Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 116

Archive 110

←

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

→

Archive 120

Mention of coronavirus in lead, take 2

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. pbp 04:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 For reference, this is in archive 113 Mention of coronavirus in lead. Seems a reasonably short neutral line to add, presumably as the end to the third paragraph. Go for it, caveat expecting many edits to body and lead to follow. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Support coronavirus in the lead: Purplebackpack89, Markbassett. Oppose coronavirus in the lead: Chaheel Riens, Mandruss, Jack Upland. Markbassett's advice to Go for it is 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)

When I made the edit, no one had opposed the edit in the current discussion; you are referencing a discussion that is weeks old. Since then, a lot of coronavirus-related policy has occurred. Also, some of the opposition in the (now-irrelevant) previous discussion came from the lack of a mention of coronavirus in the body of the article; it has been added to the body of the article since then. Can you give a valid reason why, NOW, that a sentence that innocuous shouldn't be in the article? Because, there is no good reason. pbp 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your argument about the staleness of the previous discussion may have some merit, but that's decided by consensus, not by you unilaterally, or even by you and Markbassett bilaterally. I would like to see more participation in this thread; absent that, the existing non-consensus is what we have to live with, like it or not. The default for any new content is to omit it. There is no deadline, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and there is no urgency to publish NOW. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't given an ACTUAL REASON why YOU still believe it DOESN'T belong. You're just needlessly stonewalling to preserve an out-of-date and incorrect decision that you haven't explained why you still agree with. pbp 19:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My "actual reason" is stated in the previous discussion and is unchanged. That I haven't explained is patently and objectively false. I am not required to convince you that it's a good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This should be added at some point. At this point, a brief addition wouldn't tell the reader anything they didn't already know. That is, it would be a waste of space in an article with space problems. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Why "at some point"? Why not now? Also, I think that that argument is inherently weak. Just because we rambled on about other topics (topics that are pretty clearly of less importance than the coronavirus) shouldn't prohibit us from mentioning a very important topic with a single sentence in the lead. pbp 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

At some point because we will then have a better idea of what effect it has on his life compared to other events. O3000 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty damn clear right now that this is one of the seminal occurrances of his presidency, and if there's only room for a half-dozen aspects of his presidency to be mentioned in the lead, this should be one of them. If it's not, then I'm not sure anything is, and why even bother writing about his presidency all right now? Also, if it turns out not to be (which I consider very unlikely) at said point in the future, we can always go back then and revise it. pbp 20:56, 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. pbp 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of saying, as suggested, that "Trump was also present during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak". That says absolutely nothing about what he did in response to the outbreak. In February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic reached massive worldwide proportions, and Trump "was also present" because he happened to be president at that time, so what? Merkel was also present, Trudeau was also present, Putin was also present, and Macron was also present. If there is something special to say about Trump regarding the pandemic, then go ahead and suggest it. Personally I feel that all world leaders were kind of caught by surprise and each took more or less drastic action when their country got seriously threatened. Apart from the usual partisan bickering and the staggering size of the economic stimulus package (mostly due to the staggering size of the US economy and the precariousness of its workforce, not specific to Trump's philosophy despite the spin), I don't see anything special about Trump's response. Specifics of the pandemic in the USA have a dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 01:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I see an enormous amount to see and say about Trump's response (or non-response), such as it is. In particular in contrast to US leadership in past world problems. I just think it's premature to add to an encyclopedic bio. Let the scholars sort it out. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: There's a lot to say about Trump and the pandemic, but most of it should be said in places other than the lead. pbp 02:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only stonewaller in this. </sarcasm> Purplebackpack89, your non-apology is accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

O3000, it has already been added to the body, with a relatively long dedicated section. Is your comment meant to be specific to the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, as per the section title. O3000 (talk) 10:34, 8 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)

Again, this sentence merely states that the pandemic happened while Trump was president, and says nothing about him or his administration's response. You could replace Trump's name with that of any world leader and the sentence would be the same. 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)

Again, I ask, isn't a more detailed explanation more appropriate in the body of this article or in another article? pbp 03:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Did I say "present" at top? I meant presIDent pbp 02:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  LOL — 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)

This article should focus more on Trump's biography not the coronavirus. The coronavirus might be appropriate in the article about the presidency of Donald Trump but not this one. Coronavirus didn't have an impact on Trump's overall biography.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The section needs to be trimmed of the log-like detail, and instead should summarize the overall view of Trump's handling of the pandemic in the U.S. There have been plenty of articles written about how poor his leadership has been.[1][2][3][4][5] I think the lead sentence should notate that the usual misinformation, misdirection, divisiveness, and narcissism are evident as Trump bumbles his way through this disaster with his unique style of leadership. - MrX 🖋 20:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the lede should merely note that he presided over this period of time during which a pandemic ravaged the world and the US. I don't think an evaluation of his handling of the epidemic should be in the lede at all. This is just to remind the reader of this important aspect of his presidency and to alert readers to look to the body of the article for more full coverage. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the comment above from MrX, recent mainstream reporting tells us that the pandemic is ravaged the U.S. 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's aside from the larger issue of policy toward preparedness, which belongs in the article text rather than the lead. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Too much analysis, SPECIFICO, though I do agree the pandemic is also ravaging the United States. This is for the lede of the article—does it have to say "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)

Remember this is Trump's biography article. For the bio, his reaction is the relevant point -- similar to his handling of North Korea. The relevant reporting tells us that he handled each of these matters from a standpoint of short-term personal advantage and publicity rather than from the standpoint of the policy advice given by persons within his administration. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

His "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)

I don't think the word "reaction" was key to what I was trying to say above. You may substitute "handling" "leadership" "executive actions" or whatever is relevant to his biography, the subject of this article. The article reflects the present. We already know a lot about what you call his "stumbles". Speculation about how other imaginary presidents would have reacted, handled, led, etc. are irrelevant. Not the subject here. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A lede only needs to mention that he presided over such a medical emergency. I think that is sufficient. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

First, that text really adds no information. It reads as boiler plate. Second, if it is intended to have specific meaning or to refer to some actions, can you offer a source for the "presiding" you think we should convey in the lead? Because this article is his biography, any content should describe something significant about him, not merely that he happened to be president at the time of the pandemic. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The "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)

That is not about him any more than that he was president when every other news event of the past 3 years has occurred. We don't do that with biographies. Our article on Jimmy Walker doesn't say he was Mayor of New York when the Empire State Building was built. Let's see what others think. If that were the only rationale for inclusion, I think it is exactly the kind of thing that should not go in the lead of this big space-constrained article. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Walker was mayor of New York City from 1926 to 1932 and the Covid 19 outbreak is still ongoing. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

My agreement with (Caps Lock on) SPECIFICO (Caps Lock off) has already been stated. The Empire State Building comparison could be countered with the point that the construction of that building did not have anywhere near the impact on the country, but the principle is the same. FDR was president during the Great Depression, but we mention that in his lead because he was instrumental in turning it around, not merely because he was in office when it happened. And the point is that we describe that role in the mention, thereby justifying its inclusion in his lead. This is a biography of Trump, not a history of the United States. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

But for better or worse, Trump has had a role in the coronavirus just like FDR had a role in the Great Depression. The lead should describe this role, in this case forming the task force and signing the stimulus package. Then the body further fleshes out whether Trump bungled these efforts or was successful according to RS. Regardless of whether he had a positive or negative role in the pandemic, the significant role he played and a summary of what he did should be in the lead. Amorals (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's been convincingly demonstrated, with ample supporting citations, that for the purposes of this article Trump's role was to exacerbate the impact of the disease in the U.S. by his failure to take any meaningful action. The matter of whether signing a veto-proof bill or forming a TV taskforce is of any biographic significance has also been addressed and discarded. Please review this entire thread and all the linked WP articles and references. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the lede should barely note that Trump presided over the severe impact of the Covid 19 epidemic on the United States in early 2020. Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It was among the largest financial stimulus packages in US history, that in and of itself is noteworthy regardless of if it was "veto-proof" as you put it. Other editors, namely Bustop had initially supported mention of the taskforce, so it does not appear that such a mention has been outright discarded. Again, if a neutral wording cannot be decided, I would support leaving out entirely. I don't believe a lack of a mention in the lead is overly criticalAmorals (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The legislation had nothing to do with Trump. He just happened to be president when the Congress enacted it. He asked for $2 billion. Congress and the Fed enacted +/- 20 trillion, giving effect to the Fed portion being leverageable bank reserves. Once again, I'll ask you to read the available references and WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This sounds even more extraordinary! +/- 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)

You'll need to bone up on Fractional reserve banking, Quantitative easing and all the press reports on recent Fed moves. No scarcity of RS explanations for you. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I'm aware of such fundamental banking mechanisms. Instead of acting condescendingly towards your fellow editors, please exhibit a source stating that the stimulus package amounts to $20 trillion, or admit that you indulged in hyperbolic personal interpretation. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Must side with JFG. "Go look it up, dummy" is not a constructive response to a request for sources to support one's claim about sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's discussed putting any figure in the lead, which is the topic of this thread, I believe. Hence no reference provided for a fact that's widely discussed. I have no way of knowing JFG's state of knowledge concerning monetary policy or why he would be surprised to see that figure. Nothing condescending about a few links. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On your other point, it is very misleading to declare that Trump only "asked for $2 billion" – that was the initial amount requested for medical response and preparedness, at the beginning of the crisis. That one was increased to $8.3 billion by Congress, which Trump readily approved. Then came the $104-billion Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which Trump supported as well. Finally came the $2 trillion economic relief package, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. — JFG ^talk 23:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's right, it was increased to $8.3 at the insistence of the Democrats in the house and senate. Trump supported none of his until it landed on his desk. He was not involved in the formulation of the assistance bills. Again, there's no scarcity of RS references you can check. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: He asked for $2 billion. Congress and the Fed enacted +/- 20 trillion. That's baloney. — JFG ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing approached the amount of 20 trillion. Specifico, regardless of if you think Congress did all the work (White House still had to negotiate with Congress on the legislation) and Trump "just happened to be President" that's just the system of American government. Congress does all the heavy lifting and Presidents ultimately sit back and wait to sign the bill and get final approval to implement it. By your interpretation, an argument could be made that any piece of legislation should not be mentioned in a President's bio on here because "Congress does all the work." Ultimately, the buck stops with the President and he signed the bill and it was a historically significant bill. Your beef seems not to be with the facts, just the reality of how our branches of government functionAmorals (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the liquidity came from the Fed, whose policy actions are independent of both the president and Congress. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

