Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

RfC: Re-name "Executive Order 13769" as "Muslim ban"

There is a clear consensus that the subsection "Executive Order 13769" under "Immigration" should not be renamed to "Muslim ban" per WP:POV and WP:LABEL.

Some RfC participants suggested alternative names that they would support, the most common of which was "Travel ban". Other suggestions included "Muslim travel ban", "Muslim restriction", "Muslim travel restriction", "Trump travel ban", and "Trump travel restriction". There is no prejudice against creating a new RfC to discuss these suggested alternative names.

Cunard (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the sub-section "Executive Order 13769" under "Immigration" be re-named "Muslim ban"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Of course it should. Readers do not have a clue what "Executive Order 13769" is. The executive order in question goes by the name "Muslim ban" in reliable sources, and will forever be known as the Muslim ban. The long-term encyclopedic value is in using the descriptive commonly used term, not a numerical that no one has ever heard of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If someone were to come to me and ask what I knew about "EO 13769", I would know what he was talking about. Mgasparin (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. That's the common name. Trump also wrote that "preventing Muslim immigration" was the intent, which is why everyone knows of it by "Muslim ban": "In early May 2017, Spicer was asked by a reporter "If this White House is no longer calling this a 'Muslim ban'...why does the president's website still explicitly call for 'preventing Muslim immigration'?" After the question was asked, the text "DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION" was removed from Trump's campaign website." - Trump travel ban -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• We have articles which should also be retitled. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes That is the term our users know for this order. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:LABEL. Obviously a controversial label. Implies that there is a ban on Muslims, which there is not. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• No use Trump travel ban as a WP:NPOV name - also there are three executive actions that have been called such (they are listed in the article). --Pudeo (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  What do you think of Trump Muslim Ban? See lead sentence of that article. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• No per Purdeo Calidum 23:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• No It's a needlessly controversial term that's also somewhat misleading. The order self-evidently targeted Muslim-majority countries, but it didn't ban all Muslims from traveling to the United States, nor did it target all Muslim-majority countries. Travel ban is the better term. Orser67 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. While I generally think it would be better to have a neutral title, this is what Trump himself called it up until the time he signed it, and what some of his surrogates called it when making the television circuit, in addition to news sources and talk radio. The messaging was changed when the intent was challenged as unconstitutional, to improve the optics and shift the focus. Nonetheless, it’s still used, and is still the WP:COMMONNAME. That being said, I don’t think we necessarily need to retitle any articles. Especially Executive Orders, which are commonly in this format. That’s what redirects are for. For the scope of this RfC though, I think retitling the section header is appropriate. With the caveat that perhaps it be “Muslim Travel Ban” instead, as I understand that’s the form more commonly used now. But whatever consensus decides is fine. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• NO - because that would be a false portrayal and partisan framing, and also does not match the WP title. It isn’t *A* ban, singular, it’s a few efforts in travel restrictions. And they don’t ban *MUSLIMS*, they banned certain nations including Venezuela and North Korea. *NO CHANGE NEEDED*, but if one is done it should be the Purdeo suggestion to use Trump travel ban, which then can cover all the travel restrictions and any others if more happen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• No because it does not ban all Muslims but rather prevents Muslims from countries considered to have a high level of Islamic terrorist activity and also, as MarkBassett has pointed out, the executive order includes a ban on travel to USA from Venezuela and North Korea. Finally, the ‘Muslim ban’ was a talking point colloquialism used by critics who felt it unfairly discriminated against Muslims which was not meant to be taken to be taken as a strictly and literally accurate description of the executive order. Therefore, it is an inappropriate name for a section title. It could be okay, I feel, to use the term ‘Muslim ban’ in article text to explain to our readers that the executive order has been criticised as discriminatory and as a “Muslim ban” so long as the context is given that not all Muslim countries and thus not all Muslims are affected by the executive order. I could support the follow section title: Travel ban--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Great to see all the administration's falsehoods and talking points repeated here. Not a single Venezuelan has been prevented from entering the country after the introduction of the ban (as of late September 2019), and of the only 115 North Koreans who have sought visas in the US after implementation, 72% were allowed in.[1] Per RS descriptions and per the justifications of the administration, it's a blatant ban on Muslim immigration within the bounds of what the administration could legally do. That the RS description 'Muslim ban' must mean that literally not a single Muslim be allowed entry is your own strange personal interpretation and requirement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was markbassets talking point above about Venezuela that I picked up on — I assumed, since he is a regular editor here, that his information was likely accurate. I imagine most of the 72% of North Koreans admitted to the USA were dissidents who had escaped North Korea and could provide useful intelligence information and posed little risk. I did not mean literally every single Muslim either, but I meant if the executive order had a general ban on Muslims regardless of the country they came from then yes that is a Muslim ban as it basically bans all Muslims outside of exceptional circumstances — but that is not the case here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:COMMONNAME; MOS:HEAD requires the same rules for sections as for article titles, and that means that in a case like this (where there's a clear common name used in coverage and the press) we must use the common name even if some people find it controversial or offensive. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• No – First, it's a travel ban against citizens of certain countries for security reasons, not a ban against Muslims. Second, there are several versions of this legislation with their own articles, so that we must be precise in what we point to. — JFG ^talk 08:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  I would support a section rename to "Travel ban", because all three versions of the legislation are linked in the following hatnote. — JFG ^talk 08:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Show us your sources that verify your claim it was motivated by "security reasons?" SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support a section rename to “Travel ban” (or bans), it doesn’t have to have his name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• No As others have mentioned, Travel Ban would be both more accurate and NPOV. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• No as per WP:NPOV. Travel ban is more accurate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• No as written: rename to "Muslim restriction" or "Muslim travel restriction". From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• No as per NPOV. Travel ban sounds far more accurate imho. –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per Davey 2010 and Pudeo. Mgasparin (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. The current section name is unclear as most readers don't know that the numerical designation refers to that particular executive order, but "Muslim ban" would clearly violate NPOV. The section should be renamed "Travel ban." It would be much clearer than the current name and it would be neutral. SMP0328. (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No Per Pudeo and Calidum. "Muslim ban" isn't neutral. Travel ban may be better, but I favour the current executive order number, with the section Lede updated to describe it as a "travel ban". Doug Mehus (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  No NPOV RockingGeo (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  No NPOV. "Muslim Ban" is misleading. 88Dragons (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • This account was created two weeks ago, bears all the hallmarks of a sockpuppet account, and before an automated editing spree today, had only edited three pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• No Per WP:NPOV Garp21 (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a single-purpose account who was created five weeks ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:POV and WP:LABEL. Obviously Muslim ban is a POV push. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• No: Per WP:POV and WP:LABEL. "Muslim Ban" is less descriptive and more pejorative than the order's name or "travel ban." We can note it was labeled a "Muslim ban" by its opponents, but we shouldn't have a header calling it such. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• No – per above, "Muslim ban" is not accurate, and not NPOV. However, I also agree "Executive Order 13769" is not a good heading. I would support something like "Travel ban", "Muslim travel ban" or "Muslim travel restriction", "Trump travel ban" or "Trump travel restriction". – Levivich 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment His initial words were "a complete and total ban of all Muslims entering the United States until we figure out what the hell is going on." Then after his election the wording changed to "travel ban", though it was known exactly what he meant or why would hundreds of protests sprung up around the country to show support for Muslims in airports. I am leaning towards "Travel" but there is plenty of reason to call a spade a spade as well. At the very least his initial remark should be in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin Opening Statement (C-SPAN).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Pardoning war criminals

Trump pardoned convicted or charged war criminals. This is more descriptive than saying he pardoned people who happened to be members of the US military, because it leaves it unclear that these people were convicted/charged with war crimes or just normal crimes unrelated to their duties as members of the military.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is your opinion that they are war criminals, but their convictions have been voided or prevented by being pardoned. Legally, a pardon makes a conviction void in the same way if a criminal defendant successfully appeals his conviction; it's as if it never existed. Wikipedia deals with facts. You may consider these men to be war criminals, but factually they are not convicted of being war criminals. To refer to them as being war criminals anyway in the article violates NPOV. SMP0328. (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add a source for your legal commentary. Every source covering these pardons describe the individuals as having been convicted or charged with war crimes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:SMP0328, a pardon doesn’t “void” or vacate a conviction, or ameliorate a charge. A convicted criminal is still technically a criminal, even if they’ve been pardoned. A gubernatorial or presidential pardon is *in addition* to any legal proceedings, and doesn’t erase anyone’s record. Someone convicted of war crimes is technically a war criminal, regardless of the issuance of pardons. And besides, we go by reliable sources, not personal opinion. If reliable sources call these war crimes, they are de facto war criminals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The facts are a bit hard to see among reporting of posturing, but it seems about pardons in section 6.4.1 for three convicted and one charged. None seem by WEIGHT reported as ‘war crimes’, so that’s inappropriate wording or OR TALK. (One was convicted of a posing in a photo?). And are not ‘criminal’. For three it can be said they were convicted but are not criminal, because Pardon absolves their criminal status if not the history. The fourth was can be said charged, but was not convicted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• A federal pardon does not annul a conviction. See https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions, such as the "What is the difference between a commutation of sentence and a pardon?" section, as well as Federal pardons in the United States. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

Please change the "guns" area from its current contribution to my contribution. I believe the current contribution does not elaborate on Trump's overall stance and action on guns. This is just for a school assignment. I need to take a picture of the contribution before I add mine and then take a picture after, showing that I added it. Afterwards, I need to send it in to my teacher. It is due tonight at 8 pm.

