This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This source was recently posted on another talk page. This might be useful for this article:
Why not just focus this article on the overall handling of the COVID crisis? Communications seems to be just one piece of that. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 06:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
In the very start "the virus" did not have a name, and was called the Wuhan-virus, "2019-nCoV", chinese coronavirus or simply coronavirus. 11. February 2019 it was named "Sars-cov-2" and the disease Covid-19. [1]. The Sun named it the: "Killer Snake Flu" in January. "Kung Flu" and "WuFlu" have been around for just as long. Still, before February 11. the virus did not have a name, and we knew nothing about it, so using the "wrong" name prior to feb. 11 should be excused, while using it in April, May or June should not. (The terminology changed 11. Feb. ) The disease is "COVID-19", the virus is "SARS-CoV-2", (like AIDS and HIV) and even if mr Trump do not keep them apart, we should try hard to. Right now I am not sure if this article fails to keep them apart, or if it is showing how the administration fails to keep them apart - but until proven wrong, I put my trust in Wikipedia. Markuswestermoen ( talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Reputable journalists and scientists called it the "novel coronavirus" until there was an official name. Names including the words "Wuhan" or "Chinese" were intentionally avoided due to well-founded (in retrospect) concerns of a repeat of when naming a coronavirus disease "Middle East Respiratory Syndrome" led to prejudice against individuals from that part of the world. 47.139.42.35 ( talk) 04:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This article needs to be updated in light of the following: - A vaccine for covid - more than one - was found well within the timeline promised by Trump. They are currently in use. - The AMA has reversed it’s earlier objections to hydroxychloroquine and now approve it for treatment. In essence, admitting they were incorrect. Hydroxychloroquine is safe for use. TruthIsHer ( talk) 18:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Politico has named Trump's 15 statements between March and October that the virus would "go away" as among "the most audacious, confident and spectacularly incorrect prognostications about the year we just lived through". I think this belongs in this article somewhere, but can't work out where. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 12:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I realize my comments below may seem like a childish joke, but they are not. According to Wikipedia's rules, my point is valid, and the article does require revision.
I am raising the issue that the article implies, without citation to a reliable source, that Trump's comments about reopening by Easter applied to Easter of the year in which he made the comment. Although this is obvious now, and was obvious at the time, a citation to a reliable source is still needed; Wikipedia articles are not supposed to included unsourced material, however obvious it may be. This is particularly true where a living person's comments are presented as false, but could be interpreted in a way that would technically be true, and presenting them as false is therefore potentially libelous (although probably not).
Specifically, the article says "Trump expressed a target of lifting restrictions 'if it's good' by April 12, the Easter holiday, for 'packed churches all over our country'".
1.
Does anyone have a proper citation that he said either "April 12, 2020" or "this Easter" or other words that clearly denote the year he meant? Easter and April 12 occur annually, but Easter does not fall on the same day every year, so it is not correct to use the phrase "April 12, the Easter holiday" unless he specified that he meant a year in which Easter fell on April 12. If he stated the year, then add a citation for that. If he did not state the year, then the article should say only EITHER "April 12" OR "Easter", whichever he said, and NOT both.
2.
The article presents his comments as false or unrealistic. However, as it turned out, many restrictions actually were lifted in March 2021, shortly before Easter of that year. If he did not explicitly state a year, then he technically was correct that there would be restrictions lifted by April 12 and by Easter, and the article should reflect this. (However, if any state has sufficient restrictions in place on Easter to prevent churches from being "packed", this could be noted as well.)
