This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Diagram of Trump statements vs. number of cases should be deleted
A diagram of the President's statements during various phases of the epidemic is a) totally uninteresting as it has no relevance to the epidemic itself and b) political as it does not mention, e.g., Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders' remarks that stopping flights from China is xenophobic - these statements were made at the same time. Let's make this page neutral and informative and not political.Herr Foo (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not think so. This is not WP:OR, but something directly taken from an RS. Is it "due on the page"? Yes, it certainly is. The pandemic has become a part of US politics, and therefore speaking about the politics (as it relates to the pandemic) is inevitable on this page. Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting images on the page. Biden and Sander? Do you suggest to include their statements as well? Which statements? I am not sure, but perhaps they should be included as well. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with My very best wishes, it is interesting, as US President's non-action/actions are directly relevant, and could be expanded on. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with you, and I agree with Herr Foo. It seems politically motivated or at least slanted to include that diagram. It is from the Washington Post, but just because something is from a reliable source does not mean it needs to be included in the article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
TrynaMakeADollar, are you saying what the President of the United States does (or doesn't do) is not relevant in a national crisis? X1\ (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The diagram illustrates nicely why exactly the government (acting through CMS, the CDC and the FDA) not only "squandered a critical month during which aggressive and widespread testing might greatly have reduced the speed and scale of the pandemic", but enforced regulatory roadblocks that prevented non-government labs from assisting, as was described everywhere [1]. Why they did it? One of the most obvious and well sourced answers: the head of the state and his administration failed miserably with making right and timely decisions, because he believed (and publicly announced) that the problem will go away by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The statements of the head of any national government are an integral part of documenting that government's response to a pandemic, especially when there's significant coverage in reliable sources of the notability of their timing. The size of the diagram is also not WP:UNDUE for an article of this size. It should be kept, and similar diagrams should be added to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Belarus, and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Brazil. Capewearer (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the graphic is informative and reflective of what a number of sources have reported. Biden and Sanders are not POTUS (yet), so their comments are far less noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia should remain a source of neutral information for us all. I agree with Herr Foo's statement. Sierra Rider (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you think this chart is either not neutral or not "for us all"? VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It is neutral information. They are Trump's exact words. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Besides, I think these statements by the President are important from the historical standpoint. For example, everyone remembers Louis XIV of France by his words "I am the state" ("L'état, c'est moi."). Who knows, maybe this President will be mostly remembered for saying that "In April ... it will miraculously go away". My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The image is from a neutral point of view since they are words that Trump said on specific dates at critical times. The section the image is included in covers the statements in more detail and is also from a neutral point of view. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The biggest WP:NPOV problem with the image is that it leaves out Trump's actions. Those are at least as important as words in dealing with the epidemic. By focusing on words only, it appears to be designed to give a poor impression. This is in fact X1\'s point precisely, though perhaps looked at from a different angle. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Adoring nanny Excuse me, what "actions?" Blocking flights from Europe and China? Closing borders with Mexico and Canada? Those.. already mentioned in another sections. In that case, I think "actions" such as downplaying it, war of words with governors and withholding aid to the states, partying in Mar-a-Lago with Brazilian President also worth mentioning, right? This article is neutral as long as using Trump's own words and not our own opinion. —SquidHomme(talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, those actions, precisely. Note that the words are also covered elsewhere. The problem is that the diagram gives additional weight to the words, but not the actions. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Every image on every WP page describes only one of many aspects of the subject. If anyone wants to include a diagram about his actions (or inactions), such diagram could be probably included too. Note that public statements by top officials can be as important as their deeds or lack of deeds. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Stating words are actions, Adoring nanny; you appear to be misconstruing my words. X1\ (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Why jump to that conclusion? You were saying that a President's actions are important. I agree with you. You were referring only to speech actions. I was looking at it from a different angle and also including action actions. Those are actions too. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You may agree with me, Adoring nanny, but I am not agreeing with you. Your comments are a tangent from the graph discussion; no need to muddy the waters. X1\ (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
President Trump section - POV
I don't have an interest in this page, other then a casual reader, but the diagram to the right doesn't remotely meet the NPOV requirement. Sun Creator(talk) 19:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, similar concerns had been raise. One issue of an image is that it can't be edited by many and not in a timely manner. Perhaps the use of a quotebox or something would be appropriate. Sun Creator(talk) 19:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sun Creator: Based on the time period the image covers (January - March) I doubt the image will need to be edited. It's main purpose is to illustrate how his comments evolved over that three month period. If the image does need editing or adjusting there are a lot of experienced editors working on this article and in this field that can edit the image in a timely fashion. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Please start proper RfC about it if you wish. But I am sure it should be kept as an illustration of one of the most important reasons for having so much trouble with this pandemic specifically in the US. Of course this is not the only reason (there are others), but this is possibly the most important. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The image has been removed. It doesn't belong in this article without consensus. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. " Sun Creator(talk) 22:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It was included on April 1 without any objections. Once again, please start an RfC. However, if you wish, I can start an RfC with the question: "Should this image be removed from the page?" Do we need it? My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It was actually added on April 2, and objected to here on April 9, and on the image's own talk page was objected to and described as misleading on April 8. I doubt that ~6 days counts as "long standing version" - so yes, please start an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed and just because no one objected for a week does not mean the proper consensus was reached to include it in the first place. I propose we will go ahead and delete it for now, until we get enough Rfc for proper consensus. My very best wishes your rfc should be “should this image be included?” The onus is to prove inclusion Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, diagram has been deleted pending rfc Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't bother posting an RFC, often used to bypass consensus for keeping bad edits in during the long RfC period of up to 30 days or more. There are a number of reasons this graphic is out of place:
The list of quotes were cherry picked, which goes against WP editorial consensus. That long standing opinion states, Do not cherrypick . . by selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings.