According to your own quote, "Congress and the Fed enacted" then you backtrack and qualify, "most of the liquidity came from the Fed." So in your view, Congress now doesn't have much to do with it even though the stimulus bill Congress passed gives the Fed the leverage to invest more into the economy[6]. Also in your view, Trump's got nothing to do with the legislation, but RS ABC News says, "White house negotiators strike a deal..."[7] Also according to RS,..."signs into law historic stimulus package...largest emergency aid package in U.S. history."[8] CNN calls it historic and the largest in history but not important enough to include for the guy who signed it into existence. With all due respect, you need to reevaluate your logic on this one. Amorals (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support mention in lead along lines proposed by MelanieN.--MONGO (talk) 18:21, 9 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)

Have you read and taken account of the links provided by @MrX: and myself? The U.S. national security agencies are well aware of the dishonesty and obfuscation of totalitarian regimes such as China's. The suggestion that the President of the U.S. would rely on published reports or the public statements of a dishonest foreign autocrat is itself -- if true -- one of the personal failures of Trump's response. This is not me talking, this is the WEIGHT of RS reporting. Neither I nor they are partisan in this regard. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 9 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)

The U.S. does indeed have "proper intel" on China and its government. The reach and depth of the American intelligence capability is vast beyond belief. The U.S. intelligence capability enabled POTUS' staff to be warning him in early January of the catastrophic danger. Let's not speculate about other countries here. It's really not relevant and I suspect you are mistaken in the comparison you may be trying to draw. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Intel is not that great is more what the RS generally said. RS reported more about Intel tries to assess how much (not ‘if’) other governments in China and elsewhere know or conceal or intend, but it’s hard to track (Reuters), and the pandemic impacts what little they can find out. (Time). A satellite image of Iran mass graves tells you only that they undercounted a week or two before. And it’s just not actionable. It takes the Chinese formally bringing in WHO to get things officially moving. And a satellite image is just not the same as having medical knowledge about the disease on how the virus spreads or can be fought. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those links conflicts with the fact that U.S. Intelligence services identified the novel virus in 2019 and began trying to warn President Trump around January 3. I hope you know it's well documented that he does not read his security briefings and that his national intelligence staff has struggled to keep his attention on oral briefings. This just happens to be an instance that resulted in hundreds of thousands of illnesses and the loss of trillions of dollars of national income. There is no doubt as to what happened and when. Detailed tracking data such as is used by epidemiological modelers is not the topic of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

None of this fantasising has any RS from January nor any credible rationale. And no place in the topic of LEAD content. Yes, IC would have been watching China (of course), yes they would likely note China reality was not a match for official press (also no surprise). But that a January mention of a worse-than-reported-flu would instantly be interpreted by President Trump better than WHO experts were doing two weeks later with on-site access ... or that it would magically have made it not a pandemic... is SPECULATION and just not DUE. President Trump’s response was factually ahead of most world leaders, and the United States is factually pretty high up in the range of developed nations. Obviously better than the UK, just ahead of Canada or France. Obviously not as good as Scandinavian countries or Switzerland (never a chance), and just behind Germany. But largely RS track that to factors other than what their leaders did, in demographics and infrastructure and trade patterns. Not speculative Trump-fixations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh mercy. Repeating the source: National Security warnings were issued the first week of January

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.

Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

So what did they say, ‘the flu in remote China may be worse than reported’? And so things progress to not much until WHO notified and then health screenings on 17 January. Just acting in accord with what was known when. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Are you up to date reading recent RS news reports? The National Security team and China experts within the Administration -- and those privvy to their information -- were frantically trying to rouse Trump to constructive action in early January 2020. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not so much and *not* a detail for lead anyway, that should only identify the main topics. The ongoing risk of disease out of China was a standing item over a year ago in the World Threat Assessment (CNN). But the existence of anything more than usual flu only started to be a part of briefings in January (CNN 8 April), not that far apart from the Chinese doctor spreading the word via social media. How bad it actually is more that perceptions and actions follow events, and for most of the U.S. and the world that did not start until mid-March. We just did not know and still are finding out. In any case, January RS were not dominated by IC reporting insights, and neither is this article’s coverage, so just not something for lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 10 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)

Agree. We can't be evaluating him in the lede vis-à-vis his handling of the pandemic that is still ongoing. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: How about just the first part of what you wrote, i.e. "The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic broke out at the beginning of Trump's fourth year in office. We really have no idea what's occupying his attention, and as you say the detail is in the body and in our other articles about this. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I could go along with that. It's totally obvious that it's the main thing occupying his attention - he is holding daily news conferences that are at least theoretically about the pandemic. Even if those are really just his current excuse for getting TV time, it is his major public activity and has been for a month. But I suppose that could be considered original research. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

How about "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)

The impact of the pandemic on the U.S., by itself, cannot justify mention in this lead merely because it coincided with his time in office. This is not an article about what happened in the U.S. between 2017 and 2021 (or 2025). If, within our severe space constraint, we can't fairly summarize Trump's involvement in the crisis – considering the size of that can of worms, it's very possible that we can't – we should not say anything at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to have the lede say something more about Trump's involvement in these travails, what more would the lede say? Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I haven't had the time or inclination to assimilate a lot of the RS about this, so I don't feel competent to offer an opinion about that. I of course have personal opinions, but they are irrelevant here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with a simple formulation for now, but when we identify multiple sources that provide similar analysis (not commentary) of Trump's role, then I think a brief summary in the lead would be warranted. I can't support "wreaking widespread havoc" because it seems a bit cliche. - MrX 🖋 11:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support short content - either first half of MelanieN or php proposal. Shorter is better. Leave out embellishments “widespread havoc” and ‘became major focus’ as both seem inherent and obvious for any nation, and are not an explicit big topic in article or RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:29, 10 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)

No, the first warnings were in the first days of 2020. Please read the sources on this. National Security warnings were issued the first week of January

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 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)

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)

Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump

. 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)

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)

That is good wording, MelanieN. I also like Amorals suggestion concerning mention of the "Coronavirus Task Force". Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I still don't think it's necessary to mention the coronavirus in the lead. It seems recent and after 2 years it probably wouldn't be suitable in the lead section. It is also not much related to Trump, the coronavirus has "became the major focus of" all nations leaders attention during this time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:56, 10 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)

Sorry MelanieN, this wording says nothing of substance, besides "Trump happened to be president when the coronavirux pandemic broke out". If we can't agree on stating something that Trump actually did, we'd better say nothing. Perhaps something like this:

In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and passed a $2 trillion stimulus package.

Factual and non-judgmental. Comments? — JFG ^talk 08:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, except it should say "signed" rather than passed. Congress passed it; Trump signed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

JFG, that proposed text is not factual. (I don't think "judgmental" has been an issue in any of the proposals to date) Trump requested roughly $2.5 billion in pandemic relief. This was increased to $8.5 billion, at the insistence of the Democrats in Congress over initial Republican resistance. The U.S. relief total, to date, has been several thousands of times the sum requested by Trump -- at the initiative of the Congress and the Federal Reserve. There is detail in this article and in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and in the Presidency article, which states

From January 2020 to mid-March 2020, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, giving many optimistic public statements, which were mainly aimed at calming stock markets. He initially said he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic. He went on to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control", and repeatedly suggested the virus would somehow vanish one day. He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax". 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.

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)

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)

Sorry no. Trump is not a legislator, and the $2 trillion was not his to spend. Declaring a national emergency is not the significant fact we should be summarizing. If anything, we should note that he initially ignored the emerging pandemic, called it a hoax, tried to promote unproven treatments, lied, blamed Chgina, attacked the press, rambled incoherently from the press room, and so on. - MrX 🖋 11:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I can't support the "major focus" aspect, because there is an argument to be made that his major focus was the economy (stock market) and his re-election. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 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)

It's not "spin" or a "special view",[9][10][11][12] and the point is to proportionately reflect what sources say about it. - MrX 🖋 14:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that anyone could suggest that the wording "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)

I hope you will give a close look to the WP detailed content I referenced in this comment. That's what is explored in our articles and that's why it's an accurate summary to state that Trump failed to stem the tide. The timeline, his priorities and other factors are not in any proposed lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize significant points about the subject (not about the virus; not about the pandemic). What is significant here is Trump's ham-fisted handling of a major national crisis which distinguishes him from every other U.S. president with the possible exception of James Buchanan. If it's too nuanced to briefly handle in the lead, that's fine, but if we can succinctly state it, there's no reason not to do so. - MrX 🖋 15:28, 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)

We don't need to quantify; we just need to describe, not his slowness, but his effort to sweep an emerging pandemic under the rug. Multiple sources are very clear that Trump ignored the crisis until he could no more. FYI: Given your 35 edits, I don't think you have much standing to be cautioning editors, or making assumptions about their likes or dislikes. Please keep those opinions to yourself. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 15:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct. We don't have to quantify the level of Trump's slowness. We have multiple reliable sources that basically say Trump was slow to respond and focused on the economic impact, rather than the threat to life and health. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect twice. First - that’s not content for LEAD (topic of this thread). Second - per NPOV, DUE weight to all POVs and attribution as POV not fact. Any partisan praise and criticism framing a month or three after events should get the same treatment of WEIGHT and presented as ‘POV’. Factual comparisons simply do not support ‘slow’. It’s kind of a glass-half-full POV whether one says ‘behind 3 Republican governors ‘ or says ‘ahead of 47 governors’ and both seem an unnecessary POV spin. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If we don't "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)

That's OR. Whatever the latency of information processing within the national security organizations, it had already occurred by January 3, when urgent warnings were presented to Trump. Sources don't say he needed 9 weeks to think about it. They say he ignored it. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes "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)

Good grief, please read the sources before making such an easily refutable claim.