Here is the current contribution:

"Guns The administration rolled back an Obama-era regulation prohibiting gun ownership among the approximately 75,000 individuals who received Social Security checks due to mental illness and who were deemed unfit to handle their financial affairs.[375] The administration ended American involvement in the Arms Trade Treaty, a UN agreement to curb the international trade of conventional arms with countries having poor human rights records. America had been abiding by the treaty since 2014, although it had not yet been ratified.[376]

The administration banned bump stocks in March 2019.[377]"

And here is what I wish to add:

"Regarding gun rights, Trump seems to have ambiguous views. He published a book called “The America We Deserve” (2000) and in it, he said that “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” being sure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals . In February 2018, after the Parkland shooting, President Trump supported taking guns out of the hands of criminals first, then practicing due process later, much to the chagrin of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who had endorsed Trump in 2016 (Mindock, 2018). However, in March of that year, in response to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens's statement about repealing the 2nd Amendment, Trump tweeted, “The second amendment will never be repealed. As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens” (Chavez, 2018). In December 2018, President Trump banned bump stocks, an attachment that permits a semiautomatic weapon to fire, rapidly. Despite his talk about defending the 2 nd Amendment, Trump signed this into an Executive Order because of the shooting that happened in Las Vegas the previous year, where a gunman opened fire on a crowd of people, using bump stocks (De Lea, 2019). The ban also allows for anyone to be arrested if they do not relinquish their bump stocks within 90 days to be put in prison. In response to this ban, Michael Hammond, a member of the Gun Owners of America(GOA), said that Trump “Trump risks losing both conservative and traditionally Democratic Midwestern voters” and that “I think that I am no longer committed to voting for Donald Trump. I think he’s about to make that ‘read my lips” mistake. He thinks he can do anything on the Second Amendment and the voters will love him” (Knighton, 2019). Following the deadly mass shootings in Texas and Ohio in early August 2019, where numerous people were murdered, he endorsed red flag laws that would allow for law enforcement officers to obtain a court order, that would allow for guns to be seized from anyone who might be a danger to themselves, drawing the ire of pro-gun advocates (Watson, 2019) . While wanting new gun laws, Trump spoke at a rally that same month, assuring his supporters that he would “always uphold the Second Amendment”, furthermore, he only seems to be using double talk about gun rights to his base in his bid to win re-election (Samuels, 2019)" "

Gun Owners of America. [online] Gunowners.org. Available at: https://gunowners.org/trump-may-lose-gun-rights-supporters-votes/ [Accessed 6 Nov. 2019].

Mindock, C. (2018). Trump says firearms should sometimes be confiscated from US citizens without due process: 'Take the guns first'. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-take-guns-mental-healthflorida-school-shooting-due-process-a8233751.html [Accessed 6 Nov. 2019].

Samuels, B. (2019). Trump vows to 'always uphold the Second Amendment' amid ongoing talks on gun laws. [online] TheHill. Available at: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/457655-trump-vows-toalways-uphold-the-second-amendment-amid-ongoing-talks [Accessed 6 Nov. 2019].

Trump, D. (2000). The America We Deserve. New York: Renaissance Books. Watson, K. (2019). Second Amendment advocates warn Trump over support for "red flag" laws. [online] Cbsnews.com. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-flag-laws-second-amendmentadvocates-warn-trump-about-support-for-gun-reform-measure/ [Accessed 6 Nov. 2019].

Thank you EuropaIon (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 01:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Would a section or sub section listing the unusual number of conspiracy theories that swirl around this administration be appropriate? We have a relevant category. However, using this would be original research. But we do have this, this, this, and this. And that’s not even including theories that are so crazy that they are only pushed by supporters of this administration and not administration officials. My point is that have the sources. How can we use them to weave into the fabric of this article?

User:That man from Nantucket - Crafting a generic collection seems WP:OFFTOPIC as the article is about the Presidency -- official actions and major events during the term(s) of Donald Trump. I don't think there is enough WEIGHT for a separate collection article though. Individual items might get their own article if WP:NOTABLE, such as Pizzagate. Or maybe one gets mentioned when they are part of a bigger set of events. (For example, the theory of Joe Biden protecting Hunter or that there is a server in Ukraine, but I think they were excluded from the Impeachment Inquiry article.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there is..this list is only going to get longer and it`s relevant to the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:6467:7599:E9B6:ED8F (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Criminal charges against Trump associates

The article currently states:

Six Trump campaign advisers and staff were indicted and five pled guilty to criminal charges.

Yesterday I added that those charges were "unrelated to Russian election interference",[3] and SPECIFICO reverted stating this was "UNDUE commentary".[4] Because this sentence immediately follows a description of the Mueller probe that investigated "Russian interference in the 2016 elections and related matters, including coordination or links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government", it is grossly misleading to just mention the charges brought against Trump associates whereas Mueller specifically charged Russian entities and individuals for interference activities and explicitly mentioned that no American person helped Russia (except an unwitting Richard Pinedo in California who operated an identity fraud business). Consequently, either my edit should be restored, or all mention of criminal charges against Trump associates should be removed. Another option would be to indicate that Mueller charged Russians for interference activities and Trump associates for unrelated crimes. — JFG ^talk 11:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you are advocating SYNTH? SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Yes the line positioning is misleading and "unrelated to Russian election interference" would clarify that. Alternatively, one could move it for clarity and better reflection of WEIGHT. The report concluded the prevailing evidence "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" but documented ten actions by the Trump presidency that could be construed as obstruction of justice. Six Trump campaign advisers and staff were indicted and five pled guilty to criminal charges. But really, I'm thinking it is more time to delete the line. TALK has been to merge and condense the last two paragraphs into one shorter mention of investigations, and the line isn't a big part of this article and it isn't about the article topic the Presidency, just not solid WP:LEAD for here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Travel bans planning to add more

Seems travel ban section will get additional countries ... Belarus, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania per Reuters. Announced for countries not meeting security requirements such as biometrics and info-sharing. I suggest wait for actual signing, if any, before putting something into the article. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 20:53, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

It was signed today and I added it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

There is a reason why many consider Wikipedia to be a very biased conglomeration of leftist propaganda. The page in reference (Presidency of Donald Trump) reads like a primer on misinformation and distortion. Were it not for the guidelines supposedly in place (neutral point of view) I'd have skipped on and just maintained my aversion to the nonsense that that found its way to the entry being discussed (and Wikipedia as a whole).

Whatever the entry (Presidency of Donald Trump) is, it isn't a neutral point of view. It is written with the point of casting the Trump presidency in as bad of a light as possible, while pretending to have some resemblance of objectivity. Pretending is the key word.

Not only is the entry not neutral; it makes assertions that aren't supported by a verifiable source, and those sources that are cited are questionable or worse.

For example: " President Trump sought substantial spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid..."

That assertion is flat out false; which likely explains the complete lack of a verifiable source for the claim. Trump's proposed budgets haven't sought cuts to either Medicare or Medicaid. His current budget does propose a reduction in the amount of increases wanted/demanded by political opponents, but Trump's proposed budget actually increases the money to both programs (above expected inflation). No matter how much pretending one does, an increase in spending is not a cut.

Looking up the proposed budget is a fairly simple task, but a task that the author [of that line] didn't bother with. Instead that author simply ran with the false claims of the leftist media - and made it clear that Wikipedia doesn't truly care for the truth either.

Unfortunately that line is but one example of the falsehoods, distortions, and bias found in this entry.

The astute will take my critique for what it is - an opportunity to make Wikipedia far better than it is. The public is completely repulsed by the agenda-driven crap passed off as news and/or whatever the 'Presidency of Donald Trump' entry is supposed to be.

My bet though is that nothing will be done to correct the many issues with the entry, or to make sure the guidelines are actually followed. It has long seemed that neither (the truth, or following Wikipedia's stated guidelines) is all that important to Wikipedia.

I've already spent way too much time addressing the issues with the entry (and Wikipedia as a whole). I don't really care if Wikipedia chooses to remain a source for disinformation, or not: certainly not enough to battle the hordes of leftist hacks who routinely ignore the whole neutral guideline thingy. My point was to make Wikipedia aware of the fact that the entry is an agenda-driven pile of nonsense. And that point has been driven home. Correct it, or not. That's up to the people who believe Wikipedia has something to offer the world. I'm not one of them.