The single newspaper source used had more than twice as many quotes, therefore whoever decided to list the ones there was effectively engaging in OR, which goes against guidelines.
The newspaper quote used in the chart states, "Trump's pronouncements 'evolved from casual dismissal to reluctant acknowledgment to bellicose mobilization'". On what criteria did the cherry picked quotes support that, besides the personal opinion of the chart-maker?
I found incorrect dates on some of the quotes.
Over 64% (9 of the 14) editors who have commented above want the chart removed. Therefore the consensus is to remove it, and with 14 editors there is no need for a time-delaying RfC. --Light show (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say here, but we should have a proper RfC, nonetheless. Please copy these well-articualted and policy based arguments to the RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I would agree that with a strong majority already calling for the exclusion of this graph that rfc may not be needed and the burden may be tall to show it should be included. Nevertheless, if my very best wishes still would like to start an rfc they are welcome to with the understanding that it will be an uphill battle with a majority of editors already stating valid reasons for exclusionBsubprime7 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just wanted to start the RfC, but someone else already did. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Addendum. Another reason the chart does not belong is even more damning than the previous reasons listed: namely because it is a synthesis by whoever made it. The guideline states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. By listing a cases death count in the U.S. with selected quotes by the President, the chart-maker has added their own dimension and opinion to the quotes, implying without any support that a statement he made might have somehow been responsible for cases deaths . The single source for the quotes made no such implication. --Light show (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
RfC - Image of Trump statements correlated with number of deathscases
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
Does the image in the above section (Trump statements correlated with number of deathscases) belong in this article?
Original caption: In the early stages of the pandemic, Trump's pronouncements "evolved from casual dismissal to reluctant acknowledgment to bellicose mobilization".[1]
Comment. This is incorrect title of the RfC. This is a timeline correlated with the number of cases. Can I fix it please? My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - the chart from the Donald Trump section. More because it doesn’t provide any meaningful info on the article topic. The quotes seem not particularly noted and not those of the paragraph it is next to. As attached to a chart of US cases, it can be read as he started saying and doing serious measures in early March when the US cases were circa 100. That someone did this is fine - but unless multiple RS reposted it, the quotefarm just lacks WEIGHT. Remove the chart of random quotes. I’d also suggest remove the random quotes of the first para. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The graph reads eerily similar to an opposition campaign marketing piece that recently came out and is misleading as it does not take into account that when some of these comments were made U.S. cases were relatively low. The graph is just not scientific and more of a social commentary that has no place in an encyclopedic page.Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Appropriate. Well-sourced with obvious relevance. Claims of POV concerns seem unfounded. Feoffer (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Correlating public statements with deaths is original with this figure and seems to me to be very apparently WP:OR at best. -- motorfingers : Talk 03:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
No, the juxtaposition is present in the source. Feoffer (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The page at the source you cite here appears to be an opinion piece. -- motorfingers : Talk 09:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Motorfingers: not sure why you think that's relevant, but the source is the Washington Posts "analysis" column which describes itself as "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events." VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@VQuakr:Since "analysis" and "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events." is a clear definition of an editorial or opinion piece as opposed to reporting on facts or events, we'll go from there. Wikipedia does not report opinions as fact; Wikipedia is not a vehicle to map partisan editorials to encyclopedia entires presented as fact. Agreed, here, this is not as simple as it might appear because some people view some editoral opinions as fact, very often quite sincerely. So, we have the Talk pages, where we work these things out. -- motorfingers : Talk 01:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Um... exactly which facts are in dispute, then? Are you trying to say that Trump did not say those things, or that the number of cases at the time is not accurate? VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@VQuakr:You're an intelligent Wiki editor; it's apparent that directly correlating statments that someone made with death count is a huge non sequiter and was advanced to promote a contrived partisan narrative by the author of the source. I didn't vote accept or keep, but this subthread is a clear example of why we need multiple people to post so that we can arrive at an informed consensus. -- motorfingers : Talk 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Since they were statements by the POTUS about the pandemic, no they are not non sequitur. I'm still waiting for your explanation of what you believe the source is inaccurately presenting as facts. Informed consensus here is pretty clearly a complete lack of policy-based reasoning against inclusion - instead we're getting your increasingly bizarre thrashing ie calling easily verified quantitative data a "contrived partisan narrative". VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The topic of this section, the graphic tying together public statements with death count as a timeine is presenting public statements as causative of COVID-19 deaths, a non sequiter. You can take public statements from anyone and put them on the same timeline and graphic. Try it, using JLo, Kim Kardishan, Whoopy Goldberg, or whoever; that brings what I'm saying into very clear focus, and its a great source of humor. -- motorfingers : Talk 02:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Neither the source nor the graphic imply that Trump's words "caused" deaths. Also, the chart shows cases, not deaths, and the section title is now corrected. The chart merely correlates what Trump said about the pandemic as a function of time and case-count. Comment from chart uploader RCraig09 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Appropriate There is more to the impact of the pandemic on America than mere numbers, and the comments of the regime head have considerable significance. Numerous RS have linked Trump's comments with the reality as per the numbers. It is hard to escape the contrast of his predictions with the actuality, and again, that is a point made numerous times by RS. The reality that his supposedly well-informed predictions have often been at odds with the facts as they eventuated is not on Wikipedia, nor on the Sources we use. It is on Trump, and as pointed out above, there is a political dimension to the pandemic that is at least as important to our article as the raw numbers. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