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]

- MrX 🖋 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"The intelligence reports did not predict when the virus might hit the US or recommend steps that should be taken in response, the source said." Do you see how saying he overtly ignored the threat would be too much of an absolutist statement. Editors need to not let personal amnimus toward Trump affect their judgement in presenting these facts in an encyclopedic tone. "In light of reports that sources within US intelligence agencies had alerted Trump to the threat of the virus as early as January, many were critical of Trump's seemingly slow response in taking these warnings seriously." You see how this is a more neutral and encyclopedic account, rather than the inflammatory, absolutist language of "He ignored the warnings." I hope the more neutral editors and admins like MelanieN can comment on this to preserve the article's integrity on this issue. Amorals (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amorals: this, We can't quantify ... just in a lesser degree is 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)

Specifico, you are taking my comments out of context, evidenced by the "..." in you quoting what I said and skipping what I said in the middle. When I said to a lesser degree that was me offering possible speculation showing why this would not be suitable wording and any attempt to quantify would be a fool's errand. Lindsey Graham has offered cautionary advice and a different opinion not overt "criticism." And therein lies the problem with this topic and much of this article on Trump in general actually. Editors don't generally disagree on the RS just some editors are hellbent on using inflammatory absolutist wording that reads more like an opposition campaign piece than an encyclopedia. We can reflect some of the shortcomings of Trump's response in a more encyclopedic tone.Amorals (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Amorals Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Slow to respond has been removed inexplicably. This is a very bad edit. [17] - MrX 🖋 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it was not a good move to alter those two bits of text that MrX has now restored. After such extensive detailed discussion and collaboration among so many editors, and such clear documentation from many RS cited on the talk page, any tweaks that change the meaning should always be discussed first on talk. Consensus is unlikely to have changed in such a short time. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Forbes net worth - change the rest

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)

I'm thinking delete, as well. starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's net worth is opaque and the rationale was that three estimates are better than one. While only the Forbes number currently reflects the coronavirus impact (assuming that's the main reason for the $1B drop in the past 13 months), that kind of variation is to be expected of multiple estimates that are not synchronized in time. The dates for all three are provided. While there will come a time when the Bloomberg and Wealth-X numbers, if not updated, become too old to be relevant, we are not there yet at 10 months and 12 months respectively. I oppose removal at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What Mandruss said. Keep comparison with other estimates until they're either updated or too stale to make sense. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

His net worth is so opaque and dubious as to be an unknown amount. It is suspected he isn't even a billionaire, and that his debts make any guesstimates rather irrelevant, so should we have anything at all? That is the question. -- Valjean (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that this was adequately addressed in the discussions supporting #Current consensus #5, and I see no reason to revisit the issue. His net worth was opaque and dubious then, too. If you want to propose clearer language about the opaqueness and dubiousness in the Wealth section, and can show adequate RS support for WEIGHT, propose away (preferably separately, since that is not the topic of this thread). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss No, this wasn’t part of #5 links from 2018 and earlier. Having a footnote for infobox is talk in archive 98 June 2019. The duplicate footnote into article is just something Dwaro added on 9 November 2019. Or at least I didn’t see it in the [18] archive 107. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism as slow failing V

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:Mandruss - the subject is "Criticism as slow failing V", where the article language was not supported by the cites. Your relabelling to "Criticism as slow to address the pandemic" is a somewhat different topic. Feel free to start a different section if you want to discuss that. For this one -- it needs "V" said in the section title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC) @Markbassett: Huh? That it failed V was your opinion, as demonstrated by comments that dispute that claim. Therefore your heading fails WP:TALKNEW bullet 5 - "A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it" (my emphasis). If no one else cares, I won't press the point further on this one, but please make an effort to omit your "specific views" from future headings. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) User:Mandruss Don't be silly. Reread that "should indicate what the topic is" and my "it needs "V" said in the section title." The focus being V was maybe lost when you changed the section title. Or at least we wound up seeing not much showing article text matched to some an inline cite quote. It needs "V" said in the section title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 1. See WP:IDHT. 2. Kindly stop telling me not to "be silly". I'm seldom silly and certainly never when participating at Wikipedia (it has generally been when I was under the influence of something). That is the second time in as many weeks that you've said that to me, and I hope the last. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC) User:Mandruss you seemed unable to hear me and going afield. Just reread “should indicate what the topic is” with my “it needs "V" said in the section title." If you want you can further look at the edit note being about V and this thread having started with V being the policy cited and quoted, and then reconsider whether taking out V was good for the section title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

• WaPo gives no direct support for the wording "slow to address the pandemic"
• WaPo also gives no direct support for the wording "dismissing" the "imminent threat" and "ignoring calls for action" from government "medical experts".

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:

• In January the NYT cite noted President Trump as focused on impeachment which ended February 5, 2020. The "focusing instead on economic and political considerations of the outbreak" misses that large item and is about February as part of his initial responses, not "Throughout January and February". It is a bit conflicted to both be criticising not responding and to be criticising a mis-focus of response.
• The time in the next line beginning "Throughout January and February" is also a bit misportraying the period and content of cites, making initial vague briefings at the end of January from Azar as if all January and as if "persistent public health warnings from officials". Neither cite supports that such was actually reaching President Trump in all January or to any great extent. A "Throughout February" or "Six long weeks" through February and early March would be more suitable.

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)

Markbassett, if you're looking for citations that say Trump was slow to address the pandemic, there's a lot to choose from. Here's three: [19][20][21] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted Markbassett's removal of this material, so I'm not sure what MelanieN is being called to account. I added two additional cites, although the existing cites were adequate. There are many more sources for this material, which I would expect anyone who has even scratched the surface of the subject to know. - MrX 🖋 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX thanks, it was a merge not removal but yes Reverted to revision 952190974 by MelanieN was you. Strikeout done above to correct that. So she as last writer or you as reverter please alter or provide V. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, most of the current instance of this talk page was devoted to pushing back on various denials and deflections about Trump's slow response. In the course of those discussions, numerous references were presented -- way more than were ultimately needed for the article text. I hope we do not waste any more time rehashing what's already documented on this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - “numerous” is misguided. WP:V is having cite content that directly supports the article text. WP:STICKTOSOURCE The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. That there are other cites saying the response wasn’t slow or having multiples of saying there were other issues or even multiple cites onto a line does not relate to the V. It’s how *accurately* does the cite text match the article text, not how many cites were fired at it. Generically, more numerous cites would seem likely more a hurt than a help by giving more not-matches. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The article may only cite one, but you have your pick from among numerous. As has been mentioned, "slow" is pretty deadpan given what's in the RS reporting. There are also other harsher descriptions in RS. I think you've got a good neutral word in "slow". SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO So pick some source and WP:STICKTOSOURCE match what it directly supports. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:06, 22 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.

• Here you have the Guardian: "The president was slow to address the pandemic"
• Here you have 65% of the American public saying Trump was too slow to address the virus.
• Here is one saying that "The Trump administration" was slow to address the spread of the virus. We could say "Aside from that, the Trump administration was slow to address the pandemic" - instead of Trump personally in that sentence - but this article is about Trump and so are most of the citations, so I don't favor that.

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)

It shouldn't be stated as if it were a fact, that "Trump was slow to address the pandemic". That is an opinion, and a highly subjective one at that. "Some perceive Trump as being slow to address the pandemic" would be preferable. And it was not even classified as a "pandemic" at the time being referenced. Was he "slow to address" something that did not even officially exist? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

He was slow. Documented in RS. Would you prefer "slow to address the dire threat and prospect of widespread suffering and economic collapse posed by the virus"? That's pretty well-sourced as well. I think the current text is more compact. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be "compact" but presenting characterizations as facts imbues the article with an unwanted bias. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You need facts, that he was slow off the dime in responding to this situation? OK, here’s some:

• Take that one action he took in January, that he is so proud of - the travel restrictions from China. He likes to claim that he “cut off China very early.” He has claimed he was “the first one to do it” and “it had never been done before.” In fact, 38 other countries had travel restrictions in place by the time his took effect on February 2. [22]
  
• Testing. Most experts agree that we lost a crucial month of testing just when we needed it most. [23]
  
• Community surveillance. Trump was so focused on “keeping the virus out of our country” that he insisted - and probably believed - for more than a month that the virus was “contained” and “under control”. His administration didn’t even authorize community surveillance and disease tracking until the end of February. [24]
  

I could go on, but you get the idea. He was very, very late in recognizing the seriousness of this epidemic (that's the "downplaying" that we keep talking about), or in rolling out a plan to deal with it, or taking concrete actions to stop or slow the spread of the infection. Not an opinion. A fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, fact would be dates and events. Relentlessly optimistic and early downplay and reasonably prompt are plausible opinions, not facts. And “very, very” is both overly theatric and reflecting things not known at the time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN ??? Upon relook, those weren't good points. Factchecking - Politifact says that the US travel restrictions were about the same time as the others and somewhat stronger, "they were not slow in instituting a travel ban on China." Otherwise, yes testing had technical issues which isn't President Trump being slow, and if he did truly believe as you say then he was giving his honest evaluation and not "downplaying", yah ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett - (1) "travel ban on China" wasn't even complete, Americans were still coming back, (2) even if it was a complete China travel ban, virus still gets in from other places - like it did from Europe, he only restricted Europe on March 13, and again Americans were still coming back, (3) private sector testing was not approved until end of February, (4) strict testing guidelines were not relaxed until early March,(5) despite shortages in medical supplies, Defense Production Act was only signed on March 18, and Trump only used it to direct industry production on March 27, (6) social distancing was implemented on March 16. starship.paint (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Her fact-checker cite ‘not the first’ was no good V for ‘slow’ on China, noting the other fact-checker cite explicitly opposed ‘slow’. The restrictions to Europe *were* the first I think, but there is no mention in article so no V is needed. The criticisms of quality you post above are unrelated to speed, but I’ll point to the Politico saying the US restrictions were somewhat stronger. The topic here is gaps in V for article text, not a blog. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - no, those cites aren't a solution. The concern is a V one which may have been lost as section title "Criticism as slow failing V", was changed to "Criticism as slow to address the pandemic". Not having inline cites presented that support text shown was the topic. The WaPo cite was simply not about the contentious "slow" first half of that line, and the next line NYT cite had some 'slow' but it's own issues. My attempt at merge/edit to provide as close as those cites actually said was reverted, so was back to did not meet V. The cites you mention above won't fit the lines presented.