OntheOutsidelookingin (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)OntheOutsidelookingin

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

Please change the link to the CDC from "Center for Disease Control Boys" to "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". Under the section 6.19 Science, the link to the CDC in this passage "The administration reportedly sent a list to the CDC on words that the agency was prohibited from using in its official communications, including "transgender", "fetus", "evidence-based", "science-based", "vulnerable", "entitlement", and "diversity"." links to the Wikipedia page for the musical group CDC (Center for Disease Control Boys) instead of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Abscisses (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That is rather funny, I wonder how long that was like that? PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Found it! Looks like it was Snooganssnoogans that added it back in December of 2017.[5] Nice. PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: That took some dedication! I went back about 7 months and gave up. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The Trump Organization/D. Trump earns what the Secret Service pays

Source is the Washington Post. I would like to see that informattion implemented in the D.Trump-article/english Wikipedia, too. Im going to go for it, if there isn some sort of justified objection.LennBr (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear what is being proposed... tend to think that means it could be more trivia (WP:UNDUE). In any case, we generally avoid opinion pieces and the url is an opinion piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dangers of trichloroethylene

Content on the administration downplaying the dangers of trichloroethylene should be restored. The Center for Investigative Reporting is clearly a RS, and the piece is incredibly in-depth and comprehensive. The editor who removed it was a tendentious editor who stalked me to this page and has now been topic-banned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems a little undue at the moment. Also them being topic banned does not matter for here. Comments on content not contributes. PackMecEng (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How is it undue to mention this along with all the concerted efforts by the administration to deregulate dangerous chemicals? Keeping this out would make the environment section incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC) 

It is not an exhaustive list of everything they have said or done. It is something that likely will not be noted in the long run. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

When further context develops, it can always be removed, summarized, or subsumed into a larger group of deregulated toxins. The notnews argument doesn't preclude us from doing the best we can with currently available information. It seems to be getting quite a bit of coverage due to how nasty and well-known the effects of this substance and past efforts to substitute away from its use. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would still rather it get past the recentism stage before making any comments in the article about it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans UNDUE. It is UNDUE if not widely covered. You really can’t post same-day breaking story in a smaller site like “Reveal” and have much WEIGHT or responses. You need to wait for the WEIGHT. Give these things a 48-hour waiting period and see if it makes it to BBC.com and Foxnews.com and Usatoday.com. In this case, it’s now a couple days later, and I’m not seeing the trichloroethylene story at those or CNN or CNBC... So I think the media gave it no WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Looking at the section, it needs a serious effort to focus on the headline items and giving the event. It’s spending two and a half screens on many small bits and mostly covering the bureaucratic steps in detail ...Zzzzzz. Burying the Paris agreement pullout in the middle of para2 as less important than they changed a website, and a long para of vague generalities and quoting non-famous editorials and American Journal of say who isn’t good. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your hostility towards peer-reviewed research from the best journals has been noted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your reliance on breaking news undue trivia for an encyclopedia has been noted? No idea what that is supposed to mean? Was it supposed to be like a threat or a warning? Really makes no sense especially since that is not really the what they were saying. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The guy is arguing that comprehensive overviews and assessments of the Trump administration's policies from journals such as the American Journal of Public Health are putting him to sleep and that they should not be in the encyclopedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be making an undue argument. So no idea what you are on about again. PackMecEng (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans What we have here is failure to understand “UNDUE”. That you think 99 articles from 1000 journals interesting is fine, but it doesn’t make for good encyclopedic writing or understandable content. I repeat - focus on the headlines, above putting us to sleep with details of bureaucratic steps with almost no coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

False news

While we can certainly assess the veracity of Donald Trump broadly, we certainly should not be repeating these falsehoods throughout the article. There are over 50 uses of words containing "false" in the article, and many of these are simply precede the unencyclopaedic repetition of incorrect statements. I'm asking editors to be mindful of this in the future, as we do not need to repeat his statements in order to report on the events of this administration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an article that does list all of Trump's false claims? To ignore them would not be encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Time for a split, Onetwothreeip.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Such an article does exist, for some reason. Veracity of statements by Donald Trump PackMecEng (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But strewth, I know what "veracity" means, but would never use it in normal conversation. No wonder my quick search couldn't find any such article. Why the pompous name? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not remember how that name was chosen. My guess would be pompous people. PackMecEng (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng and HiLo48: - a requested move failed almost a year ago. Perhaps you may want to try again. starship.paint (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's important that WP editors not be the ones to pick and choose among Trump's statements, but where RS single out particular statements, they can and should be described or repeated, as appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The lies are an essential part of this administration and its policies. How can you cover, say, the Trump administration's approach to health care without noting that the discourse is laced with the most inane lies and gaslighting? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be repeating those statements, especially if they are lies. It would be very easy to describe the government's actions without mentioning any statements from anybody, whether they are lies or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - if it's very easy to do so, and there are over 50 uses of words containing "false" in the article, how about you show us 3 examples of how to accomplish what you proposed? starship.paint (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Simply by removing the quotes. For example, there is this: In his seventeen-minute inaugural address, Trump made a broad condemnation of contemporary America, pledging to end "American carnage" and saying America's "wealth, strength and confidence has dissipated". He repeated the "America First" slogan he had used in the campaign and promised that "[e]very decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American factories". That could easily be In his seventeen-minute inaugural address, Trump made a broad condemnation of contemporary America. He repeated the "America First" slogan he had used in the campaign and promised that the decisions of his administration would be made to benefit American workers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - (1) what does the above have to do with false news? I thought that was the conversation in this section which you started. (2) I don't think the trim was an improvement. broad condemnation is just too vague. promised that the decisions would benefit isn't very accurate either - he was only referring to decisions on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs that would always benefit workers, and factories as well. He didn't promise anything on say, the economy at large, science, regulations, healthcare, etc, that could conceivably affect American workers. starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, it was regarding the over-quoting of Donald Trump, which I said was very easy to remove. I don't think those alterations were better or worse, it just shows that it is very much possible to remove the quotes from the paragraph, as I said. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip I would suggest just deleting the 20% such items of lowest WEIGHT. It seems like a lot of repetitions of the word “false” are lines included mostly to say he said something wrong. If it’s something trivial, it’s just UNDUE. e.g whether Obama wanted to visit North Korea just isn’t vital to the Trump Presidency nor widely mentioned. That Trump budget in 2018 increased military pay significantly while none of the 8 Obama budgets did anything more than a fractional COLA somehow is just giving the WaPo focus criticism of his wording and not anything of pay raise facts. The article is overly long, so deleting some trivia would be a good thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Bear market is an objective term

@SPECIFICO: A "bear market" is an objectively defined economic term describing a market that closes more than 20% down from a 52-week high. I modified pre-existing text that you reverted to that did not substantively change its meaning, before expanding with a purely objective fact. Please do not revert a good faith objective edit, instead of supplying a source if you felt it needed one. - Drlight11 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is not. It's cable-tv stockbroker jargon of recent vintage. But you provide no source. If you had good sourcing, you could use it even though it's nonsense. Find your own sources. You must have some in mind, right? SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course I have sources: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/investing/bear-market-stocks-dow-sandp/index.html and https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dow-just-tumbled-into-a-bear-market-ending-the-longest-bull-market-run-in-historyheres-how-those-downturns-last-on-average-2020-03-11 cover both the definition of the term and specify that the current situation applies. I was chastising you for inappropriate Wikipedia activity - reverting a change because it was less than perfect (i.e. was not immediately sourced) is not constructive to the project. - Drlight11 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I damage Wikipedia every day. Of course if the market shoots up 25% next month we'll have a bull market, I suppose. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Drlight11 Umm... try edits in the body of the article for now, pending more time/events. What is a large enough WEIGHT in RS would perhaps become enough content here to deserve a line of it’s own in the lead per WP:LEAD. But at the moment the bear market in U.S. stocks is just a day old and not yet made impacts or had a long period of coverage. Besides, it seems possible it won’t get LEAD on it’s nature and precedent. Neither of the two booms got article space - I think that was because stocks are not an act of the Presidency. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point about the appropriate weight to justify mentioning something in the article lead. Thanks for weighing in! - Drlight11 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Markbassett. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Has or has not the broad Russell 2000 index sunk below the level of Trump's inauguration? EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion here does not make sense due to two reasons: first its a very volatile situation and we are not a newsticker that includes the stock market movements every day and secondly the stock market is not a policy of the administrations. If we want to have an assessment on Trumps presidency on the stock market, it probably needs to be done after the presidency is over. Also note that neither Presidency of Barack Obama nor Presidency of George W. Bush mention the stock market performance over the course of the presidency (there is one mention in the George W Bush article in relation to TARP which are directly related). --hroest 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The word “volatile” seems more appropriate - since the US stock market today went up 9% during and after his announcement of national emergency measures, taking it back out of 20% down - for the moment. Apparently today’s speech went over far better than earlier this week news of travel ban. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best to give some distance from how the speech today was received. The markets displayed a characteristic dead cat bounce before continuing their downward spiral due to the coronavirus outbreak and the failure to contain it by the Trump administration, Trump's "Katrina" or "Chernobyl" some RS have begun to call it, and I'm sure we'll see significant weight in coming weeks. Markbassett, I have seen you on this page admonishing users for putting breaking news into articles, and yet you are offering your spin here. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:PunxtawneyPickle Yep, I often recommend at least a 48-hour holding period for further developments, and to avoid the story-du-jour. Here it did indeed change the next day and the market now re-reversed again. I still think any stock market in general needs to edit body first, and LEAD is unlikely because it’s just not a Presidential act and that such typically doesn’t get in a Presidency article. I agree with hroest though that “Volatile” is a better description of multiple swings up and down of over 5%. "Volatility" was also in RS for a few weeks, not just one day. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Including attempt to get exclusive rights for the US for Covid 19 vaccine