At least 10 editors have already objected to inclusion with thorough reasoning above prior, so if someone could begin a tabulation of these “Delete” votes it would be appreciated. Problem with your argument Pete is although there is a political dimension and it’s not just numbers, playing along with your logic, some of these comments are covered and if they aren’t they should be covered in the text of the article that’s where they would belong. Not side by side within a scientific graph, it looks clunky to begin with and adds no real value. Bsubprime7 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
We don't count heads in these things. There's more to a good article than slabs of text. Graphics, images, and graphs can convey information more efficiently than a paragraph full of words. --Pete (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Not appropriate: Per my rationales in previous section. --Light show (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That it is synthesis implying that Trump is responsible for the number of cases? That is way beyond what the graphic could possibly imply. How do you make that particular leap? --Pete (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Simply because the source did not create a chart which had graphic links going from a quote directly to a figure of cases. The two graphic artists who listed the quotes also included the cases and deaths as an incidental detail at the time the statements were made, but without implying any connection. There were actually over twice as many quotes listed in the source article, with most of them including other incidental facts about things that took place on those dates: ie. stock market prices, declarations of state of emergency by states, declarations by WHO, advisories by CDC for social distancing, CDC notice about demographics, Federal Reserve announcements, etc. They were all things that happened on a given date, but there was no implied connection with a quote for any of those events. Nor should the case count be considered anything but incidental unless a RS makes that connection clear with a cause and effect linkage.
However this graph does attempt to make those connections, using "circles and arrows," like the sheriff in Alice's Restaurant, as if it was trying to create evidence via forensics to prove something. Some might consider creating the graph that way using cherry-picked material as gaming the system, ie. "to make a point ... or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." --Light show (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about circles and arrows, but this all sonds like smoke and mirrors. How, precisely, do you make the argument that the graphic implies that Trump is responsible for the number of cases? --Pete (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I just explained how. And in case someone should also ask how the chart "enforces a specific non-neutral point of view," which is against guidelines, note that an editor who is strongly arguing to keep it in, had written earlier, "Whatever they say, the current US administration is guilty as sin, and it will be held responsible." Does anyone believe that a comment like that is a neutral POV? --Light show (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources have presented the quotes alongside the contemporary case-count. Feoffer (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Beg pardon, Light show, but you haven't shown anything of the sort. Could you connect the dots for me? Instead of your assertion, I see instead the Trumpian narrative of being wildly out of touch with the developing crisis, rather than being responsible for the case count. That looks to be a leap only you are making, and I can't follow your argument at all. --Pete (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The best way to connect the dots might be to change your camera lens from zoom to wide angle. For example, you write, "I see instead the Trumpian narrative of being wildly out of touch with the developing crisis," when with a wider perspective you might conclude the exact opposite. Back in January, recall, the U.S. was the first country to impose travel restrictions on China's hotspots. That was a month before anyone in the U.S. had died, and with only one person outside of China dying. China accused the U.S. of "inappropriately overreacting." WHO joined in, claiming that "Travel Bans Not Needed To Beat China Virus." Nonetheless Australia and Japan imposed their own travel restrictions two weeks later. And most politicians, including Pelosi and Joe Biden, say that Trump was right.
By early March the U.S. began closing schools and declaring states of emergencies, and only two weeks later did WHO declare it a pandemic. A wider perspective therefore would imply that Trump was not "wildly out of touch," but instead highly "proactive." While other highly developed countries were still enjoying bread and circuses and worried mostly about going against people's right to go to a pub, a week earlier Trump had already boldly announced, "We will win this war." So I'm not sure why you still think Trump was out of touch.--Light show (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You said that the graphic implies that Trump is responsible for the number of cases. You haven't come close to showing this. Could you focus on that point, please? If you are now claiming something else, then fine, say so. --Pete (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You wrote, "Instead of your assertion, I see instead...." You made your vision very clear and I was replying to it. As for the implications created by the chart, already explained, you called the explanations "smoke and mirrors." So as Harry Nilsson sang in The Point!, "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear." --Light show (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to get to the bottom of your claim above that the graphic is implying without any support that a statement he made might have somehow been responsible for cases. How, precisely, is it implying this? --Pete (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A precise implication is an oxymoron, so I'll have to pass. --Light show (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Not appropriate: Per my short rationale in the earlier section. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Not appropriate - It violates numerous core pillars of Wikipedia, including WP:NPOV (the creator of the image selectively cherry picked some quotes out of an already biased selection of quotes, from an opinion piece on a blog, all of them intended to draw a one-sided picture of Trump) and WP:OR (the death figures are not juxtaposed with the quotes in the sources, but rather collected into the image by the image designer). In addition, on pure data visualization grounds, it is a horrendous piece of work- with a timeline that has the time decreasing on the Y-axis. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: the source is not an opinion piece or a blog. The juxtaposition of quotes is done by the source and not a WP editor. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's a blog, teh WaPo itself describes it as one: "The Washington Post's political analysis blog". The juxtaposition of quotes with case numbers in not in the original. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