• Guardian is about election chances in a recession ... below the subeadline not about 'slow' or particularly January and February.
• The Axios cite to Pew Poll is showing this as not a fact, but as a WP:OPINION concern of NPOV that would need restating. I also note the article seems not paraphrasing the whole of that part of the Pew poll (emphasis mine) "The survey finds that while Trump is widely viewed as having acted too slowly in the initial phase of the crisis, Americans have more positive views of how he is currently handling some aspects of the coronavirus outbreak. About half (51%) say he is doing an excellent or good job in addressing the economic needs of businesses facing financial difficulties."
• The NYT cite also is not evidence for the article text. This cite portrays the 'Red Dawn' emails of concerns from those not in contact with the President, particularly starting in mid-February, how one of their members aborted the scheduled (26 Feb?) meeting with Trump to present mitigation recommendations, and anger in mid-March with the CDC guidelines. This just does not match article text "Throughout January and February, he rejected persistent public health warnings from officials". I would think RedDawn being outside Trump means it doesn’t belong here, but if it was here then it would need different article text.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:38, 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)

Five editors including you commented here without saying they objected to "Criticism as slow failing V". Most or all of them are aware of the guideline for neutral headings. So I remove the "failing V" part and now it's a problem? It's close enough for me, but I don't run the place. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I think you're incorrectly equating criticism with opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Not to worry, the topic is that the line was not providing V, so I have reinstated that header as the focus of concern. Not having cites *present* that at least address the text shown was the topic. The WaPo cite was simply not about the contentious "slow" first half of that line, and the NYT cite had it's own issues. My attempt at merge/edit to provide as close as those cites actually said was reverted, so ... I flagged the concern as V and pinged the editor who made the line (MelanieN). Should have also pinged the reverting MrX. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

p.s. "Slow" is an adjective, generally defined as a descriptive of negative values, and it does seem intended as a criticism of the early period. Adjectival descriptives can be perceptions or judgements or so on *of* facts, but are not themselves facts. In this case, many but by no means all share a critical view of that kind for the early period, and it is a noted phrasing if a bit vague. (And perhaps somewhat wishful thinking ... in the end it seems that there never was a chance this would not be a pandemic.) If you prefer, the section is about "V gaps in line(s) for 'slow' response" or "Line about 'slow' has V issues". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:52, 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.

• See above. starship.paint (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Markbassett - in case you didn’t see the above. starship.paint (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Thanks for the ping. The AP seems the only semi-useable one there for the article text, though it would require dropping the ‘ignoring calls for action’ part of the line as it instead says distractions and disagreement and no clear calls for action. The author is maybe voicing his hindsight view what would have been useful, not saying that President Trump was asked for them. The NYT is talking magnitude of response, not speed. The Politico and NPR are only saying a criticism exists and not more. Time concluding ‘delayed’ is on-topic, but the article is all over the place, so not as good as AP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

User:Scjessey well WP is a WP:VOLUNTEER effort, so if you have no interest in threads on V quality then just skip that thread and others can do any simple TALK to add cites and alter text. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you cannot. Because you are ignoring consensus against your view. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

One works WP:VOLUNTEER on whatever one wants, so if you feel this a waste of your time then you can just leave it to those who don’t. Entirely up to everyone what bits of what articles they get into. And re Consensus you seem yet again mistaken in your facts - obviously it agreed with me as far as some changes being needed since changes were done to both cite and text. That you feel no value to that topic is fine, but don’t mis-state your uninterest as Consensus when fact instead is this TALK did wind up with edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)your being uninterested is perhaps misleading you. That you feel no value to that topic is fine, but please allow that others did and so consensus thus far changed things. However awkwardly and touchy discussions here are, this TALK did get somewhat productive for some edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding what's the big deal here. We all listened to you. Nobody much agreed with you. Many gave specific rebuttals to your core argument - the peak of Graham's Pyramid, and now you're saying what? That we have to continue to come bag and log disagreement every time you repeat the same arguments? I don't believe that will happen. If you try to edit the article against sources and consensus, somebody will revert it. But in the meanwhile, I don't see a lot of interest in extending this talk thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I agree there’s no *need* for a big deal at all. And nobody much *liked* me pointing out the flaws. But consensus *did* agree with me on V and did something about it. I saw a V failure, I try a BOLD fix, someone REVERTS, it goes to DISCUSS and with much detours gets something done. Could skip the cognitive bias and voiced negativity and just get on with it, but being it is WP:VOLUNTEER and part of the environment for this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read that consensus page you keep linking? I looked at it. I didn't see it says much of anything relevant to article content and sourcing. Glad you are happy again. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO ??? What link? I’ve been linking to WP:V and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, seems relevant to content sourcing. Except in response to Scjessey value of this I offered WP:VOLUNTEER work on whatever you value, any waste is by one’s own making. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: It's not that the topic is a waste of everyone's time. It's the fact that you are wasting everyone's time by consistently and annoyingly arguing against consensus when everyone has long since moved on. Please, Mark, I implore you. Drop the fucking stick and accept what the community has decided. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey ??? Mmm exactly where or why are you getting this or putting this odd spin on things ? Consensus seems to have agreed with me that something was missing. Or at least it’s only been a couple days but a lot of people wanted to TALK and offer cites for the two lines. I have responded if pinged or seemed otherwise addressed, but really not involved in the edits. Perhaps you should try to accept other views exist and are valid and it would be a boring old world if that weren’t so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

^ This. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Why ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically per what Scjessey said above. The president recently suggested, unironically, that people should inject Lysol into their veins to cure the coronavirus, or that “heat and light” could treat it. Reality just became a bit too farcical for me. I think I’m gonna take a break to study for my Latin final. I’ll respond to pings. Let me know when the world becomes a bit more sane. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)−

Trump now says he was being sarcastic [25] - is this his way of retracting a statement? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus ??? that’s really nothing to do with my thread or any V failings of the two lines in question or any changes to their language. I will offer that poorly scrutinised WP text or misstated cites could well devalue WP and the credibility of the cites abused, that to rant casually at things is likely not helping sanity . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 24 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)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Hatted the wandering into Lysol and Latin tests up to the outdent VOLUNTEER stretch as being Sidebar, since not even close to being in topic. Nor I think us five even close to everyone who agreed/disagreed/other about the V for the two lines and the WaPo/NYT cites. Just a norm for unrelated content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I can barely understand what you’re saying. But no, it wasn’t just my singular comment you hatted. It was the contributions of Scjessey and several people. Basically everything after people suggested this was a waste of time. That isn’t a “norm”. It’s a norm for SPAs and socks, and things that have absolutely nothing to do with the article subject. I see sources, commentary, evaluation, and general treatment of the subject. As well as people questioning the utility of the conversation, yes. My comment was sardonic, but that’s not a reason to hat half of a section. If you want to hat something, hat the whole conversation. You clearly have no consensus here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hydrox

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)

Interesting, but not for this article. All we say is that he "promoted unproven treatments" so we don't need any more about this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have conclusive results, but if it turns out the stuff's a dud we can certainly consider adding "which were later proven ineffective" or whatever. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note that this is not a "trial". A randomized controlled trial will account for confounding variables. This VA study is a retrospective cohort study. People who had worse prognosis may have been more likely to get hydroxychloroquine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Journalists are using poorly chosen language. I think some of them are locally random but not within neutral cohorts. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Woopsie Trump dismisses doctor for questioning Hydroxychloroquine treatment 2. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this was undue weight, but now that Trump has demoted that doctor he has turned it into a Big Thing that makes the United States look like a dictatorship, so maybe it should go in after all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Scjessey: - there is some doubt to that doctor's story. POLITICO: 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)