Can I suggest somewhere under the section on COVID 19 that it is mentioned Trump attempted to get exclusive rights to the vaccine for the US? I don't think it needs to be long but seems important to include

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/not-for-sale-anger-in-germany-at-report-trump-seeking-exclusive-coronavirus-vaccine-deal

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:John Cummings Not advisable - this is about a rumor reaction in Germany, with some politicians there posturing. There is not enough WEIGHT to support inclusion, and it is not clear that there actually is anything there. Come back if the story gets lots more coverage and some facts substantiated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• How much more coverage? Oodles and oodles? It's been widely reported with confirmation, including the German government actions. I would be OK with 1/2 a sentence at least. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Not really plausible, but given the article is "Presidency of", an item should have a fairly large WEIGHT and some real effects. The whole concept of making a vaccine exclusive sounds implausible, so it needs some substantiation more than just a rumor from an 'unnamed source' and some explanation of the logic. It all just makes no sense. I could believe signing on to be included in any developments as probably every Pharma in the U.S. is doing collaboration with absolutely everyone they can across the world to solve this ASAP -- although that still means circa June 20202022 -- but 'exclusive rights' makes no sense. Exactly how is a company going to pack up and ship its labs and not lose time in the 12-18 months everyone is developing a vaccine ? Exactly who - without a National Health Services - are they going to sell out thru or control distribution ? Why would a company sell to just 300 million folks when they could sell to 7 billion folks ? Why would any nation want the enmity or prevalence of the disease to go on and continue to disrupt trade ? Reuters is conveying the Welt story as having denials from the company and ambassador so seems maybe this was just an internet/media hoax. Come back if it's big next week or something more turns up ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the memo. Fox is no longer denying there's a pandemic. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Mmm unrelated snark ? That's just silly. You shouldn't do that, it just looks like bias to the point of willing to look stupid. (And then you have me getting to point out you did something silly -- nobody wants that.) Look, the story hasn't much for cites, facts, weight, or impact... there doesn't seem to really be anything here. Come back if something real and big occurs on this story, otherwise just move along. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Its clearly a notable development, and a sentence would be DUEWEIGHT. ——SN54129 08:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

See more at Talk:COVID-19 testing#Germany missing? regarding CureVac#Reports of Trump administration overtures. X1\ (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Further content to consider RE: Virus response

Declining test kits from WHO

Also, How U.S. coronavirus testing stalled.

Kushner and Miller in charge

And The presidential speech that precipitated panic buying in stores and selling in financial markets: Inside Trump’s failed attempt to calm coronavirus fears and In Rare Oval Office Speech, Trump Voices New Concerns and Old Themes

User:Specifico - I inserted a section break. Please don't post your mornings feed to us, or put it (unsigned) into an unrelated thread. If you want to propose some edit here, I suggest you try looking at some source more neutral than the usual critics of WaPo (and NYT), and see how things are covered more widely. But in general, give it a 48-hour waiting period and write something more than just a pasted URL. Cheers p.s. signed Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke, or did you change your username to "Cheers"? Cheers. (Signed) SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with adding those related second level topics, but I am not going to remove your new section header. Just rename it per WP:TPG to clarify. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO - OK, now come back in another 24 hours if there are more cites and any actual proposed edit ... in other words please stop pasting in just a URL of itty-bitty-story-of-the-day items out of your feed. I kind of doubt it will fit though. For just a one-day item and different tale the next day it seems unlikely even NYT will even have it covered a couple days later. Besides ... 'people freaked out by his Wednesday speech' would then mean a 'people reassured by his Friday speech' also belongs. And then 'people freaked out Monday by his Fed rate drop' and so forth. That is just a collection of day-by-day trivia. INDISCRIMINATE and SOAPBOX apply. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Related and [6] SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• No edit proposed. Waste of time urls, just snipe-du-jour over trivia items. At least the bare URLs are no longer same-day. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• We have the best URLs. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Evangelical role in Trump Administration policy and politics

To my knowledge, the prominence of evangelicals in the Trump Administration and his political co-branding with the evangelical movement, have not been summarized in any one section of article text.

This recent analysis might provide a starting point to find RS reporting on the matter. [7] Also [8] [9] [10].

SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

goeod idea. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree too. But your first source is a opinion piece by Katherine Stewart (journalist), hence cannot be used as an rs in the article. There are many influences on the Trump administration, including Trump personally, and these need to be taken into account in the section. TFD (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no such policy. It's a RS for opinion, so use it with attribution. -- Valjean (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It is analysis -- a tertiary source useful and usable as such and useful as a pointer to facts That require RS secondary verification. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is clearly labelled "Opinion" right at the top of the page. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for paraphrasing my statement. Now others will know how you would have replied to yourself. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I put the explanation in because I thought you considered using it as a tertiary source. To elaborate, Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says tertiary sources can be used to establish due weight. But obviously an opinion piece cannot be used to do that, since the writer chooses what weight to give evidence in order to support her conclusions. TFD (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What did he know and when did he know it?

It was just one brief statement in a radio newscast, and I don't even know where the radio newscast comes from, much less if there is a web site. But before anyone had ever heard of COVID-19, the statement was made that Trump knew such a pandemic was a possibility and still cut funding for dealing with such a situation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Vchimpanzee For funding, I suggest googling before 2020 to find whatever was said at the time about pandemic funding. (Anything after the pandemic started is suspect of being revisionist or political.) My suspicion is everyone worldwide ‘knew better’ after SARS and MERS, and popular portrayals such as Contagion (film) and The Walking Dead. But the world didn’t act on that, it just wasn’t real. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: you could start at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#History and preparations of pandemics by the U.S. X1\ (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There's an article about it in Quartz.[11] We probably won't know the full story for months. TFD (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I managed to waste my last day at the library. Maybe I can find sites at home that don't mess up my computer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy hunting, Vchimpanzee. X1\ (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point. NPOV says that the material in articles should reflect what is in reliable sources according to their coverage. To do that, all we need to do is find out what major news sources are saying about Trump and ensure that this article includes what they are giving most attention to. If something about Trump isn't in your face when you consult them, then it probably lacks weight for inclusion. It's only when writing about topics that receive little attention that finding information requires casting a wide net. TFD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Umm, internal dialogue is really hard to do, and what we know vs. what we really understand or how we value, plus oddities in thought such as the map-maker heuristic and mimicry. And in this case, mostly we just didn’t know anything of the COVID specifics at the time. Bloomberg at least had one view on when he suddenly woke up and shifted to being one of the most aggressive in steps here. But that's just the articles speculation from how events coincided. ANyway, capturing the progression from known unknowns to unknown unknowns and knowns just seems a difficult book length topic for several years from now. At the moment it's also open to hindsight bias and wild speculations what alternative histories might have been. And until after the election it's also prone to partisan posturing. I’m dubious that we could even parse out some things he knows from the word salad in explicit speeches. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This has to be quick. Are these sources relevant? I'm not sure, because the opening above is a bit vague:

• False: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false-claim-about-cdcs-global-anti-pandemic-work/
• True: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/486817-trump-budget-chief-holds-firm-on-cdc-cuts-amid-virus-outbreak
• https://thehill.com/policy/finance/488521-trump-reverses-on-request-to-cut-cdc-niaid-funding
• True: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/
• True: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/13/nation/trump-attacks-cdc-over-coronavirus-preparedness-though-he-eliminated-an-office-dedicated-pandemic-prevention/
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/here-are-17-ways-the-trump-administration-bungled-its-coronavirus-response/

These may not be for identical events, and also make sure to check dates. -- Valjean (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Valjean - Not relevant to 'what did he know and when did he know it'. Generically yes 'cut CDC pandemic work' is a false claim (as is 'declined WHO offer of test kits'), true that at the start of March they wished to reduce CDC in other areas for 2021, true that request has been retracted in mid-March, true that in 2018 the NSC reorg lost the Admiral over the health security team along with many other staffing turnovers (and oddly that article conflicts about CDC pandemic work being cut), URL for Globe is hitting a paywall but from the title I can believe President Trump made a negative remark about CDC readiness, and I can believe Mother Jones as early as 3 March already had a list of things they didn't like. But none of those seem to speak to a timeline of discovery 'what he knew and when he knew it'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

See related Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5#U.S. cut CDC expert job in China months before virus outbreak, add?. X1\ (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

How many links to timelines do we need?