See WP:NEWSBLOG. You are mistaken, the case numbers are listed in the source, to the right of each quote. I think the web page uses some sort of script to animate the numbers, so it's possible you aren't seeing it depending on your browser/settings. VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A News blog is still a blog, and WP:NEWSBLOG says "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". This particular blog post was created by a graphic editor and a graphic journalist - hardly the kind of qualifications for a news reporter. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per comments by others and me above in this section [2]. This image is clearly due on the page. Why it is due? Because, unfortunately, it appears that words and decisions by a single man are enormously important for development of the pandemics in US, exactly as he tells himself [3]. The lack of competence here is astonishing. And no, he did not listen to experts at the time when action was so crucial, as one can easily conclude by looking at the image with his statements under discussion. That's why this image is so important for the page. These are just his own words against the development of the pandemic, nothing else. No problems with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It is very easy to violate WP:NPOV, even when using "just his own words", by cherry picking the quotes you select. For every quote above that seems to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic one can find a quote that implies the opposite. For every quote that implies he wants to end the shutdown too quickly (I'd love to have the country opened up by Easter"), you can find the opposite ('“It seems to me if we do a really good job, we’ll not only hold the death down to a level that’s much lower than the other way had we not done a good job, but people are talking about July, August,") JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The WP contributor did no cherry pick the quotes. The quotes have been selected by the cited RS and taken directly from the source. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That's both false (The WP editor selected a subset of the quotes from the article) as well as irrelevant, as the source itself cherry picked quotes. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Not Appropriate: The reasons for deletion seem to have been extensively covered by a plurality of editors. WP:NPOV, cherry picked information, lack of context, you could honestly make a long list of why this isn't appropriate for inclusion. This rfc should be shelved. Amorals (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove - The problem with it is that it's pure soundbites. It may very well be validly criticized as quote-mining. The context surrounding the short statements are missing. These critiques should certainly be included in the article in a much broader way, but the image just isn't the way to do it. -- Veggies (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep for now at least. With some time perspective, we may or may not find that the historical perspective leaves the timeline in need of update or removal. Until then, the only stated reason I'm seeing for the removal seems to be "NPOV" with no further justification on how this timeline, which is both based on a reliable source and reflects a mainstream viewpoint, violates NPOV. Without that, the claim of NPOV is just an empty proxy for WP:IJDLI. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Concur that we're seeing a lot of WP:IJDLI. The federal response is a valid part of an article written from a Neutral Point of View. Feoffer (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It is both WP:OR, as several have written, and violates WP:NPOV. Read my response above to My Very Best Wishes for an explanation of how it violates NOV. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
What you describe above isn't a NPOV violation. The quote selection is by WaPo not by a WP editor. You are basing your conclusion that the quote selection must be biased because you can find other quotes that say different things? That's you injecting your own analysis into the conclusion rather than looking at the secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Even if it was just tha WaPo bloggers selecting those quotes, it would still be a one-sided selection intended to convey a specific view, and as such, a violation of WP:NPOV as explained above (read [{WP:NPOV]]: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. "). But as it so happens, the WP editor further selected a subset of the quotes used by WaPo bloggers, making it even more one-sided. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
Remove WP:NPOV, WP:OR probably others. I assumed it was a cartoon when I first saw it. I'm sure more encyc. material can be found to communicate DT's somewhat 'maverick' response to this pandemic. There is certainly no shortage of critical articles in UK papers. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Iluvalar (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep They are Trump's own words and therefore does not violate WP:NPOV. We have to keep it objective by using his own words, not our opinion.—SquidHomme(talk) 21:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"They are Trump's words so it can't be a NPOV violation: is a logically fallacious argument, as explained in detail, above. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! I reckon you left a comment only on those who disagree with your point, but you don't have to defend Trump to that extent, dude. Let's be neutral, we're not crafting opinions here, the fact that he said those words is backed by recorded evidence and proof. As per the discussions above, these words is not cherrypicked in any way as they are the majority of his well-known response to the pandemic, our job here is just summarize them. Also, Wikipedia has long history with it WP:CLOP.—SquidHomme(talk) 20:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a casebook example of a fallacy: "The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made." The chart is quoting out of context by improperly linking quotes with cases, which distorts its meaning. And whether the distortion was intentional or accidental, it doesn't belong. --Light show (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Saying something is improper or distorted does not make it so. You need to take one or two more steps to show what underlies your statement. The context is the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, and Trump's statements are placed directly in that context, placed at the appropriate times. This is not Wikipedia making the connection. Every one of those statements of Trumps has been used in exactly the same context by multiple reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It hasn’t just been said, its distortion has been demonstrated. No RS have made any similar linkage between specific out of context quotes and Covid-19 cases. Actually, the closest thing in the media that makes this connection is ironically an opposition campaign promo, whose super PAC Trump is suing. For obvious reasons, this should underscore the WP:NPOV. Any further comments are beating a dead horse. Should be closed with a clear consensus of leaving this diagram out. Amorals (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