47.139.42.35 ( talk) 04:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is basically a lengthy criticism of Trump's coronavirus response. Wikipedia should remain unbiased and should not so forcefully leave impressions upon readers that Trump's response to the virus was a huge disaster, as this article is doing in its current form. I suggest merging this article's content into the United States response to COVID article. Trump's controversial remarks should be mentioned, but there should not be an entire page whose only purpose is to criticize Trump's response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitsua2018 ( talk • contribs)
Captain obvious here - this article reads like a lengthy criticism of Trump, not an actual Encyclopedia article. Should be removed. 2600:1007:B029:6895:CD41:C6C5:F90A:B186 ( talk) 16:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The § Light and disinfectants is rife with errors, misinformation, and a disturbing lack of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. A couple examples:
All this misinformation and other violations must be corrected. The use of Wikivoice is especially egregious, and serves to highlight the deplorable lack of WP:NPOV in our article—which, despite having been noted by several prior editors, has not been corrected. Most disturbingly, the lack of WP:NPOV is not only blatant, but cuts only one way: I challenge any editor to find within any such examples that portray Trump or his administration in an unduly positive light, as opposed to casting unfounded and false aspersions.The same glaring bias exhibited in the instant section also appears to infect to our entire article and, whatever its root cause may be, urgently needs to be addressed. Thanks! Ekpyros ( talk) 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This source was recently posted on another talk page. This might be useful for this article:
Why not just focus this article on the overall handling of the COVID crisis? Communications seems to be just one piece of that. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 06:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
In the very start "the virus" did not have a name, and was called the Wuhan-virus, "2019-nCoV", chinese coronavirus or simply coronavirus. 11. February 2019 it was named "Sars-cov-2" and the disease Covid-19. [1]. The Sun named it the: "Killer Snake Flu" in January. "Kung Flu" and "WuFlu" have been around for just as long. Still, before February 11. the virus did not have a name, and we knew nothing about it, so using the "wrong" name prior to feb. 11 should be excused, while using it in April, May or June should not. (The terminology changed 11. Feb. ) The disease is "COVID-19", the virus is "SARS-CoV-2", (like AIDS and HIV) and even if mr Trump do not keep them apart, we should try hard to. Right now I am not sure if this article fails to keep them apart, or if it is showing how the administration fails to keep them apart - but until proven wrong, I put my trust in Wikipedia. Markuswestermoen ( talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Reputable journalists and scientists called it the "novel coronavirus" until there was an official name. Names including the words "Wuhan" or "Chinese" were intentionally avoided due to well-founded (in retrospect) concerns of a repeat of when naming a coronavirus disease "Middle East Respiratory Syndrome" led to prejudice against individuals from that part of the world. 47.139.42.35 ( talk) 04:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This article needs to be updated in light of the following: - A vaccine for covid - more than one - was found well within the timeline promised by Trump. They are currently in use. - The AMA has reversed it’s earlier objections to hydroxychloroquine and now approve it for treatment. In essence, admitting they were incorrect. Hydroxychloroquine is safe for use. TruthIsHer ( talk) 18:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Politico has named Trump's 15 statements between March and October that the virus would "go away" as among "the most audacious, confident and spectacularly incorrect prognostications about the year we just lived through". I think this belongs in this article somewhere, but can't work out where. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 12:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I realize my comments below may seem like a childish joke, but they are not. According to Wikipedia's rules, my point is valid, and the article does require revision.
I am raising the issue that the article implies, without citation to a reliable source, that Trump's comments about reopening by Easter applied to Easter of the year in which he made the comment. Although this is obvious now, and was obvious at the time, a citation to a reliable source is still needed; Wikipedia articles are not supposed to included unsourced material, however obvious it may be. This is particularly true where a living person's comments are presented as false, but could be interpreted in a way that would technically be true, and presenting them as false is therefore potentially libelous (although probably not).
Specifically, the article says "Trump expressed a target of lifting restrictions 'if it's good' by April 12, the Easter holiday, for 'packed churches all over our country'".
1.
Does anyone have a proper citation that he said either "April 12, 2020" or "this Easter" or other words that clearly denote the year he meant? Easter and April 12 occur annually, but Easter does not fall on the same day every year, so it is not correct to use the phrase "April 12, the Easter holiday" unless he specified that he meant a year in which Easter fell on April 12. If he stated the year, then add a citation for that. If he did not state the year, then the article should say only EITHER "April 12" OR "Easter", whichever he said, and NOT both.
2.
The article presents his comments as false or unrealistic. However, as it turned out, many restrictions actually were lifted in March 2021, shortly before Easter of that year. If he did not explicitly state a year, then he technically was correct that there would be restrictions lifted by April 12 and by Easter, and the article should reflect this. (However, if any state has sufficient restrictions in place on Easter to prevent churches from being "packed", this could be noted as well.)
47.139.42.35 ( talk) 04:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is basically a lengthy criticism of Trump's coronavirus response. Wikipedia should remain unbiased and should not so forcefully leave impressions upon readers that Trump's response to the virus was a huge disaster, as this article is doing in its current form. I suggest merging this article's content into the United States response to COVID article. Trump's controversial remarks should be mentioned, but there should not be an entire page whose only purpose is to criticize Trump's response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitsua2018 ( talk • contribs)
Captain obvious here - this article reads like a lengthy criticism of Trump, not an actual Encyclopedia article. Should be removed. 2600:1007:B029:6895:CD41:C6C5:F90A:B186 ( talk) 16:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The § Light and disinfectants is rife with errors, misinformation, and a disturbing lack of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. A couple examples:
All this misinformation and other violations must be corrected. The use of Wikivoice is especially egregious, and serves to highlight the deplorable lack of WP:NPOV in our article—which, despite having been noted by several prior editors, has not been corrected. Most disturbingly, the lack of WP:NPOV is not only blatant, but cuts only one way: I challenge any editor to find within any such examples that portray Trump or his administration in an unduly positive light, as opposed to casting unfounded and false aspersions.The same glaring bias exhibited in the instant section also appears to infect to our entire article and, whatever its root cause may be, urgently needs to be addressed. Thanks! Ekpyros ( talk) 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)