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 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
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 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)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.
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)
"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)
"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)
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.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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Off-topic.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 22:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
SubsectionsWhy are you creating subsections in this thread? Please stop, thanks.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) SubsubsectionsAlso, just say NO to subsubsections! -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:20, 14 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)
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 last sentence of the first paragraph in the article currently reads
Based on current discussion I propose changing it to
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Moving far off topic PackMecEng ( talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(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
|
---|
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:
- FBI Director James Comey
- Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe
- US Attorney General Jeff Sessions [1]
- National Security Council employees Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman and his brother, Lt. Colonel Yevgeny Vindman [2]
- Ambassador Gordon Sondland [2]
- Former US Attorney Jessie Liu [3]
- Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Elaine McCusker [4]
- Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire [5]
- Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson [5]
- US Navy Capt. Brett Crozier [6]
References
What do you think? François Robere ( talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
"redundant". The report states
"Trump’s deployment of the term 'fake news' has encouraged authoritarian leaders in other countries to invoke the same phrase to justify press restrictions in their countries, the report said. It noted that between January 2017 and May 2019, 26 countries enacted or introduced laws or rules restricting online media and journalistic access in the name of preventing 'fake news.' The leaders of Poland, Hungary, Turkey, China, the Philippines and Cambodia are among those who have cited Trump and 'fake news' to criticize or restrict the press in their countries.''Would you suggest the Trump biography should suggest that the subject of the article could be considered responsible for authoritarian regimes in other countries cracking down on press freedoms?
Trump’s attacks also appear to have empowered autocratic foreign leaders to discredit and restrict the press in their own countries. “When the president calls the press the enemy of the people, he encourages every autocrat, every dictator who wants to shut down freedom of the press. They’re validated,” said Sesno, who works with news media in Eastern European countries. “It reverberates around the world.”
Should we "inform" the reader that Trump appear[s] to have empowered autocratic foreign leaders"
?
Bus stop (
talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
"war on truth"at Trump's doorstep. Bus stop ( talk) 17:22, 18 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)
@ 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)
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.
@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 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)
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)
Very tangential indeed. I support MelanieN's edit. — JFG talk 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
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]
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 07:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
"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)
"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 entire nation at risk". Bus stop ( talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
"so it cannot be true" - actually I think it is trueWell, those 40,000 people got here after the ban somehow. Maybe they swam? 0;-D -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
arrivals from China having all but halted by thenSPECIFICO, 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)
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)
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)
---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)
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 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
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 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)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.
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)
"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)
"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)
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.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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Off-topic.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 22:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
SubsectionsWhy are you creating subsections in this thread? Please stop, thanks.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) SubsubsectionsAlso, just say NO to subsubsections! -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:20, 14 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)
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 last sentence of the first paragraph in the article currently reads
Based on current discussion I propose changing it to
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Moving far off topic PackMecEng ( talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(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
|
---|
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:
- FBI Director James Comey
- Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe
- US Attorney General Jeff Sessions [1]
- National Security Council employees Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman and his brother, Lt. Colonel Yevgeny Vindman [2]
- Ambassador Gordon Sondland [2]
- Former US Attorney Jessie Liu [3]
- Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Elaine McCusker [4]
- Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire [5]
- Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson [5]
- US Navy Capt. Brett Crozier [6]
References
What do you think? François Robere ( talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
"redundant". The report states
"Trump’s deployment of the term 'fake news' has encouraged authoritarian leaders in other countries to invoke the same phrase to justify press restrictions in their countries, the report said. It noted that between January 2017 and May 2019, 26 countries enacted or introduced laws or rules restricting online media and journalistic access in the name of preventing 'fake news.' The leaders of Poland, Hungary, Turkey, China, the Philippines and Cambodia are among those who have cited Trump and 'fake news' to criticize or restrict the press in their countries.''Would you suggest the Trump biography should suggest that the subject of the article could be considered responsible for authoritarian regimes in other countries cracking down on press freedoms?
Trump’s attacks also appear to have empowered autocratic foreign leaders to discredit and restrict the press in their own countries. “When the president calls the press the enemy of the people, he encourages every autocrat, every dictator who wants to shut down freedom of the press. They’re validated,” said Sesno, who works with news media in Eastern European countries. “It reverberates around the world.”
Should we "inform" the reader that Trump appear[s] to have empowered autocratic foreign leaders"
?
Bus stop (
talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
"war on truth"at Trump's doorstep. Bus stop ( talk) 17:22, 18 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)
@ 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)
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.
@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 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)
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)
Very tangential indeed. I support MelanieN's edit. — JFG talk 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
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]
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 07:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
"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)
"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 entire nation at risk". Bus stop ( talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
"so it cannot be true" - actually I think it is trueWell, those 40,000 people got here after the ban somehow. Maybe they swam? 0;-D -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
arrivals from China having all but halted by thenSPECIFICO, 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)
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)
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)
---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)