To say clear consensus of leaving this diagram out is to not have read all the editors comments, Amorals. By my count, you are missing Ten editors. By your reasoning, I can state with confidence; Should be closed with a clear consensus of include this diagram. X1\ (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You can’t state with confidence because as many veteran editors have noted, some of whom are your friends, it’s not just the sheer numbers of yay or nay, but a preponderance of how compelling the reasoning is on each side too. And to be clear there have been an equal number of votes to exclude. And the burden lies on those to provide a just case to reach a consensus to include this new content Amorals (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Amorals: are you not reading your own words? The preponderance of how compelling does not show clear consensus of leaving this diagram out. The other editors aren't friends, they are people who also see the preponderance as compelling to keep. This isn't personal, so why are you attempting to spin things? X1\ (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Typos happen my man so my apologies for that. And it’s nothing personal and when I say your friends, I’m not talking about the editors on this thread specifically. And to be clear this rfc was whether to “include” the diagram not to “keep.” It already was established that the diagram was added without proper consensus in the first place. The burden remains on those who wish to include to show just rationale. Amorals (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Again please continue to state case for inclusion here as we try to reach a consensus. Do not add new diagram until consensus is reached. Amorals (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment. No, what had happen is this. The image was on the page for a long time (since April 1), and there was no objections until April 11, when someone removed it [4], without appropriate consensus and discussion. On April 12, 2:19, a red-linked account removed it again without consensus: [5]. Six minutes later, another red-linked account started this RfC [6]. Therefore, I believe the image should remain on the page by default if this discussion produces "no consensus". It also should stay during the RfC. So, unless there are really convincing arguments to the opposite, I am going to restore this image. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that is wrong. It was added on April 2 (not 1), and objected to as early as April 8. 6 days is not "on the page for a long time", and it certainly does not establish there was consensus for this to begin with. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
There had been a discussion with a number of editors about this graph going on at least since April 8. The entire section had already been tagged as NPOV thanks to whomever added it to the already bloated anti-Trump hatchet job that the section was turned into.--Light show (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes it doesn’t matter if it was up for 8-10 days, proper consensus wasn’t reached before someone added it. Think in terms of if there is an autonomous addition of something significant to a contentious article without discussing on talk page for consensus, and editors just don’t see it for a week or so and then a number of editors vocally object. We don’t just say, “well it took them too long to object” there is no statute of limitations. A core policy of Wikipedia relies on consensus to be reached for something like this to be included in the article in the first place. Until that consensus is reached it remains out. Amorals (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will check and will not restore if that's the case. But speaking about the "hatchet job", I do not think so. This is not about anyone being pro- or "anti-Trump". It is about being alive or dead. It so happened that the US elections and the decisions by US politicians have become a matter of life or death, very literally. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Amorals, I only see a Template:Ds/talk notice|ap in the Talk header. For {American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}, notice the "Consensus required=no". You saying something like this is basically an admission by you of subjectivity, not conclusiveness. X1\ (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You (Amorals} say "No RS have made any similar linkage between specific out of context quotes and Covid-19 cases." That is simply not true, and is easily disproven. Google any of those quotes and RS after RS pops up. eg. The GuardianThe Atlantic CNBCAl JazeeraNYTFinancial Times
And on and on. It's a slam dunk for any journalist. Correlate some statement made by Trump trying to play the thing down with the reality of an increasingly stricken America. One might quibble over whether he got a few things right - he did - but the story is that he was telling Americans the virus was under control and going away when the reality was the exact opposite. Every one of these quotes from Trump will be pulled out again and again over the months to come as a demonstration of how woefully out of touch he was. And the kicker is that these weren't statements that Trump said in private or when he thought the cameras weren't rolling. Hell, no. He wanted his exact words on every front page. And they were. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Pete, you seem to be inserting many of your own views and speculation. No RS has claimed his comments in any way increased the potency of the virus or caused cases to increase, when we say “no linkage” in RS that’s what we mean. To give you a partisan analogy on the other side, it’s like showing a graph of people saying Donald Trump couldn’t win in 2015 alongside his numbers rising in the polls. There’s no direct link other than showing that the person who made the comments were out of touch with what was happening. Additionally, it’s quote farming, taking phrases here and there while omitting complete statements in context. That is a big no no on wiki. Amorals (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Not an appropriate comparison, Amorals, as one is a prediction of the future and the graph at hand is coinciding events of the past. X1\ (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NPOV. The quotes are cherry-picked to make Trump look bad. Additionally, actions such as the China travel cut-off on 31 January are left out. That's more important than anything Trump said. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
From uploader of graphic: Keep: The quotes and the case counts are explicitly listed and juxtaposed/correlated in the source itself and does not involve my "cherry picking". I merely graphed data that was correlated in the source, so there is zeroWP:OR. If you accept The Washington Post as a reliable reference, then there are no genuine WP:NPOV issues. The graphic merely encapsulates Trump's early-pandemic quotations in the "Communication" section as it should. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That is false. You selected a subset of the quotes in the source. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I did select a subset, for (obvious) space reasons, and to avoid repetitiveness, and to avoid comments re Democrats and re Fake News and re self-praise since this article is about the pandemic. (Which graphic—ever—includes everything that's recited in a source?) I reaffirm: zero OR, no NPOV violation, and I did not "cherry pick". —RCraig09 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S. The graph does not attempt to show that Trump's words "caused" a given number of cases (as some editors suggest above); it merely presents Trump's communications. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Rcraig09, Do you not understand how X Y graphs work? They imply a direct linkage and correlation between the 2 variables (i.e. Trump’s words having a direct effect on the increase of Coronavirus cases) This is stuff you learn in your basic math class as a kid. Yet another reason a graph like this is flawed. And yes when you leave out other parts of the quote, “Democrats, fake news, etc.” for better or worse that’s cherry picking and quote farming. Amorals (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You User:Amorals are thinking of graphs of mathematical functions—which this graphic is not; it merely shows a correlation that is specifically disclosed in the cited reference. Second, the term "cherry picking" denotes selecting specific items to deceptively present a position that is contrary to a position that all items would imply—which I have not done. 17:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) . . . and WP:Quote farm relates to lengths and overuse of quotes without pointing out relevance; here, the caption's quote from the Wash Post source specifically points out and summarizes the quotes' relevance. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes but User:RCraig09 you are showing this correlation in a math style graph! If you really want to show a correlation (evidence suggests there may be none) and you want to do it graphically, you should start by finding a graph whose structure is not primarily used in mathematics and statistics. Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bsubprime7: It is a timeline and not predominantly a "math style graph" (though it does show case count vs. time). The original reference is "trying to show correlation" (not causation) between what Trump said versus case count. If you know of a better "graph structure", please describe, as I'm very interested in data visualization. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Have you considered swapping the axes and having later dates farther along the horizontal axis? SPECIFICOtalk 19:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, User:SPECIFICO, I did consider that. But to orient the time axis horizontally, while keeping the text oriented horizontally so we don't have to turn our heads 90°, would have increased the graph size with many long connecting lines (see another example here which I just today discovered while Googling 'timelines'). My graphic is the most compact-yet-readable-thumbnail that I could conceive. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I also have an issue with the orientation because it seems deceiving (rapid decline) compared with every other chart used, be them linear or semi-log. StrayBolt (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
StrayBolt, do you still have an issue, after reading the legends (date on the vertical axis, and number-of-cases on the horizontal axis)? It is different from other charts because the text should be kept horizontal for easy reading. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Supplemental from uploader: Opposing arguments seem to focus on what are actually the presumed negative political effects of these timed facts becoming published (the effect of facts is beyond our control as Wikipedians) and on the source's inferred "intent" (source presented relevant, timed facts), on a wrong perception that the chart is trying to imply comments caused deaths (it does not imply that), that my Original Research uncovered and timewise-correlated the quotes (no, the reliable source did that), that the chosen quotes were "cherry picked" for partisan purpose (they were not)... —RCraig09 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Not appropriate If we're using this graph we may as well grow some balls and publicly declare Trump is allowing a holocaust to happen, cause we're not gaining any respect from tiptoeing around what some editors would rather we say about the administration. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove While the actions by Trump have been well less than perfect, this graphic is based on only a portion of his words so I can see no reason to provide space in this already oversized article to this.--MONGO (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Along those lines, since POTUS continues to issue significant "words" every day, maybe a table or spreadsheet format would be more apt? A thumbnail could link to the detailed data. SPECIFICOtalk 18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
An interesting idea, SPECIFICO. X1\ (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
remove - This is mirroring a political campaign ad and synthesized from selected quotes. This is a pandemic with largely similar results in all western countries and states. Tieing it to Trump is overtly political and not neutral and incomplete. ConstantPlancks (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
In the context of the "Communication" section of this article, a reliable source's listing of Trump's pandemic quotes does not mirror "a political campaign ad" (though campaign ads may also present facts, believe it or not!). The reliable source "ties it to Trump". Also, the graphic is only "incomplete" because it purposely omits sourced quotes that are only tangentially related to the pandemic (to avoid repetitiveness, and to avoid comments re Democrats and re Fake News and re self-praise). —RCraig09 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove The source is a partisan editorial piece. I'll defer to the many good arguments for deletion given above. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for mapping opinion pieces to articles presented as fact. Including this type of thing in a Wikipedia article corrupts and degrades Wikpedia. Subthreads here show that a few people view the partisan editorial as fact and tirelessly argue that it is fact, and we must respect these people and their opinion. But the longer we leave this kind of thing up, the more we weaken the article, and debase Wikipedia. -- motorfingers : Talk 16:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove - I think there's plenty that can be said in prose about the response (even including these very quotes), but this graphic seems pretty undue. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove - I cannot see any possibility of the creation of infographics like this in highly contentious edit areas ending well. OR, DUE, maybe even IAR. The information can be adequately communicated in prose. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep but needs modifications. The dates being off and perhaps not enough backstory/linking built-in can probably be fixed. ɱ(talk) 05:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Demonstrations against governor-ordered lockdowns
Where in this article should we include the recent outbreak of demonstrations against governor-ordered lockdowns? They broke out as soon as Trump said "it's up to the governors", and the demonstrations were openly encouraged by Trump.
Coronavirus Live Updates: As Governors Look to Reopen, Trump Foments Anti-Restriction Protests "In a series of all-caps tweets, Mr. Trump declared “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” — two states whose Democratic governors have imposed social distancing restrictions that have shut down businesses and schools and forced people to remain at home. He also tweeted “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” ... "Mr. Trump’s tweets began just moments after a Fox News report by Mike Tobin, a reporter for the network, about protests in Minnesota and elsewhere."