Well at this point we really don't know what happened. It seems Bright's assertions clash with other narratives that may be valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be covered in the slightly broader context of Trump advocating pseudoscience in the midst of a viral pandemic. It should include his suggestion about injecting disinfectant as a treatment[27] and the ensuing response from Lysol. Then there is the light inside the body cure.[28]. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s truly shocking to see the POTUS suggest a dangerous solution involving chemicals found in most households, in an official press conference, to a public hungry for information, and to state that it was being taken seriously by the medical community and that they would study it, worsened by the fact that a large number of his followers hang on to every word he says and believe his instincts are ingenious. But, I still think this doesn’t survive recentism, unless we see hospital admissions for Lysol poisoning. If it has legs, maybe a sentence in a pseudoscience section. O3000 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We may soon have a good RS discussion of the broader topic of stable genius inspirations. Also the recent book on the subject by Washington Post reporters gives some perspecive and gets us editors out of the business of picking and choosing among daily news reports. Yesterday, Trump had been discussing his photo/bleach therapy ideas backstage before the briefing, as he noted in his prompting of the officials seated beside him. I believe Judge Jeanine had some comments on this, but I can't locate a link just now. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000, I certainly wouldn't rush to include this now, mainly because he will probably top it with something even more bizarre and outlandish. My point was mainly that this is not just about one drug, but about the torrent of misinformation from the president since he decided to take the pandemic seriously. Maybe he hasn't read WP:MEDRS. - MrX 🖋 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it is more applicable to general handling of the pandemic, and/or his rule by instinct. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a suggestion. It was a question, albeit a terrible question with an obvious answer. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only was it a suggestion, he said it was being taken seriously by top doctors. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

WaPo calls it a question - “ The question, which Trump offered unprompted, immediately spurred doctors, lawmakers and the makers of Lysol to respond with incredulity and warnings against injecting or otherwise ingesting disinfectants, which are highly toxic.” Story from here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they didn't say it in WaPoSpeak doesn't mean it wasn't. The word is used several times in the article, and numerous other sources call it a suggestion. Or, you can use DJT's own words. When asked about it by a reporter, he said "I'm the President and you're fake news....It's just a suggestion." O3000 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)O3000 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Warnings by foreign leaders and rejections of Trump's statements were published around the world in the mainstream press of dozens of countries. Trump's suggestion -- some international coverage: BBC Washington Post France 24 Australia India Arab News SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

He has now taken it back claiming he was being sarcastic, or a reporter was being sarcastic. Unclear. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sarcastic:[29].

“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.”

---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's convenient, and totally believable. I guess Dr. Birx wasn't in on the joke?[30]- MrX 🖋 18:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

When Philip Rucker, also not in on the fun, asked Trump why he was promoting rumors, Trump told him +/- to STFU. So, unlike in some past denials "I don't know Lev Parnas" "You'd have to ask Michael Cohen" "Fired the CDC guy? Never heard of him", in this case there was a contemporaneous insistence that he was serious about it. Also, Trump twice referred to having discussed his concept in some detail with the doctors in the green roomOval Office just before the briefing. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Flooding New York with Hydroxycholoquine

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 am starting to think that the President is not intending to be taken seriously. This is my own original synthesis, but I am suggesting that he may be some type of satirist in the sense that he exposes the "extreme, stupid gullibility" of humanity with his false information, as well as point out the extreme hyperpartisanship of "irrational, intolerant" politicians. I cannot tell you whether that is his intention, but he is doing an awfully good job at doing both of them. At least give the POTUS credit for exposing them. Back on topic, I am not sure what to think of his plan involving the use of hydroxychloroquine, given what I had just said. I do not know whether he really does think that his plan is a good idea, or whether he is acting like Alex Jones in the sense that the latter holds views so absurd that he may very well turn out to be a satirist himself. Oh well, I guess we will have to keep an eye out for more news. FreeMediaKid! 22:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC) FreeMediaKid! (talk · contribs) I'm assuming your comment is itself satire. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Perhaps it is satire, but it does get my point across: that people who hold absurd views are credible in a gullible society. It is surprising that the United States has come so far as to nominate candidates without any honorable traits. Nevertheless, I do know that the idea that the POTUS may be satirical does not make him any better. The problem is that there is a fringe side of Trump supporters who think that (most of) what he says is right. If Trump's diehard fans are gullible enough to anticipate unlikely medications that supposedly cure the coronavirus, that may very well add to Trump's record of the veracity of his statements. I find it dumbfounding that a couple in Arizona thought that Trump said, "Take the chemicals. Drink the fish tank cleaners." While it may be awful what Trump is suggesting for curing the virus, it is putting words in his mouth to say that Trump told them to consume the chemicals. Even for such a baffling act, one would have to lack a heart to call the couple half-witted and not pity them, especially since one of them died. Still, I doubt Trump can be criticized for their decisions since their logic led to non sequitur conclusions. It is hard to describe Trump's actions during the pandemic other than that they are unduly optimistic. FreeMediaKid! 01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC) @FreeMediaKid!: - It's not satire, it's just that Trump is a person that has a good you-know-what. starship.paint (talk) 06:31, 25 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)

Add New Study to "Coronavirus pandemic" section

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

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

Done SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. UNDUE, there's not enduring BLP significance for that specific day and that particular ref, and a bit redundant. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

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)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Philippe - I encourage you to suggest or make a specific edit as that's the only way to improve the article. (Maybe - there are a lot of ideas that don't make it.) I largely see your points, but general agreement or not in TALK is not a change in article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

An op-ed by Mark Penn has no place in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we find a way to link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the first paragraph?

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)

If we are going to do this, I suggest a link that is not easter-eggy. Somehow the text should say "his presidency". It would not be obvious to me as a reader that the suggested links above would take me to discussion of his presidency. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you propose to do when he is no longer the "current" president of the United States? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a simple way to put a link to "Presidency of Donald Trump" into the first paragraph. Change Before entering politics to 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)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: That's a good thought. To write it out, you're proposing

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.

I see two issues, though, both of which are perhaps solvable with some tweaks. First, this would mean we'd use "president" twice, which introduces a bit of a language variation issue. Second, readers might think that "became president" would go to his inauguration article, so there's a bit of an MOS:EGG issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we should still have a link to President of the United States in the first sentence. Let's not replace one link with the other. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't like this idea very much. We already link to it later in the introduction. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support linking to Trump's presidency on the anchor text "current president of the United States". The link to President of the United States is indeed less important, and curious readers can readily access the generic presidency article from the specific Trump presidency article. I would oppose links to businessman and television personality as being generic terms according to MOS:OVERLINK, and I wouldn't link to the articles on his business and media career either due to the WP:Easter Egg feeling. The presidency link is not EGGy, though. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• That link is not an egg, but it is eggy. I do not think readers who want more detail Donald Trump's policies and his staff and his actions in office are going to think that "current president of the United States" takes them to content about kids in cages etc. But Scjessey has made a good point, so this may not be worth more effort. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I used "was a businessman" rather than "businessman" for the link to remedy the EGG issue there, but I don't know what could be done for "television personality". I agree it's not perfect, but I think it's a reasonable enough target and that the benefits of having the link there outweigh the downsides. If that's persuasive to you, good, we can role that change into this one. If not, we should probably have a separate discussion on that, since it's fully separate and shouldn't muddy our discussion on the presidency link question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per others, and because my question has not been answered. If a link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the first paragraph is important now, it will be equally important when he leaves office – unless you have a recentist mind-set re this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Once he's out of office, we could use something like 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)

  I guess that's good enough to strike my Oppose, but not good enough to switch to Support. I doubt I'd write the prose that way if we didn't have wikilinks, and I'm not comfortable bending it quite that much to accommodate a useful link that is already available slightly below the first paragraph. Actually I prefer a two-step process, one that is not being used in this thread: First, write best prose without thinking about links. Only then provide useful links, as possible without significant egginess. Does this approach mean providing less useful links than combining the two steps into one? Yes, sometimes it does. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  Why would we have to wait until he's out of office to say "Before his presidency"? It seems like perfectly good wording to use now. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can take the view that his is an unconventional presidency, therefore we can use unconventional wording and linking. Well, something like that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• The easiest way to avoid a surprise that POTUS goes to his presidency might be to make do the wikilinking on “current”, as has been done elsewhere, 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.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitalizing "president" is a separate change and one that's likely to be controversial, so let's not get into that here. I like your idea, though — I think linking over "current" or "current president" would be a good solution. I'd slightly prefer the latter, since the whole idea here is to help readers discover the presidency article, and a slightly longer link does that better. My reading of the general consensus here is that we want to include the link, so let's wait a day or two, and if that still seems to be the case, I think we can go ahead and implement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That alternative link idea is one I saw on the old Obama page, thought it a perhaps less confusing option. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm warming up to the idea of linking to Trump's business and media careers as well as his presidency. Capital P has run out of style per MOS:JOBTITLES, and a link on just "current" looks weird, while a link on "current president of the United States" looks overkill, so I'd suggest linking just "current president" to the presidency article. Thus:

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 could do without the trivia link on 45th, but the numbering of presidents seems like a sacred national tradition in that country. Comments on this latest version? — JFG ^talk 05:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's where we've landed since you're concurring with my reply to Mark. I'm going to go ahead and implement; hopefully that's not overly bold. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done here, and updated current consensus here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

187.161.188.73 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done What is your request? Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Image caption

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)

That caption was added only recently, after years without one. In my opinion it's largely superfluous. It's clear enough it's during his presidency, which establishes the time frame as somewhere between January 2017 and today. I don't think that 3-year difference is significant. For fans of consistency between articles about presidents, few of them have a caption. Kennedy was the last, and in that case a caption is necessary to date the photo as four months before his death. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really care what happens. I thought the caption had been there a while, and reasoned it was probably necessary to prevent all the umpteen requests for a different image, so I restored it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it per WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

New article: Media career of Donald Trump

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)

Very useful initiative, thanks! — JFG ^talk 17:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kemp

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)