I recently replaced the links in the see also sections here with a single link to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020) citing this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American politics#Timeline spam in see also sections discussion. X1\ changed the link, which is fine, but then added back more timelines here. Should we have all these timeline links? PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In this case, (only) three wikilinks covers it all. Rather pithy. X1\ (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Zero. Preferably no more than one hatnote per HATNOTE - and usually there should be something else more valuable that has content, not just a list of items in chronological order. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Interference (before election day) is so extensive it grew to two parts: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (before July 2016) and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day)

While post-election day (called Investigations, although there is overlap) has dab: Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia, which wikilinks to

Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

2017

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017)

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)

2018

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)

2019–2020

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)

Three wikilinks to cover decades is both pithy and very significant to this presidency.

X1\ (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Zero - per WP:HATNOTE, one would be OK if it was to something that had more than just a list of items in chronological order. Multiple lists is doubly undesirable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's response to the coronavirus

Over the course of February and March, President Trump has: suggested that the outbreak could be over in April; downplayed the likelihood of the virus spreading within America's communities; declared that the virus would eventually vanish "like a miracle"; praised his own administration's response; declared a vaccine would be available faster than his own health officials' estimates; suggested that infected people can "go to work" and still recover; and blamed the Obama administration for slowing his own administration's testing.

Onetwothreeip, you removed my above addition, deeming it not particularly relevant and not encyclopaedic. Given these premises: (1) the coronavirus is a serious issue impacting the country, (2) Trump is the commander-in-chief running the country, (3) this article is about Trump's presidency and thus how he runs the country - I fail to see how President Trump's response to the coronavirus is irrelevant and unencyclopaedic. Perhaps you can explain more, perhaps others can give their views. starship.paint (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It could be justified to include information about the coronavirus outbreak in the United States here, but that is not the issue here. As such, I did not remove most of our content about the outbreak. What was included here was simply a collection of quotes arranged to reflect negatively on Trump, which is decidedly not neutral. This article should be seriously about this administration, not a list of dumb things Trump says. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - when you say a collection of quotes arranged to reflect negatively on Trump, which is decidedly not neutral, (1) if you feel that the material reflects negatively on Trump, perhaps that's on Trump himself. We are not obliged to keep negative material out. Plenty of encyclopedia subjects would be very happy to remove material that reflects negatively on them. (2) the material was arranged in chronological order, that's all. I could have put the praised his own administration and blamed the Obama administration together, had I really wanted to arrange it negatively. Also, article should be seriously about this administration - is Donald Trump not part of the Donald Trump administration? Is responding to a public health crisis not part of Trump's duties as president? Or is it that Donald Trump is not an important person in his own administration, so his words carry no weight, and won't influence anyone? starship.paint (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not about the content itself, it's about how it is written, which obviously goes further than simply chronologically. Praising his administration and criticising another's is really non-notable if nothing else. These comments are not part of his duties as president and are not particularly notable or relevant to the administration. They are only relevant as a curiosity of Donald Trump doing and saying things like a strange person. To the extent that his generally unusual comments are notable, it would be because of how others react or perceive them. Otherwise, this isn't a repository of random dumb things said by Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Exactly which comments are not part of his duties as president? All of them? starship.paint (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

At least the majority of them, probably all of them. It is not his duty as president to give an interview on Fox News where he gives his opinions about the coronavirus outbreak. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's actually see where he made these remarks.

1. suggested that the outbreak could be over in April [12] - White House business discussion with U.S. Governors, Feb 10
2. downplayed the likelihood of the virus spreading within America's communities [13] - White House press conference by Trump, Pence, and members of the coronavirus task force, Feb 27
3. declared that the virus would eventually vanish "like a miracle"; [14] - White House meeting with African American leaders, Feb 28
4. praised his own administration's response [15] - White House press conference by Trump, Pence, and members of the coronavirus task force, Feb 29
5. declared a vaccine would be available faster than his own health officials' estimates [16] - White House meeting of President Trump and members of the coronavirus task force with pharmaceutical companies, Mar 2
6. suggested that infected people can "go to work" and still recover [17] - calling in on Hannity, Mar 4
7. and blamed the Obama administration for slowing his own administration's testing - [18] - White House meeting of Trump and Pence with airline CEOs, March 4

So 6/7 of these statements were made at the White House during his official duties. Onetwothreeip, I'm afraid your argument is kaput in 6/7 cases, and so, I will be restoring the 6/7, and respect your view in leaving out the 1/7. starship.paint (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Those statements aren't part of his official duties either. It's not a duty of his to make those particular statements, regardless of where he made them. That argument is pretty irrelevant anyway, since this does not have anything to do with whether they are official duties or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion has been listed at Talk:Donald Trump and Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• The proposed edits looks like an inappropriate WP:SYNTH collection of criticisms, contrary to WP:NPOV. I suggest reading the essay WP:CSECTION, and instead start looking for the actions and remarks of significant WP:WEIGHT among all RS and not just a particular filter bubble. (What got noticed by BBC? By Fox?). I think you will find more mention of the funding request for CDC, appointment of Pence, multiple speeches giving reassurance, and mention of Fed or tax actions - and that criticisms are generally smaller weight than that of an action itself. Criticisms should be mentioned if common, but not single items stitched together as the sole content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

p.s. praising his own administration and blaming the prior one is also not news, just something widely done. Obama did it to Bush even into his second term, and I expect Bush blamed Clinton, Clinton blamed Bush ... I only wonder if the senior Bush tried to stretch it and tag Carter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - it would be impossible for me to collate everything noticed by BBC or Fox, much less all RS. But, what I can do, is point out What got noticed by BBC? By Fox?, on the issues I raised above. (1) Fox, (2) BBC, (3) Fox, (4) Fox, (5) Fox, (6) BBC, (7) Fox. They're all covered. starship.paint (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint yet your edit at top used none of those, it picked from the Washington Post (repeatedly), Guardian, Al Jazeera, etcetera, forming a collection of smaller WEIGHT critics. That’s not following NPOV presenting all views in due proportion to their weight. If adding these seems too many, that is a sign it is something at a detail level belonging in the breakout article, not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's important to have a detailed critique along with the list of accomplishments Mark B. cites, especially coming in to an election year. Voters need the good and the bad alike to do their job well. EllenCT (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

What Trump says as President gets enormous coverage. His comments - and tweets - about CoVID-19 are influenzing the opinions and strategies of millions of Americans. "Will I self-quarantine if I have a scratchy cough and a temperature, or will I scorn this fake virus and go back to work?"

Perhaps more significant, as regime leader, he is responsible for directing the official response. He certainly takes credit for the initial travel bans which slowed down the spread of infection, but he must also take the blame for some of the bungles and wasted opportunities since. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is not just another flu outbreak. For one thing, there is no vaccine available. Another, it is easily transmissible and has a high death rate amongst vulnerable sectors of the population. Ironically, including Trump himself. Looking at the figures listed at 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States, cases are increasing daily by 33% with a death rate of 4.4%. The "business as normal" model promoted by Trump would see a thousand dead Americans in two weeks, and a million dead by mid-April, topping out at around 5-10 million some time around Christmas. That's simple arithmetic.

China only managed to get on top of it by impressively draconion quarantine edicts, essentially shutting down the entire economy for weeks on end, as reported here. Are Americans going to submit to being barcoded every time they enter a shop or public transport?

A certain element of crystal-balling here, but going on what has happened elsewhere, and what the health experts are saying, this is going to be a major crisis. Trump, as regime head, is part of it, and this deserves a significant segment of this BLP. Best we get on top of it now. --Pete (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:EllenCT Those items (Pence, funding, etcetera) are a list of largest WEIGHT events - for this article, it should get the summary level which would be at such a high level. If you feel the biggest coverage of events are all “accomplishments” is up to you, but I think “actions” is a more neutral phrasing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This absolutely belongs in the article (and probably the biography as well) per NPOV. The proposed content seems to be well written, but will have to be edited as the situation unfolds. No, BBC and Fox are not the barometers for determining whether something of global significance gets covered, especially when the leader of a major country demonstrates such staggering incompetence in dealing with a pandemic and news organizations have extensively reported on it. Claims that the material is based on original research or "not part of his official duties" are not based on reason or fact. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• The purposed text has major Synth issues given it is a bunch of statements from different times lacking context put together in a odd way. I am not necessarily opposed to something about the administration response to the outbreak in this article but this is not the way to do it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you specify your concerns so we can hammer this out? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The purposed text has major Synth issues given it is a bunch of statements from different times lacking context put together in a odd way. So to spell it out do not engage in synth. What would be better is a single article or two that all support or make the same statements with a similar narative. Us stringing things together to say what we want is of course wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So, I am wondering... If that article that includes all of this administrations missteps could be found, would it next be suggested that the source was biased and not appropriate? Who exactly do you think is able to provide these facts? Certainly not the CDC who has, when push-came-to-shove, done little more than brown-nose and kiss ass to the president and his administration. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would we come up with what we want to say and then try to find sources that support it? Isn't that pretty much cherry picking and OR? Surely there is an article from a RS that summarizes the administrations response and then we can summarize that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can find it I agree that it would be the preferred way to go. Have you looked? Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not yet, but with the onus on the people trying to include I am surprised no one looking to add this content have looked. PackMecEng (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this one for starters? [19] Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Another one: [20] SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful for all editors commenting here to read the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States‎ article (skipping the numbers parts that need to reach a decision about how to handle it). For me one of the major concerns is that the gov't health groups such as the CDC are being affected by Trump's desire to keep the infection and death toll low and make it seem like everything is well under control. This has resulted in a loss of valuable time and now we have the condition that Specifico has posted about. Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That is clearly nonsense and nothing worth while on speculation on the CDC. Though the guardian article is a good start for something to actually put in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid calling what other editors write as "clearly nonsense". We are all doing our best to come to a consensus on this issue and early suggestions are a form of brain storming, which is important to help us all to arrive at a consensus. It would be better if you would try to respect the others who post here rather than calling their contributions nonsense. Gandydancer (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