For that matter, where have we included Trump's recent claim that he is in total charge of reopening, followed by telling governors that “you’re going to call your own shots,” followed by cautions that “We are not opening all at once, but one careful step at a time.” ? Do we have a section about his daily press briefings? This is a long article and I assume I have just missed this somewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Ah, I found it; it's under Communication:President Trump. But where should we put the protests? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Planning for Michigan's "Operation Gridlock" protest was circulating on Reddit as early as 7 days ago. It was a response to strong measures imposed by the governor that included prohibitions against purchasing common household items. Trump isn't helping, but he is not the cause. Sailing californium (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
All three of those states: Tim Walz (Minnesota), Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), and Ralph Northam (Virginia) have Democratic Governors; none of the GOP Govs who also have stay-at-home orders, so this is just self-destructive unhealthy partisan tactics. X1\ (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree, he didn't start the protests. He just encouraged them after hearing about them on Fox News. But do we have anything about the protests in this article? If we want something, where should it go? And do we have references about the origin/organization of them? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, it's worth including somewhere. It's also worth mentioning that a DeVos-linked group was involved.[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Better source on the Michigan Conservative Coalition: [8] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Devos denied involvement and the protesters have legitimate grievances. That state has the strictest lockdown and is not the hardest hit. Sailing californium (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
We're not saying that the protests are justified or unjustified. We are saying they ought to be in the article. We need to decide where - in an existing section, and if so which? Or in a new subsection or section? The NBC news and Guardian references are good; do we have more? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There's lots. It could be a section about the response to shelter in place. [9][10][11][12] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Here we go - there's a section called "Public response". I'll work on an item for that section. I'm currently busy, if someone wants to beat me to it go ahead. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Why the apparent urgency? This is a free speech demonstration which could disappear or be reduced from the news tomorrow. There are some who cast a wary eye on a rush to post news stories about divisive events, which in hindsight may mean little. Recall the flood of posts and cites about a few anti-Chinese activities in the U.S., which is even in the lead's final sentence. My estimate is that about 90% of the edits on the talk pages are focused on divisive subjects like that and on politics, and not about the disease: it's treatment, or potential cure. As one writer commented, "Trump bashing too divisive during pandemic". It may even appear to be opportunistic.--Light show (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wapo is as reliable as New York post. Read the article, hardly any of it is sourced, and the White House created a task force on the issue weeks beforehand, which is not the expected behavior of someone downplaying a threat. Let's keep wikipedia objective and credible. Solly989 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
WaPo is ideologically left. It is not objective. It will not praise Trump. There are no favorable articles about the current administration on Wapo.com Sailing californium (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
WaPo is neutral. They are not "ideologically left". And Solly989 the White House didn't create their task force until March, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The WaPo editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton, and the democrats. Most services consider them ideologically left. Sailing californium (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Sailing californium, like every newspaper, the editorial board is separate from the investigative journalism units of the paper. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The investigations report that every action was deplorable and none were praiseworthy. Sailing californium (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Does advocacy of insurrection against stay-at-home orders deserve its own section?
Where should we document reactions by political leaders advocating defiance of shelter-in-place orders, e.g. [13], [14] and [15]?
Given the vast number in the past week when prior there were almost none, and potential these things have to increase Rt, should they have their own section in this article? 107.242.121.26 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this kind of subterfuge merely "Public response"? I mean, it's not entirely public if it's astroturf being organized behind the scenes, is it? This seems like a whole different level.
Hi, Ellen, and thanks for the ping. I am in favor of reporting, briefly, on the protests. We currently mention them in this article in two places: A paragraph about Trump’s reaction to the protests in the Trump communications section (which may soon be forked to a separate article, see discussion below), and a sentence about the protests in the “public response” section, balanced by a sentence reporting public polling on the issue. IMO that is the right place and about the right level of coverage. The fact that there are groups organizing the protests is irrelevant; there are usually groups organizing any protest. As for these two references, we should not mention DeVos since the connection is very tenuous, and we don’t quote reddit as a source. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to wait to see what mass media reliable sources do with this over the next week. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible additional info to lead section....
Hello, this pandemic, as most of us are aware, has caused a major nationwide disruption in our retail and entertainment industry, eg. indefinite closures of bars, movie theaters, restaurants, salons, bowling alleys, parks, shopping malls, as well as schools, places of worship, concerts, sporting events, etc. Can we somehow add this detail to the lead section, as I and perhaps others would find it very important and helpful to add, where we have never seen such a widespread chain of events before like this. 208.68.20.176 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I see they have educational institutions and sporting events mentioned but lacking some other closures.
We already mention "restrictions on commerce and movement". ViperSnake151 Talk 15:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Data on number of infections and deaths on this page vs other pages on the topic of this infections
I review this page and others on Wikipedia on this topic. This pages data on infections and deaths to not match the others pages on Wikipedia. Is there an explanation?17:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)166.19.202.111 (talk)
Lede change "announced a partial ban" to "announced restrictions on"
Does anyone have any objections to changing "announced a partial ban of foreign nationals arriving from China" to "announced restrictions on foreign nations arriving from China" ?