Agree on both points. Readable prose size at Presidency is now at 157% of the size where the article "almost certainly should be divided" per guidelines. Thus it's more than half again worse than this one in that respect. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly be in favor of spinning out Trump's handling of the coronavirus so that neither article be burdened with more than a summary. What would a good title be? Perhaps this would be a good time to create Domestic policy of Donald Trump and stick it in there? That would also be a great help to the bloated presidency article, would it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Kemp material is excessive detail, but I would be opposed to removing most of the remaining pandemic related content. There's plenty of other less important material that can removed, as I have detailed before. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a section on Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic that might exist in a proposed domestic policy article would have a summary that would look very similar to what we already have here, so I do not think you need be concerned on that score. My point is that details such as this Kemp stuff would have a place to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not another article - If it’s trivia or off topic item, delete it, and anything else is optional. That something is also inappropriate or too trivial for inclusion at Presidency is not a reason to make another article for it — beyond NOTEVERYTHING and it seeming trivial, there’s *already* about six articles specific to criticisms and/or the Trump administration responses. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  You've completely missed the point, Mark. Trump's handling of Kemp is important in the context of the coronavirus, but it should be in Presidency of Donald Trump. That being said, that article has some bloat issues, so as a side note I thought it might be a good idea to spin out Domestic policy of Donald Trump, as I proposed on the presidency article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  You’ve completely ignored my Not Another Article point. That something is too trivial for here only justifies removing it from here. That it’s trivial criticism about coronavirus does not mean we need yet another article just for it as there are already about six such articles it could potentially go to. Completely dumping from where it is UNDUE is the only necessary or obligatory part - whether you even try to find a home is a nicety, and actually finding a home for each and every trivia is absolutely not necessary. NOTEVERYTHING. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 30 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)

I didn't even know that article existed. Christ, this is all getting so damn complicated. The Trump administration is a FIRE HOSE. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

<meta> Yes, the problem needs a planning and coordination committee with authority, which would go against fundamental Wikipedia principles. </meta> ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

<meta>Aren't you the planning and coordination committee, Mandruss?</meta> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

<meta> No, I'm the Chief Magistrate. Pay attention. </meta> ―Mandruss ☎ 15:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's requested study of injecting disinfectants

Onetwothreeip reverted (using vandalism reversion software Twinkle) my addition of:

In an April 23, 2020 press conference, Trump asked medical experts if they could look into injecting disinfectants to kill Coronavirus. Lysol's manufacturer, medical experts and government officials issued warnings that doing so is dangerous and could be deadly. The next day, Trump claimed he was being sarcastic.

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:

• "Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment". BBC News. 2020-04-24.
• Le Monde
• "Trump claims disinfectant 'injection' idea was sarcasm -- Medical community warns of dangers from use of cleaning agent as internal treatment". Financial Times.
• Dale, Daniel. "Fact check: Trump lies that he was being 'sarcastic' when he talked about injecting disinfectant". CNN.
• "'Under No Circumstance': Lysol Maker, Officials Reject Trump's Disinfectant Idea". NPR.
• Swanson, Ian (2020-04-24). "Trump remarks on injecting disinfectants draw blowback from doctors". TheHill.
• Rogers, Katie; Hauser, Christine; Yuhas, Alan; Haberman, Maggie (2020-04-24). "Trump's Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
• Hawkins, Derek. "Live updates: As U.S. coronavirus toll tops 50,000, physicians find that young people with covid-19 are dying of strokes". Washington Post.
• NBCnews
• Guardian News
• CBS
• Ryan, Jackson. "Trump recklessly suggests injecting disinfectant to kill coronavirus. Why he's wrong". CNET.
• "Trump falsely claims injecting disinfectant remark was 'sarcastic'". MSNBC.com.
• Davis, Charles. "A timeline of Trump's musings on the false idea of injecting 'light' and 'disinfectant' to treat coronavirus — from a presentation to Trump's claim he was being 'sarcastic'". Business Insider.
• "After backlash that his disinfectant 'injection' idea could be deadly, Trump claims he was being 'sarcastic'". ABC News.
• Perez, Matt. "After Storm Of Controversy, Trump Now Claims His Comments On Injecting Disinfectants Were 'Sarcastic'". Forbes.

The list goes on. The question is not who covered it, but who did not.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this actually happened, and I am not disputing that this was amusing enough for it to be covered widely. This, like many other "stupid man says something stupid" remarks, is most decidedly not a particularly important statement of the many statements that Donald Trump has made or will ever make. Please consider the WP:TENYEARTEST, especially for an article like this. This is simply not something that is going to be worthy to include in his biography in ten years' time. Something being covered in many sources is not alone a justification to be included in the Donald Trump article, and it has been this way for some time. We can expect media sources to report on everything Donald Trump says and does, but we cannot be expected to write all of that in this particular article. We have enough issues with recentism as it is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You know, I think you might be wrong about whether this will pass the ten year test. Talking with friends today, many think he has achieved a personal best with the disinfectant comment. Especially in the sciency kind of circles in which I move, I reckon it will stay in the consciousness of many. However, I probably agree that it doesn't belong in the article. There is already enough to highlight how he differs from most other Presidents in the type of unusual things he says. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's consider how this fits in the context and narrtive of this encylopedia article. We need to write a brief but more general summary of the narratives he has presented at his daily virus TV show. Philip Rucker's book A Very Stable Genius sheds light on Trump's characteristic statements and behaviors. We need to present the false and confused narratives of the briefings from a larger encyclopedic perspective so that we editors do not try to pick which instances of such behavior are most illustrative or most noteworthy. That would be WP:OR. Thanks for the list of citations. They show little dispute that his recent behavior has been dangerous and demented. RS reports tell us that Trump's inner circle was shocked by his behavior at the briefing and by his ad lib "sarcastic" excuse afterward, which undermined their attempts at "Communications 101" damage control. Reports say that aides later convinced Trump to curtail his daily briefing room shows. If that's confirmed, there may be further reporting of events that would anchor a brief description of the briefings and their success or failure. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - an overview article before this particular fiasco - Analyzing the Patterns in Trump’s Falsehoods About Coronavirus - The New York Times, March 27, 2020 - {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)

Thanks for that. There are many such overviews that we should be using. Sometimes they are dismissed as mere opinion, but commentary and analysis such as you've linked are very valuable. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope this half-truth doesn’t make it into the article. His full statement at the presser said it will clean out the lungs. When Trump said “inject” he pointed to his mouth. He meant inhaling disinfectant. There are many articles about nebulizing/ vaping diluted Hydrogen peroxide vapor to treat COPD. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: - 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)

Adding the link to the C-Span footage of the sequence from the moment Bryan leaves the podium - no pointing. As for inhaling: "could be fatal if ingested." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: - yes, there are inhaled disinfectants, here is a list. There are also past examples of Light disinfection, and injected anti-infectant. In this case, I think Trump was just vaguely rambling out loud. I’d be willing to try the old standby of ethyl alcohol. Cheers! Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. There is no sign that this has any lasting impact, on well anything honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Largely agree. Still reacting to today's headlines in this account of an entire life. Most stuff at this level should be taken to Trump sub-articles for consideration. Near the top of this page, widely ignored: "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here." ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This has obviously received a lot of coverage in the news, and even sustained coverage beyond the 24-hour news cycle, so much so that it "bothers" Dr. Brix.[31] This represents a shocking lapse of judgement by someone who has lowered the bar so much that a virus could step over it. Yes this should be included because of WP:DUEWEIGHT, but let's weave it in with the other content without mentioning the specific date and without extensively quoting the subject. Something like this:

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.

- MrX 🖋 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The coverage on this has seemed a bit misleading to me. I didn't understand him to say Brix should fill a hypodermic with bleach, etc.OK, he actually did say that00:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC) I thought it was more vaping or aromatherapy with biocides. And the light I thought he was stressing to get it "inside the body" -- so I don't know if that's the same as Light therapy? Because he said either through the skin or some other way. Mabye fiber optic. Anyway, I'm disappointed to see the media hype the injecting Lysol thing because I think his idea was more nuanced. What's interesting, and I forget the source for this, is that these ideas fit various fringe internet narratives about home-brew medicine. They are an offshoot of the anti-vaxing concerns and may live on their own sites or on Reddit or other hubs. Sorry I don't have a specific suggestion. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - Not really important. Silly wishful thinking out loud, but trivia. On a sidenote, I can see why it bothers Dr. Birx that this is still in the news cycle.here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

1. if you gargle bleach (as someone did yesterday) get used to a feeding tube.
2. There has been a huge increase in poison control calls.
3. There has been a massive increase in hydroxycloroquine prescriptions, causing shortages for people that actually need it.
4. Isopropyl alcohol is poison. Wood alcohol will result in blindness. Careless statements that alcohol may be useful, in front of a national audience, by the POTUS is extraordinarily dangerous.