While all of that may be the case, we cannot speculate on Trumps motivation and we cannot simply synthesize all the odd and irresponsible statements that Trump made. I agree with Markbassett here that WP:SYNTH applies and we need to work according to WP:NPOV. We need to use well-sourced articles from reliable outlets ( [21] [22] [23] ) that discuss the administrations response (critically) and use that to add a summary of the administrations response. It clearly cannot be one-sided and should mainly convey factual information, eg immigration restrictions, issues with CDC tests, budget cuts to the CDC part of which affect the current situation, lack of director for several months(?) and reaction of experts to these measures. The proposed text above clearly does not do that, focusses exclusively on communications issue and not on underlying problems. I think it is easily possible to have a factual paragraph about what the administration has done and include critical voices that call out the problems with the administrations response in communication (which is what the paragraph above focuses on) and actual response (which is lacking in the text above). --hroest 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear that your objection has to do with WP:SYNTH as defined. Could you please specify the problem you identify so we can address it? SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

hroest, you objected to including Senator Murphy's comments on Face the Nation wherein he said that while his state officially had only 2 cases he guessed that they had hundreds or even thousands of cases, but without the test kits that were long overdue, who would know? And you objected to medical expert commentary about the likely possibility of severe shortage of healthcare for those affected. [24]. You called it all speculation unfit for the article. Using that thinking we have to quit discussions of global warming since it is just "speculation". Gandydancer (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I did none of these things and it is completely unclear what global warming has to do with all of that. --hroest 01:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hroest:. Pardon me. As is often the case, Trump has stated his motivation in front of TV cameras. He didn't want the cruise ship to discharge critically ill and other at-risk passengers because it would make "his numbers go up". He has told us he has a natural ability to understand the virus better than US Gov't experts, while rejecting their advice about, e.g. how long it takes to create a deliverable vaccine. We follow what RS say. RS have told us a lot about the Administration's response and have told us when Trump has disclosed the thinking behind the policy. Also Larry Kudlow, Pence and others have made similar disclosures. Please be specific about your concerns, or your objection will be ignored. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC) @Hannes Röst: fixed.00:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

My only concerns are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as well as that a descriptive paragraph in the article should follow WP:UNDUE and therefore (i) objectively describe the response of the administration and (ii) describe clearly identified failings of the administration with regards to the response and preparedness. I dont see how a balanced description of the administrations response (and I assume this is what this article is about, I came here from Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States) can *solely* focus on his communication. Clearly a balanced description should first describe the response and then list all suitable criticism to that response - unless I am mistaken and this article is only about what Trump says and not what he / his administration does. Ill-advised communication is one part of that issue, but a minor one compared to the other ongoing major issues such as the lack of testing, not following WHO advice, budget cuts and unfilled positions at the CDC. --hroest 01:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, you're talking to an experienced group of editors here and general lectures about WP policy and guidelines are not news to anyone in this discussion. Also, straw men. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are implying that I am not an experienced editor. It seems that you are trying to push a point against multiple users' objections. If we are all on the same page regarding the policies then lets come up with a suitable text. Regarding strawman, I wonder where you got that from unless you talk about a different text than the one proposed above -- see the argument above about climate change above. --hroest 02:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Only the major WEIGHT items are suitable for the high level coverage summary in a Presidency article. Should be looking for actions and remarks of WEIGHT like the funding, Pence appointment, etcetera. Criticisms and praise are normally lower WEIGHT than the event itself so should be less or no presence. But for the edit in question - it gathered together unrelated items of only criticism. If the event itself wasn’t big enough to even mention, then why would we include the WaPo criticism ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • What WEIGHT should we assign to the response to the most substantial pandemic in over 100 years? Of course it's suitable, and the WEIGHT, OR, SYNTH, and UNDUE objections are all utterly without merit, and all unsubstantiated with any facts or references to any portions of the actual policies. The thought that this might all be too minor for mention is laughable at best. What are you going to say in two months time when we have two million ICU admissions against 330,000 available beds? EllenCT (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • User:EllenCT the WP:WEIGHT is the prominence given by external RS, it is not something “we assign”. In this case, the coverage is on large events - it is not on what one editor at Washington Post says. It is inappropriate to filter bubble here, particularly when the expressly voiced motive is to influence the next election. Please comply with WEIGHT, OR, SYNTH, and UNDUE — and if material needs a suspension of WP policy and guidelines to get in, then it’s just not a good idea. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(p.s. the Coronavirus and major items are worth a mention... but a collection of minor prominence criticisms is not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC))

@Markbassett: I have no confidence in your ability to understand WP:WEIGHT, the criterion for WP:RS, or WP:UNDUE. What specific objections do you advance? EllenCT (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:EllenCT Those were specific objections, and in any case ONUS is on the one proposing edits to show justifying supports. I think some of the challenge would be why solely a criticism would be mentioned when the underlying event is not covered. Another would be why are the Washington Post views gathered together when no RS has done so? Another would be why is a particular view of WaPo to be shown when other RSes did not report about the WaPo article? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Markbassett, it is disingenuous to add a section "Trump's response to the coronavirus" that *only* contains criticism as suggested above. The best place to start would be to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Government_response and summarize the different aspects listed there which of course *include* criticism but are mainly focused on describing the administrations response which is discussed critically. It seems ridiculous to me how the presidents tweets and phone calls to TV shows are listed for inclusion in the article but not his actions that have a major impact on the US economy and the lives of people. I think we should all take a deep breath and restart. Nobody here disputes that the Coronavirus merits inclusion, but it would be great if we can do so according to WP guidelines. --hroest 13:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That other article section you linked also appears to enumerate criticisms and lapses of the Trump Administration. Bear in mind that most of the U.S. government response is from the deep state and other agencies removed from Trump's policies or control. Even the Republican senators have rejected much of Trump's attempts to use the disease as a pretext for tax cuts for his base without regard to whether they're impacted by the disease. Similarly, the Presidency of D.T. requested about $2 billion, while the Republican senate quickly approved the Democrats' $8+ billion appropriation. NPOV article text may appear critical to you but it would not necessarily appear critical to the president's base who believe the outbreak is a hoax and does not warrant any draconian policy initiatives. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Topic first has to be of major WEIGHT - and these items were not. NPOV is in conveying all POVs on an item in due proportion to the WEIGHT of coverage. But for a Presidency article the item has to be of major WEIGHT, and the criticisms (and praise) of those items would be of less or no coverage per their WEIGHT is smaller portion of the coverage. That President Trump "praised his own administations response" (link to criticism) or that he used a phrase "like a miracle" (link to criticism) are just items the media generally decided not worth a mention -- and they never will be. Plenty of opinions exist on the big stories, no need for a collection of small-topic criticisms. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• It may be also relevant that he probably has the virus himself, but refuses to test, even though he might be asymptomatic and transmits it to all people around him [25]. Why? Apparently, if he and Pence were put in isolation, who would then rule the country? Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the House? My very best wishes (talk)

  I don't think so. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Not relevant - WP:SPECULATION at "probably has the virus", unsupported at "he refuses to test" -- and he has now been tested. And in case he does fall ill, he remains President. Possibly could telework like Trudeau, or just spend more time tweeting (ugh). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

17 March edit

I added the following content, but it was swiftly removed:

• For weeks, as the 2020 coronavirus spread in the United States, Trump consistently downplayed the dangers of the outbreak, which turned into a pandemic. Throughout January and February, Trump repeatedly insisted that everything was "under control" and was going to be "fine," and repeatedly portrayed figures related to the virus as more favorable than they really were. As the virus spread more throughout the U.S. in March, Trump took it more seriously. He gave an Oval Office address in early March which was riddled with errors and sent the markets plunging; the speech was largely written by Stephen Miller, a far-right advisor within the administration, and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law. In a March 13 national emergency declaration, Trump told numerous falsehoods about his administration's response to the pandemic.

