUMP reporting to TRUMP-NEUTRAL reporting
Hello, I would change the article page about Donald Trump to reflect both sides (like him, dislike him) because I see this article currently as being only one sided (only editors that dislike him). I want to be clear, I see an enormous amount of content on his page and multiple links to references. But there is clear bias here. If the source is pro-trump it is either absent or qualified as conspiracy or just brushed upon. If a topic has any anti-Trump perspective (and people are good to find that perspective), it is explained at large with multiple references to provide a false sense of credibility. This creates bias and does not reflect the reality we live in.
If your articles only reach part of the facts, they misrepresent the topic. If I only talk about the darkside of the moon in an article and provide plenty of references, people will be misled to believe the moon is dark and it is not the case. I do not have the time or the will to go through the article and try to make the article more representative of reality. Here is an article that contradicts the essence of much of your article: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/495627-flynn-documents-are-the-smoking-gun-on-comeys-fbi
But finally, all I want to let you know is that I am disappointed at seeing this from Wikipedia. Since I started consulting your pages, I felt that because of the open nature of your platform, we could truly have an online encyclopedia. Since reading this article, my illusions are shattered. I do not want to use Wikipedia in the future and if asked, I will let people know that IMO, Wikipedia is not impartial, nor does it seek to provide contextual information and complete information. Of course it depends on the topic because many of those are still fully impartial. But it only takes one exemple to discredit the whole. As such, it is the credibility of all of Wikipedia that is being affected here.
Thank you, Philippe Jacques, Montreal, Canada. 66.130.70.219 ( talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
We do a good job here of moving content to the presidency article when needed, but judging by the pretty striking disparity in viewing statistics, we do much worse job of redirecting readers who might be better served there. Adding a link in the first paragraph might help remedy that. For reference, what we currently have is
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
The easiest way to do this might be to just modify the wikilinking a bit, to
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
(I also added wikilinks to his business and media career articles in the above; if that's controversial, then disregard.)
I think the presidency article will be much more useful than the generic
President of the United States article up top. We could link the presidency article later on in the intro by switching He became the
oldest first-term U.S. president
to He became
the oldest first-term
U.S. president
. Does that sound alright? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
09:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Before entering politicsto
Before he became president. If politics is defined as
the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power- nah, that's not what we've been witnessing since he came down that escalator. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Alternatively:
Before assuming the presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before he became president, he was a businessman and television personality.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States. Before his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality.But that seems like a bridge to cross when the time comes. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
![]() | This
edit request to
Donald Trumpeta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.161.188.73 ( talk) 02:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, EditQwerty ( talk · contribs) removed the image caption. I reverted the edit with an explanation. Mandruss ( talk · contribs) kindly pointed out it was technically a 1RR violation, so I went back to self revert and found EditQwerty had changed it again. I think it would be silly for me to try to self revert now, so I wanted to post this here by way of an explanation. With that said, I still think the original caption should remain. Thoughts? -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: I'm confused, do you want me to remove the caption? Stay safe, EditQwerty ( talk) 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We currently have Business career of Donald Trump and Political career of Donald Trump, so as a corollary I created Media career of Donald Trump, using the "Media career" section from this article as a starting point, and integrated it in various places. Please feel free to add on to it so it can grow. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is currently in the article:
Trump first supported, then later criticized Georgia Governor Brian Kemp's plan to reopen some nonessential businesses.
While I think this is perfectly legitimate content, I think it is excessive detail for this biography. It just isn't significant in the life of Donald Trump. This is an example of the kind of thing that should be in Presidency of Donald Trump, but currently isn't. That said, I think Trump's handling of the coronavirus crisis warrants its own article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: has done lots of work on Trump's pandemic communications. We need to adapt some of the content from Trump administration communication during the coronavirus pandemic. I particularly favor using yesterday's exhaustive analysis of Trump's words and speech related to the pandemic. It gives the kind of RS summary report we need to use, while avoiding editors' own evaluations of WEIGHT for each statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip reverted (using vandalism reversion software Twinkle) my addition of:
References
using this edit-summary:
Article not merely a receptacle for moronic statements by the subject (TW)
I am a bit confused by this reasoning. If the WP:RS talks about "moronic statements by the subject", which I believe it does, then we include them in the article. Here is some of the WP:RS that I easily dug up using this Google search:
The list goes on. The question is not who covered it, but who did not.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
{1} Playing down the severity of the pandemic, {2} Overstating potential treatments and policies, {3} Blaming others, (4) Rewriting history. starship .paint ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
When Trump said “inject” he pointed to his mouth- no, he did not - see video footage, 2:07.
He meant inhaling disinfectant.- no, he could not have been talking about that, because as he said, he was actually being "very sarcastic" - see video footage, 0:53. I seriously question the sources that you are reading. starship .paint ( talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Beginning in mid-March, Trump held daily press conferences, joined by medical experts and other administration officials, sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting various unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine. After one such briefing in which Trump suggested that patients might be treated with " tremendous light" or by injecting disinfectant. Lysol's manufacturer, medical experts, and government officials warned that injecting disinfectant is dangerous and could be deadly. Trump later falsely claimed he was being sarcastic, and his administration took steps to minimize his involvement with future press briefings.
I was mistaken above, he did say "inject" disinfectant. I have seen reports today that local poison control centers have received calls about people who ingested disinfectants. Also there has been widespread state and local messaging repeating Dr. Birx' call for people not to poison themselves. It's hard to believe, but there apparently is a large number of people for whom Trump confers some sort of credibility on ideas that would otherwise seem ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
With this edit, I removed a whole paragraph dedicated to a hypothetical pardon of Julian Assange, and it was reverted. Do editors think that this non-event belongs in this biography? — JFG talk 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
On 20 February 2020, Rohrabacher confirmed that conversation anew. "I spoke to Julian Assange", said Rohrabacher, "and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails, I would petition the president to give him a pardon." Rohrabacher added that he followed up with then White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly, who was courteous but noncommittal. Rohrabacher said he never spoke to Trump about it.
I have created the page Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. More knowledgeable editors may want this moved to a different page and given a particular classification within our framework. (User space won't work. We already have an example of that at WP:TRUMPBIAS, and this needs to be more than "one editor's view" or it won't be worth the effort. I don't think there is anything particularly controversial there as currently written, among experienced editors.) Once that's settled, a shortcut can be created for use within replies on this page. Of course it can be further developed, but it needs to stay somewhat concise and that could easily be taken too far. It should be treated as a substitute for replies on this page, not as a thorough explanation of the relevant policies. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mandruss for writing that, and thanks Valjean for the other essay. starship .paint ( talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)