How can anyone belittle what he has done? This is about as DUE as DUE can get. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 Hyperbolic posturings. Note that since it’s only ranting critics who suggested bleach, Lysol, or isopropyl alcohol, I believe they may bear some of any blame for those. With some blame for the media that gave them space and made this story-du-jour. As Birx said, it’s troubling this is still being spread. As to what Trump actually said and how much BLP importance it had - silly trivia, Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyperbolic? Moi? Did I stand in front of the presidential seal and say what he said? But, lets us blame the press for reporting what actually occurred. I'll stick with RS. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 Hyperbolic posturings in media: from you it’s just false claims about how DUE is based on hypothetical importance instead of WP:DUE is WP:WEIGHT. Note that since it’s only ranting critics who suggested bleach, Lysol, or isopropyl alcohol, I believe they may bear some of any blame for those. With some blame for the media that gave them space and made this story-du-jour. Instead of conveying the helpful information from briefings. As Birx said, “It bothers me that this is still in the news cycle, because I think we’re missing the bigger pieces of what we need to be doing as an American people to continue to protect one another. As a scientist and a public health official and a researcher, sometimes I worry that we don’t get the information to the American people that they need when we continue to bring up something that was from Thursday night.” As to what Trump actually said and how much BLP importance it had - silly trivia, Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to believe my lying eyes, and reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, calls to poison control increase because of Trump's comment,[32] and you want to blame it on Lysol because their corporate Twitter account sent out a tweet saying not to ingest their product? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu Since there’s more ranting critics in NYC spouting about Lysol, etcetera, it perhaps makes some sense their words caused NYC to have an issue. Or could be normal statistical variation in NYC-only that NYC chose to find and speculate about. But speculative causation is not for the article. And again - as to what Trump actually said and how much BLP enduring impact it had - silly trivia, Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I saw a panel on Fox News that, surprisingly, supported what Trump said about these proposed therapies. Have you seen the recent Fox coverage of this? What is the latest coverage from them and their panelists? SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO ? No, I have not been there, but you can go to foxnews.com and find out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For the second day, Fox.com is all about Joe Biden. Virus? What virus? O3000 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

If you want to consider the lasting impact, recognize that he talked about bleach and UV on Thursday, cut the briefing off without questions on Friday, then didn't hold one on Saturday while claiming they're a waste of time.[33] It's gotten Trump to want to not be on camera. That's some impact. Is there going to be a conference tomorrow? And there's the talk that this is when he had finally gone off the rails for good (opinion piece, not RS) but we'll need time to tell on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully we have not gotten so immune to the daily misinformation that we receive from this administration that no matter what Trump says we just go ho-hum just more chatter that means nothing and there is no need to take note of it. This incident was not just normal political lies that all politicians engage in. This chatter went around the world and was on every newscast for days. It caused spikes in poison hotlines across the nation. It seems, at least for now, to have put an end to the Trump coronavirus team daily news briefings. To have Trump as usual not attend the daily briefing where the upcoming televised news briefing is discussed and then "muse" (which I believe Birx called it in defense of Trump) on camera about injecting disinfectants or somehow putting "powerful light" inside one's body is so far from anything that is normal for a president to do and then have Wikipedia call it not needed in this article is, to me, pretty amazing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There are always minority opinions, even on the Supreme Court. I think {{ping}|MrX}} provided a good first draft. @Starship.paint: has been working on related issues at Trump administration communication during the coronavirus pandemic, so I think that if they bring their latest ideas to us, we'll soon have text to go in this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. When the FDA, the CDC, and the EPA all comment on something that came right out of Trump's *** we need to document it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps so, in one or more of the articles about his presidency, and/or one or more of the articles about the pandemic. We don't necessarily need to document it – or anything else of this nature – here merely because of this article's high visibility. That's not how Wikipedia seeks to organize its information. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer this is the BLP article, so not everything suits or is big enough to appear. A three-day about silly wishful voicing is trivia that has no enduring impact or biographical effect. I have no doubt the repetition of the story led some folks to ask poison control about it, but that’s also trivia and only a hypothetical as I have not seen cites to V “hotlines across the country” as anything but hyperbole. (Have you actual cites of multiple cities on that?) Likewise whether President Trump has stopped appearing at those briefings is minutiae, and hypothetical beyond the actual days seen. If you have seen cites of multiple city effects, I suggest you try at an article more detailed and specific to the item than this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark, the trouble is that "silly wishful voicing" was voiced by the president of the United States during a news briefing that is supposed to be informing the nation about the latest disease information and by a president who has frequently bragged about how smart he is and how he has a special knack for science. Also, it was not just "silly", it was absolutely totally nuts and bizarre. I know of at least five states that reported a spike in poison control calls, here is one link:[34] Gandydancer (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Gandy - that you had to resort to going hyperbolic about his position instead of the WEIGHT or a BLP significance in his life only underscores the UNDUE. And an unsupported claim of five states does not help -- the only link provided here is to a 1-day variation in NYC, which has it's own whiff to it. That only adds to the appearance of not being just factual. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetical Assange pardon

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)

JFG, we have so much to deal with as it is, it makes no sense to talk about hypotheticals. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Well, something did happen... comment by SPECIFICO? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My feeling exactly. — JFG ^talk 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

According to several sources in our own Julian Assange article, Rohrabacher talked to him about petitioning Trump for a pardon, but he did not discuss the matter with Trump himself.

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.

The White House has also denied that Trump and Rohrabacher ever discussed this. So that's pretty much still a non-event as far as Trump's biography is concerned. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to omit this from Trump's bio article. However not because 1) "it" is "hypothetical", which is a misreprentation of RS reporting that confuses rather than clarifies the content decision, and not because 2) it was speciously denied by the White House - WP follows RS, not politicians' press relations spin. It's best to give valid reasons for removal of article text so that we don't need to waste time on discussion of invalid reasons. SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like UNDUE for this level article, not BLP significant. I don’t know otherwise whether to say this conspiracy theory is just rumor, only another fake news item, point to SPECULATION, or something else... but as UNDUE it doesn’t need further examination. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is undue here, as it is undue in the Assange article. Comrade Specifico has been pushing this story at the Assange article too. By all accounts, all Rohrabacher did was make Assange an offer. There is no evidence that Trump was involved. It would only be of interest to a mysterious cabal of people who like to want to suggest a nexus between Assange and Trump (and Putin). But the existence of such a cabal is, of course, hypothetical.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Watch your language, Jack. WP:FOC SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I was merely making a hypothetical comment about content.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - as I see it, the problem was you using "Comrade", plus a "mysterious cabal of people". starship.paint (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better if I amended "Comrade" to "Citizen" and "mysterious cabal of people" to "enigmatic clique"?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to claims of bias

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)

An excellent idea that I heartily endorse. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Bad idea - I think that page content is just Denialism, and to make institutionalised tone-deafness would just be IDHT getting in the way of even a sham appearance of giving the claim about bias any actual attention or being at all responsive, blocking the chance of article improvement for when (not ‘if’) issues occur. Clearly the article is biased, and much of that can be explained simply as WP uses media sources in proportion to WEIGHT and seems like the "left" side of the polarized media will only find fault with President Trump. (I’ll offer that compulsively seeking or creating such is somewhat just business, playing to a market for such that exists.). The article has repeatedly been further repeatedly checked as biased (in selection bias and phrasing) beyond that and explicitly biased statements are common in TALK. This seems a result of VOLUNTEER, one gets editors along with whatever biases they have. To weave a “no this isn’t” blanket of ‘this is not at all biased in any part forever and ever’ looks neither credible nor likely to cause anything but an even more negative view at the receiving end. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, Mark? Is it possible your response is based on the other linked page (which is also excellemt). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Any user including you is welcome to suggest a specific, policy-based improvement to any part of the article. That initiates a discussion which may yield a consensus that results in a change to the article. But general complaints about bias are not useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss You overlook that this bit of advice historically not useable here is well below a go-read-NPOV, then admonishment about policy and pointers to other places. So how about you try it on yourself: First, go read NPOV. Then if you wish to change TALK policy, this is not the place for that. And factually the history is that pointing out of flaws has not and seems likely to be welcomed. See how wonderful it is when it is given to you ? Look, this boilerplate all seems just a disingenuous at best “go-away”, and fair amount of pretence, intended to institutionalise tone-deafness and block actual hearing or talk. Just respond to TALK with TALK, even just a simple ‘you’ll have to specify where an item is and what edit you want’ — don’t expect that anyone getting a form-letter response to their TALK is going to see it as anything else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not going to waste more time than absolutely necessary entertaining policy-ignorant "TALK". That is not what this page is for, nor is it a constructive use of it. If a thousand policy-ignorant readers descended on this page with complaints of bias, their comments would weigh exactly nothing against one editor well-versed in policy. We will link to a page containing links to all of the relevant policy pages. If the OP reads the policies and still has questions, our response includes links to Teahouse and Help desk, where unlimited help is available to any reader who is truly interested in learning. Your hyperbolic distortions notwithstanding, the response says a lot more than "go away".

All Wikipedia users are ultimately responsible for their own education, that education is a long hike, and we are going out of our way even to take them to the trailhead. The hike itself is up to them, and they can start walking or sit down and whinge about it, as they wish. They are not small children and it's not our job to pick them up and carry them.

This is a significant improvement over what it replaces, which often is in fact a "go away". Just the other day the word "nauseating" was used. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - If you feel it is a waste of time, then leave it to those who can respond with respect and give guidance towards edits that would improve the article. I'm sorry if you cannot see that there have and will be valid claims of bias that have and could improve the article, nor see how unhelpful and offensive this is. Put it to the test with prior candidates and see what their response is if you really want to know if this is a good idea -- help either better their input or to get meaningful edits to improve the article -- but to me it just seems a institutionalized tone-deafness to respond with a form letter, and offensive that the content is condescending. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought this would be obvious enough, but perhaps your assumption of bad faith prevents you from seeing it. I do not seek to turn away efforts to improve policy compliance, only bias complaints that lack any policy basis and therefore waste their time and ours. I wholeheartedly welcome any informed suggestions for article improvement, whether they are Trump-negative, Trump-positive, or Trump-none-of-the-above. But this is not the complaint department for Trump supporters who don't understand Wikipedia policy, it just isn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, this is the not the place to complain that Wikipedia's system is broken, and we are not going change the system locally to this article or any other article. In my view, persistent attempts to do so constitute disruption even if they are confined to article talk. Village Pump is thataway. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Yes, this is not the place to make your complaint that Wikipedia’s system is broken, nor try to change it locally in this fashion. Please take your general notion to Village Pump and see if they will take it as a WP-wide approach or else give it up. Again, here you were responding to a local issue by just saying it should go elsewhere ... that’s just misguiding and not productive. Go-elsewhere is not a fix. A local issue has to be addressed *here*, and a go-elsewhere just isn’t working on an issue or even admitting to the inconvenience of there may be an issue. Here you were just responding to any complaint with a ‘go elsewhere’... Same fundamental flaw as the boilerplate has. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, good work. Guy (help!) 17:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I like this a lot. It really emphasizes why the article may seem so biased at a first glance. TL;DR, the problem isn't with the article, it's with usually reliable sources only reporting one side of the story. Jdcomix (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Idea! as long as it complies with the WP:NPOV.WP:TRUMPBIAS badly needs to be replaced. Cheers ContoversalSubjectCorrector (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! How about making it into a template we can use on talk pages? (I have one here.) It could also be linked to from a FAQ. -- Valjean (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My concept is to provide an easy to way to give uniform, accurate, complete, concise, and respectful responses to the never-ending stream of bias complaints on this page. Nothing else. In other words I think it should remain Trump-specific and should be used only at the ATPs of Trump-related articles. In my opinion, trying to adapt it to other uses can only dilute its value here and unnecessarily complicate things. (For starters, the way we respond to a non-editing reader should be different than how we address an active editor.) It needs to stay limited and focused in purpose and application. Anybody is free to create a template modeled after this, if they think that would be useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to chime in here. Good job Mandruss. Also, I really like WP:TRUMPBIAS. It is a nice piece of work and really right on point. Kudos to Mandruss and Valjean for creating these pages. Yes, sanity still does exist somewhere in the world, and now I can tell people I saw it myself, with my own two eyes! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look on the bottom you can see a disclaimer implying that the article is somewhat opinionated and those types of articles have more leeway. We need a section like Mandruss suggested but follows WP:NPOV. We need to have a fair and balanced way to respond to these claims of bias. sincerely ContoversalSubjectCorrector (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And the template is a good idea and could be useful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Put it to the test I think this is a bad idea, and much better to just reply individually even if it's just "Can you point to something specific you don't like and say what Wikipedia rules aren't being followed? Do you have a proposed alternative ?". But if it's for those who object then just put it to the test and prove it useful or not. Get some feedback from those who have actually voiced something in the article is biased and see if in their opinion the boilerplate would have helped their concern. Or would they prefer to TALK here and then maybe go to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, etcetera when (not if) there is unhappiness. There seems enough past pings as biased ...