The text in question is full supported by the sources, which are all high-quality RS, and which use the same language. The administration's response to the coronavirus outbreak, including a national emergency declaration, an Oval Office address, the downplaying of the outbreak and the ceaseless lying, is clearly WP:DUE and the text should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly written is a undue and non-NPOV way. The standard Trump said X and so and so said it's false is getting old at this point. It does not add much of anything to the subject. Also what is with the line the speech was largely written by Stephen Miller, a far-right advisor within the administration, and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law. it seems to have no relevance here either. The only part I can see worth keeping is the deceleration of a state of emergency and even there you had to stick in the vague and meaningless falsehoods stuff. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this text (or at least something like this text). I would cut "far-right"; although Miller is far right, that particular descriptor is not used by the source cited. Other than that, this looks OK to me — it's certainly a matter of importance. I disagree that the reference to the president's key advisers "has no relevance" (obviously, the persons to whom Trump listens is material, especially when they are writing his second-ever Oval Office address). I strongly disagree that Trump's falsehoods shouldn't be mentioned or are "vague and meaningless" in some way. The reliable sources are unanimous that Trump has, repeatedly, made inaccurate statements about an extremely important matter (the coronovirus, its effects, and his administrator's response), and this has been amply covered. To not include it is at best omit important facts from our readers, and at worst to actually misrepresent the situation. Neutrality^talk 20:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  So we should go with stating in Wikipedia's voice that Trump's speech in March caused the stock market crash? Also I get something a long the lines of him down playing it at the start but all the other stuff is a little much into the POV arena. PackMecEng (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Well, it is a fact that Trump's speech was intended to calm the markets, and had the opposite effect:

• First paragraph of WaPo source: "President Trump decided to ad-lib — and his errors triggered a market meltdown."
• Or another WaPo article: "The latest plunge began Wednesday night, as Trump started outlining his policy response to the epidemic in a widely criticized Oval Office speech, and accelerated once trading opened Thursday in New York."
• Or even the first lines of a Wall Street Journal article: "President Trump’s rare prime-time speech Wednesday was designed to reassure the nation about his administration’s response to a quickly spreading coronavirus. Instead, Mr. Trump’s scripted speech included errors about health-insurance payments and European travel restrictions ... During the 10-minute speech—and one stray word suggesting that the U.S. would ban cargo from Europe—stock futures fell sharply, and the global stock rout led to U.S. stocks’ worst drop since 1987 on Thursday."

I'm OK with rewording appropriately in line with the sources, but it would be wrong to omit the key facts. Neutrality^talk 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose reasonable people can disagree on what the key facts of his presidency are. PackMecEng (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also here are a couple sources about the crash that make no mention of Trump.[26][27] It should also be noted that the crash was going on before the speech and at best his speech only added to it. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also here is Dow futures during Trump's speech; a quasi-joke at 7:30 of 13:17 When Rehearsal Becomes The Show: Stephen Colbert's First-Ever No-Audience Late Show Monologue on YouTube published March 12, 2020 The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. X1\ (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: Did you miss this being discussed above?[28] Also please respect BRD on this article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears I did, PackMecEng. I will review later. X1\ (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Mind self reverting while discussion is on going? PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Merged sections from previous.[29] PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

18 March proposal

Below is my proposed language to add to the article (to the extent not already covered in the article). This is a modified version of Snooganssnoogans' text (update: some changes in underline and strikethrough).

For monthsweeks, as the 2020 coronavirus spread in the United States, Trump consistently downplayed the dangers of the pandemic, insisting that the situation was "under control" and was going to be "fine," and repeatedly portrayed figures related to the virus as more favorable than they really were. In early March, as the virus spread more throughout the U.S., Trump gave an prime-time address (his second-ever from the Oval Office) on the coronavirus. Largely written by White House advisers Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, and based on extensive dictation from Trump and input from Pence, the speech was widely criticized and contained numerous errors. Intended to reassure the public and calm markets, the speech had the opposite effect; a steep stock market decline, the worst since 1987, occurred the next day. On March 13, 2020, Trump declared a national emergency and, at a news conference, madecontinued to make numerous false claims about his administration's response to the pandemic.

References

Please let me know if anyone objects to (or supports) this text, or something like it. --Neutrality^talk 16:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

At the end, continued to make numerous... SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with the second word. The first US case was less than two months ago. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Several weeks" is better, IMO soibangla (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I can use "weeks." Made a modification above. Also adopted SPECIFICO's fix. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence instead of Trump gave an prime-time address (his second-ever from the Oval Office) on the coronavirus. maybe something like Trump gave his second-ever Oval Office on the coronavirus. which makes it a little more simple. The whole largely written by could all be cut and reduced to the speech was widely criticized and contained numerous errors. I still disagree with the characterization that his speach was the cause of the already happening decline. Last sentence could be cut to just mentioning the national emergency, unless we want to mention what was false and why it mattered. With all that I would be okay with it. PackMecEng (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that all those edits would improve the content. (1) Prime-time addresses from the president are rare (AP: "a rare prime-time address from the oval office." (2) The president's key advisers on an important address are significant. (3) The proposed text does not state or imply that the speech "caused" the market decline. (4) I do not agree that we ought to omit the mention of the falsehoods in an important speech.

I think we are moving toward rough consensus toward the text. Are you willing to live with this text despite your trepidation? If not, do you want to propose alternate text for an RfC? Neutrality^talk 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• 1-Yes it is important that is why I said to mention that it was the second ever. 2-Why are they important on this speech but no others? We do not mention advisers for any other speeches so it is unclear the significance on this one. 3-When you say the speech had the opposite effect; a steep stock market decline, the worst since 1987, occurred the next day. that is of course implying it caused the decline, I am not sure how it could be seen another way? When you say X happened and then next sentence list Y it is implied that is the result. 4-I said get rid of the second mention of errors since we say the same thing just a couple sentence above. Why repeat the same information multiple times? Finally I gave examples of the text all though my response above so I suppose that would be my suggested text. PackMecEng (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This version is good. It summarizes what several high quality sources have reported. Ideally we would tell readers why Kushner's and Miller's roles were significant ("exaggerating to damage the president" and "isolationist views" respectively), but labeling Miller far right would be oversimplification. - MrX 🖋 02:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Object to the edit. Delete it all. Fairly blatant partisanship and SOAPBOX, seems just recycling what the section above said was previously quickly removed as UNDUE and not-NPOV, a collection of vague snips not presented together by others and not connected. Who wrote a single speech is not significant enough to mention. The confused vagueness of “months” corrected to still vague “weeks”. And the highlighting of one speech/stock market reaction. Seems just wanting somehow to mention the one bad day, and yet omit the two days later speech which got more WEIGHT and a greater positive reaction (in press and measure of stock market) than this day had negative, or the few days later an even worse day with no speech. In general— Skip any individual day stuff, skip any single speech stuff, skip naming speech writers .... Just drop the whole para for now. Come back in a couple weeks and try saying what widespread coverage is saying. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

No consensus - If it helps as a way forward, A and C appeared to have the most support, for varying reasons. - jc37 21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Which of the following texts should be added to the article? Neutrality^talk 04:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Option A

For weeks, as the 2020 coronavirus spread in the United States, Trump consistently downplayed the dangers of the pandemic, insisting that the situation was "under control" and was going to be "fine," and repeatedly portrayed figures related to the virus as more favorable than they really were. In early March, as the virus spread more throughout the U.S., Trump gave an prime-time address (his second-ever from the Oval Office) on the coronavirus. Largely written by White House advisers Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, and based on extensive dictation from Trump and input from Pence, the speech was widely criticized and contained numerous errors. Intended to reassure the public and calm markets, the speech had the opposite effect; a steep stock market decline, the worst since 1987, occurred the next day. On March 13, 2020, Trump declared a national emergency and, at a news conference, continued to make numerous false claims about his administration's response to the pandemic.

References

Option B

For weeks, as the 2020 coronavirus spread in the United States, Trump consistently downplayed the dangers of the pandemic, insisting that the situation was "under control" and was going to be "fine," and repeatedly portrayed figures related to the virus as more favorable than they really were. In early March, as the virus spread more throughout the U.S., Trump gave his second-ever Oval Office address on the coronavirus. The speech was widely criticized and contained numerous errors. On March 13, 2020, Trump declared a national emergency.

References

Option C:

Omit all of this content.

Neutrality^talk 04:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Option D:

Pursue conveying only actual events, neutral by excluding any partisan posturing or judgemental adjectives. Example:

On 17 January CDC and DHS began enhanced health screening for flights from China, as a reaction to China confirming a second death in Wuhan. The first case in the United States was detected on 21 January. The White House created the Coronavirus Task Force under HHS Secretary Alex Azar on 29 January, and on 31 January the White House announces it will deny entry to foreign nationals who have travelled to China in the last 14 days. On 24 February, Trump requested $2.5 billion to fight Coronavirus, and on 26 February appointed Vice-President Pence to lead the overall Coronavirus response. On 4 March Congress approved $8.3 billion.