• Mentions of biased in archives 20, 115, 112, 110, 111, 26, 47, 38, 1, 79, 33, 91, 67, 10, 100, 48, 46, 35, 49, 98, 8, 92, 68, 83, 82, 108, 94, 53, 22, 102, 93, 97, 96, 71, 4, 104, 29, ...
• Named editors mentioning Article looks biased (wording biased, selection/omission bias, BALASPS, stating POV in wikivoice and as if fact) - Wikidea, Onetwothreeip, Jack Upland, Travis leitzel, Wilsonahrens, Jack Sebastian, Username Goes Here 062805, Clepsydrae, Zigzig20s, WV, Davey2010, Crumpled Fire, BlitzGreg, GrahameS, Greg L, Atsme, Objective3000, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, CaptainQuizBowl, Artis Weaver, TheTimesAreAChanging, ThePlane11, ThiefOfBagdad, JFG, Arianabarron, Iarbi002, DonFB, NickCT, Cesar Pulido, Jarred Price, Rforb001, עם ישראל ח, Aliencreeper13, Axxxion, Winkelvi, CFredkin, Disciple4lif, Norum, Charles Edwin Shipp, Jensbest, Heykerriann, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Jmu008, Scotthart1, Rreagan007, FloridaArmy, JCMonstore, Costesseyboy, Bgrus22, Anythingyouwant
• And a few mentioning biased sources - Soham321, CaroleHenson, UpdateNerd, PackMecEng, Dervorguilla

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

How many of those editors have been blocked for tendentious editing, pushing of fringe POV, and related offenses? (Rhetorical question, as we already know a number have been, so don't reply.) That list is very telling. -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Pfft, red herring. How many times have valid objections been facetiously thrown out ? If this is intended to be given to all claims of bias, then it behooves you to examine it's effect at claimants, and yes some of them are valid and some of them are whiffy -- as are some of the sockpuppets trying to inject anti-Triump messages. That is to be expected and is id any such template will be working with. If it cannot handle that, then it's not useful. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that complaints of bias would get more traction if they were accompanied by RS and concrete suggestions for improvement. Complaints that do not do that are just bitching and soapboxing, and are thus rightfully rejected. Such comments should be shut down and redirected quickly into more constructive channels. -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Put it to the test - This would be getting in the way of real bias fixing and is not helping direct anyone to that kind of approach. If this cannot handle either flavor of what claims of bias have been, then it's just not useful. I'm saying this would be Mandruss having an institutionalized denialism and offensive tone-deafness, not as good as even a simple line of text. A single line about your point would be better withOUT starting by two whole paragraphs of condescending dismissiveness and finishing with three bullets of off-topic items. I don't think this is even going to be doing Mandruss any good -- he'll just have offended further about an inappropriate form-letter response. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Claims of bias are not bias, Mark. The very fact you have responded this way is evidence of the need for something like what Mandruss has produced. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt that there is bias in the article, it would be EXCEPTIONAL to say anything else. But the question here is whether Mandruss responding to claims of bias would get bad results from this or not. So put it to the test -- doing pings and getting reviews of it from some of the people it supposedly would have been given to just seems an obvious way. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to think good results means pleasing these policy-ignorant Trump supporters. No, that is not the object here, nor is it a meaningful test. The object is to inform them respectfully, not please them. If a few of them are pleased to be informed, great, but I wouldn't expect many of them to be satisfied with anything short of: "Yeah, you're right, we'll get right on it and we hope to have an article resembling Obama's within a month. And thanks so much for calling us out on this!" Not happening. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss You are proposing using it with claims of bias -- yet seem unwilling to actually do so and see if real results would be an improvement. Also unwilling to hear any actual negative comment about this being a bad idea as possibly valid, or to see that having it directed to your own claims here shows that it did not get positive results from even the creator. Look, you can TALK however you want -- but accept that you've been given honest opinion that this long form letter is a much worse response than just a single line of normal human TALK, and were unwilling to check it against reality. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss should be commended for this effort, as it's sadly needed.

Responding to claims of bias at Trump-related articles is a thankless and pointless job, and experienced editors who make such complaints need to be taken behind the shed and forced to read NPOV a dozen times, and then never take the word "bias" in their mouths again. Yes, bias exists, and we are supposed to document it accurately, and we should bring our own POV into line with the accurate biases. The making of the claim is usually related to ignorance of NPOV and the misguided notion that NPOV means something like "No Point of View", which is utter BS. Experienced editors who make such accusations need to take their own biases up to consideration and weigh them against the fact-based biases in RS, and how Wikipedia's policies require us to faithfully document those biases, without getting in the way. We favor fact-based biases, not biases based on unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. They need to bring their own biases into line with the biases in those fact-based sources.

My little template {{Talk abuse}} creates this pointed message. I have never used it yet, but there are certainly many times it has been needed:

Please refrain from abusing article talk pages. Your recent comments seem to be contrary to what reliable sources, and our articles based on those reliable sources, say on the topic. In fact, they seem to be coming from the narratives pushed by unreliable sources. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Thanks!

We waste a lot of time in discussions with people who do not agree with the narrative of articles based on RS. By doing so, they are striking directly at the primacy of RS as the arbiters of proper POV and narrative on the subjects in question.

This is especially relevant in talk page discussions, as such discussions must have some basis in article improvement. Pushing ideas that are not based on RS cannot lead to article improvement, and are therefore violations of our talk page guidelines and a misuse of the talk page as a forum. When someone states such speculations, they are starting down a path that is tendentious and cannot lead to any good. Discussion cannot substitute for creating reliably-sourced content, and since those editors do not have RS they can use, they end up resorting to endless discussions. Please do not abuse talk pages with claims that are not backed by RS.

If you have a complaint about a biased article, then make sure your complaint includes a precisely worded proposed improvement, together with the RS you would use to back up your proposal. That way the discussion will be focused on content improvement and not on your opinions.

Complaints of bias aren't banned (although they often violate talk page policy), but much of the time they should be quickly shut down and redirected into a more constructive discussion, because this constant bitching because an article does not sympathize with one's own personal POV, misguided political sympathies, and belief in conspiracy theories isn't policy compliant. -- Valjean (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Valjean, just noticed your username change from BullRangifer; according to the style of your posts, I thought I knew you already! Good work on the notice, but your current wording sounds a bit WP:BITEy to me. Can you think of a formulation that would be somewhat less off-putting to good-faith "believers" who come here to complain of bias? The difficulty in this exercise (and this remark goes for Mandruss' prose as well) is to explain why the article looks biased while not giving the impression that it must look biased. I'd be happy to help both of you workshop improvements to your text. Not on this talk page though. Ping me elsewhere if you'd like to take up my offer. — JFG ^talk 11:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted. Hello, BR. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. O3000 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, Like – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss for writing that, and thanks Valjean for the other essay. starship.paint (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Good work. Thank you Mandruss. Another resource that you could list would be Conservapedia, where Trump is described as a "strong conservative" who has a $10 billion net worth. - MrX 🖋 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  MrX - it's a good thing that "Trump does not believe in the Climate Change hysteria", but unfortunately, "Trump seems to be on the side of the homosexual agenda". A great selling point for Trump is that he "is not known to be beholden to any big-money donors." The article highlights several quotes from Trump, including that: "We have no leader in this country", and: "Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people." starship.paint (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Why the fuck are we even mentioning Conservapedia here? Somebody please hat this. — JFG ^talk 11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I was discussing the subject of this section. You don't get to hide it because you disagree with what I wrote. - MrX 🖋 12:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I agree with you that Conservapedia is bullcrap, and I further assert that discussing it, even in jest, is not helpful to talk page chatter aiming to improve this article. If your goal was to help improve Mandruss' prose, and you feel that the text he drafted should mention Conservapedia, then I understand your objection, and I probably over-reacted when Starship.paint added a dose of sarcasm in his reply to your suggestion. Let's call it a day, please. — JFG ^talk 00:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)