References

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Option E: (Much harder)

Make a more readable narrative by including context of adjectives to actual events, and separate lines for partisan statements with NPOV of BALANCE by WEIGHT at the time, careful to portray each as statements and not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Exclude non-event items such as arguments on phrasings, straw polls, cherrypicked quotes, or speculations, and keep attention to WEIGHT. Example:

The CDC and DHS began airport health screening early in the spread, before the first case detected in the United States. After infections began to show, the White House created the Coronavirus Task Force under HHS Secretary Alex Azar and escalated travel bans. On 24 February, President Trump requested $2.5 billion to fight Coronavirus, and then appointed Vice-President Pence to lead the overall Coronavirus response amid growing criticism of the administration response. In a reflection of the rapidly growing concern and a rebuke, on 4 March Congress more than tripled the amount requested and approved $8.3 billion. President Trump greatly increased the severity of attitude after issues with CPAC, and America was emotionally struck by the severity of the crisis by triple events on 11 March of his National address announcing travel bans to Europe, as well as news of Tom Hanks being infected and the NBA cancelling their season.

References

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Option A. Per my comments above - this section is appropriate weight (a few sentences), accurately but sufficiently summarizes high-quality sources and is fairly complete. Option B is incomplete because it needlessly omits two very important aspects: the market turmoil and Trump's continuing false statements even after the national emergency is declared. Option C (omitting all of these material) makes zero sense and there is no policy-based rationale for it. Courtesy ping to all previous commentators: SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, Pelirojopajaro, Soibangla, PackMecEng, Markbassett. Neutrality^talk 04:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC).
• Support Option A. There is substantial RS coverage of an event that is doubtlessly important and which has long-term encyclopedic value. It's relevant context who helped him author the consequential Oval Office address (for long-term encyclopedic value), as well as to note that the speech and other remarks by Trump on the issue have been error-riddled amid a national emergency. Option C is completely unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option A. I also think we need to cover the administration's dismantling of emergency preparedness, which Trump disclaimed in a press conference, and its failure to commence production of emergency medical supplies when the shortage first became apparent early in 2020. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option A per my previous comments. The material is well sourced, has been extensively covered by sources, and is relevant to the Trump administration's role in what is one of the most significant events in generations. - MrX 🖋 14:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option B Largely per everyone elses vote here. This stuff is important to be sure, but we need to make sure to present it in a NPOV kind of way, for example how many times do we need to repeat that he got stuff wrong? Probably just the once which version B has as opposed to version A repeating itself. Along those lines we should keep speculation to a minimum. The market decline started before the speech and there is no clear indicator that it was caused by said speech. As such we should not be making the implication that it was. We should also keep due weight in mind, which brings me to the Kushner and Miller part. What "people familiar with the process" does not equal something worth mentioning in this article. What does it tell us about Trump or the speech basically? Little to nothing at all. I also think Trump gave his second-ever Oval Office address on the coronavirus is a lot tighter without losing any meaning over Trump gave an prime-time address (his second-ever from the Oval Office) on the coronavirus which is messier. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option A: It's a bit verbose, could be tightened, but Option B is too short. soibangla (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Neither of these. These items focus almost entirely on what he has laid or done wrong, without almost no mention of the actual actions he has taken, such as travel bans, emergency declaration, signing bills, appointing Pence, etc. For a more encyclopedic, neutral version about Trump and the coronavirus, I suggest something like what we have at Donald Trump#Coronavirus pandemic. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Those items are as far as I can tell already in the "Presidency of DT" article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) MelanieN, Content on such matters is already in this article. This proposed text is in addition to, not in place of, that content. Neutrality^talk 23:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• My bad, sorry. I should know better than to parachute into an RFC without researching all the back story. I have been involved in a discussion at Donald Trump about whether to include anything at all about the virus, so that was the framework I was working from. Now having seen the extensive and well sourced coverage already in the article, my inclination is option C; IMO the president’s stalling and deception are already very well documented in the article and adding this would mostly be redundant. But I will leave further discussion to the regulars on this page. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Malformed RFC. Oh be serious. Comes off as just trying to exploit the crisis for political gain, not helpful to the crisis, and not honest encyclopedic content. In any case isn’t good rfc practice as these did not provide a brief neutral statement about the issue at dispute to be resolved, or really a range of options. It just presented the two slightly different forms of OR vague solely negative opinion statements with zero facts visible and random collection of cherry picked opinion pieces of solely that week. The usual suspects WaPo, NYT, CNN, Snooganssnoogans, Specifico, and MrX ... with their usual no neutral or counter view attention to NPOV, no attention to WEIGHT, and no attention to covering much of the topic. I’ll put in a couple placeholders for other positions here, but really the stories looking for finger pointing blame from human fear and political greed are unavoidable but regrettably the main block to successful coordination and folks believing anything. It’s really early to say much, but the whole narrative of slow seems wishful thinking and politics. It’s not like Trump was ahead of the three republican governors, but he was ahead of dozens of other governors. It’s not like he was perfect, but compared to missteps in other countries or that all Democracies (and China) downplayed it and made mistakes there’s nothing amazingly wrong here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark, you sound upset. SPECIFICO talk 03:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not particularly, this was obviously a no-credibility partisan filter-bubble, but is just another bit of bias. Not the first seen, not even the worst seen this week - and I surely missed many more. Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option D less focus on speeches and other nonsense.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP is authorized to consider RS reporting of presidential speech nonsense that we ignore for the purpose of evaluating due weight in WP articles? If so, do you advocate removing the presidential statements already in this article on a wide range of subjects? Those would include his statements about why he fired Comey, the press being the "enemy of the people", his statements on abortion, and various other statements? SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option E The tone is more encyclopedic. There have been allegations that Trump downplayed the risk and was slow to act and they should be mentioned. But we should avoid polemical writing that implies his reaction was incompetent or malicious. It may well be, but that at present is an opinion, not a fact. TFD (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• But do we need the meaningless official titles and CPAC and Tom Hanks? All undue smokescreen stuff. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• It is hard to take seriously a claim that, in an article on a presidency, text on Tom Hanks and the NBA "is more encyclopedic" than text on extreme market turmoil or the president's claims relating to his administration's response to a pandemic. It's also significant that no part of Proposal A is drawn from opinion pieces. Neutrality^talk 20:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• None of these Options A, B, D and E all come across as cherry-picked. Options A and B use words to show the President as bad. Options D and E use actions to show him as good. But WP:NPOV requires that one avoid taking sides and report on both the bad and the good. Option C is also wrong. What a President says and what a President does are both important. Both should be reported. I would want a narrative that includes both, with roughly equal weight. Per WP:STRUCTURE, dueling POV portions should be avoided. The words come across as stupid in retrospect and the actions, particularly the travel restrictions, come across much better. So be it. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option C per Adoring nanny. Option A lends undue weight to the criticism of his response and his speech with unencyclopedic language littered throughout that proposal. Option B contains the same issues. Options D doesn't include anything about the speech at all, with undue weight given to the funding proposals. Option E contains too much information that isn't relevant to the response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, I vote to exclude all of the proposals. Jdcomix (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Seems a trend - after the choices were not only A or B ... nobody picked either of them again. Now, C (nothing) seems to be the winner with one choosing D and one choosing E and four choosing a nothing. The lack of an strong desire for a choice indicates 'no change' (nothing) and in this case there seems explicit !votes to 'say nothing at all'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• I cannot support A or B as "widely criticized" only has one citation. D and E have no citations. I support Option C as that is the only that passes WP:V. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC is a total mess with wildly different proposals. I'll just endorse the current state of the article as-is. starship.paint (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

"Despite pledges to reduce the U.S. military personnel deployed overseas, the number was essentially the same three years into Trump's presidency as they were at the end of Obama's." - CITATION NEEDED Phytographer (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Phytographer: The citation is not needed because it appears later in the article (Presidency of Donald Trump#Foreign policy). Per WP:LEADCITE we have chosen not to put references in the article's introduction. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Thank you for explaining -- Phytographer (talk)

Extremely Biased document

There is not a single source in the entire lead of this document. Sources that are notated later on use blatantly liberal news organizations as "fact" sources. Organizations that have been proven dishonest on a regular basis. How about I start adding praise to this document, and link breitbart or fox news as sources? Do you see the problem with that? Anything could be taken out of context, "He has told many lies during his Presidency." What lies? Your sources half the time use obvious sarcasm and call it a lie. The editors should be ashamed of themselves, allowing a Wikipedia page full of "this agenda driven news organization said this thing, so it's a fact". It's frankly disgusting.

This should be a page of FACTS, alone. This entire article needs to be scrapped and redone by a non-biased party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClownCommander (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)