He banned 1.4 billion people, exempting only those with family in the US. If 14 million were exempt, which is high, he still banned 99% of china. 99% is not "partial" it's "nearly all". Sailing californium (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
It originally said "partial ban on travel from China" because it exempted Americans. If it has been changed to "foreign nationals," what would you think about saying "a ban on most foreign nationals arriving from China"? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"most" is fine. "partial" sounds like less than 50% Sailing californium (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Partial - the original language - is clearer. It means less than total. "Most" raises questions left unanswered. SPECIFICOtalk 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Oxford: "partial, existing only in part" he banned 99%. You feel 99% is only "part" of china? Sailing californium (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion to improve the table and chart
(Separate section so as not to interfere with the RfC) Wherever we put them, can I request that we remove the word “non-repatriated” from the titles of the chart and table? I suspect most people's reaction to the word is "huh?" That term, which is nowhere defined, may have been relevant in the very early days of the epidemic in this country, when announcements of new cases included whether the infected person had traveled. But as soon as community spread became the dominant method of transmission, in effect everyone was “non-repatriated”, no such description was used, and the term became meaningless. Reliable sources have long since dropped the term “non-repatriated”; in a Google search I find no use of it in the past month, except by Wikipedia and mirrors. What would be more helpful: I suggest you replace it with “confirmed” cases, to make it clear that this figure is based on test results, not actual symptomatic illnesses. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The number is so small compared to the total that it really doesn't matter, so I changed the wording in the subheadings of the statistics section. If we want to talk about how the small number of repariated cases affects these statistics, we could add a sentence with this discussion to the text, but it doesn't need to be in the subheading. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
append "although some world leaders say China probably has the largest death toll" ?
Is there an objection to appending "although some world leaders say China probably has the largest death toll" to the lede?
Dr. Birx, Boris Johnson, Trump, and Macron (France), have all said China has the largest. Fauci and others say the china numbers are wrong. No official says the Chinese numbers are reliable.
It's also obviously true. China is a one-party authoritarian dictatorship with a president for life that maintains to this day that few people were killed in Tiananmen Square and that they were guilty, not students. It's morally wrong to pretend the Chinese numbers are right. Regardless, remarks made by the US president on the US death toll are always noteworthy. Sailing californium (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It was in the article up until today, but three different people have removed it and I can see their points. One, that the information is not in the text, and two, it is speculation not suitable for the lead. I would suggest we add it to the text somewhere - adjacent to the report that the US has the most deaths - but leave it out of the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, Is the only thing that will change your mind an official report from China? We didn't get that for Tianamen Square. We just all decided to agree China wasn't telling the truth. It's not right to say they were lying then, but now telling the truth. Sailing californium (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The US said Iraq had WMDs. It's not right to say we were lying then, but now telling the truth. See why that line of reasoning doesn't work? VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
From the placement and very marginal sourcing provided, this comes off as a talking point from the "virus and friends" daily Trump tv show. Let's keep the focus of this article on the pandemic in the US with less emphasis on opinions and media narratives and none on political spin. Otherwise, pretty soon we'll be adding a section on the second amendment in Virginia. SPECIFICOtalk 18:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, Sourcing is RS with quotes from Dr. Birx, Boris, Trump, Macron saying "largest". It is also true. Sailing californium (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Most of your sourcing, as I've previously told you elsewhere, is primary transcripts of Trump Administration's own words. Not a good choice. Again, I'll ask you please read WP:NPOV SPECIFICOtalk 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO It is acceptable to quote world leaders and public officials. Would you accept anything other than a report from China as evidence of their death toll? Sailing californium (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I think most of us do believe that China has underreported its cases and deaths. But what we believe is irrelevant. Multiple world leaders have suggested the same. Their opinions are somewhat relevant - relevant enough for a sentence in the text, but not in the lead. Their opinions may be speculation, or they may be based on their intelligence reports; they have not offered any evidence. Either way it does not belong in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, what do you need to see to put it in the lead? Will you accept anything other than a report from China? Sailing californium (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Quit repeating rhetorical questions. We are not saying they are telling the truth. We are just not accusing them of lying, not in the lead. I used to think this was OK in the lead, but the arguments by the multiple users who removed it convinced me otherwise. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, I apologize. I want to know what you would find acceptable in the future to satisfy the requirement. Sailing californium (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
... a report from China ... Another primary source. SPECIFICOtalk 18:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I would accept that. But in case that never materializes such as the case of Tiananmen Square, is there anything else you would accept? We do not accept the official account of the Tiananmen Square protests. Similarly here, is there a way to substitute truth for official reports from an authoritarian dictatorship? Sailing californium (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Last comment here and then I'm done. The US and UK say they think China probably underreported deaths, by a lot, but offer no figures or evidence. The French offer an even weaker accusation. IMO the suspicions are worth a sentence in the text, in the context of the US having the most deaths. Maybe in the future some of those countries will offer stronger statements, saying they have evidence that it is true rather than mere suspicion, and then we can strengthen our material in the text. In any case it would be pretty minor to use in the lead; its only relevance to this article is to cast doubt on whether we have the most deaths. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, There will be a day where the world agrees China has the highest death toll, and your protestations will look foolish. Sailing californium (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Definitely not leadworthy but a mention in the body is satisfactory for now.--MONGO (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, VQuakr Do not clutch your pearls. Nobody believes the US has the highest death toll. I don't. You don't. We all agree. Sailing californium (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Sailing californium, I believe that the U.S. has the highest reported death toll, which is what we can verify. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, according to RS, the US has the highest reported death toll. Maybe I need an update because I haven't seen the news for 24 to 36 hours. To say China has the highest reported death toll at this point seems to be speculation. We might be able to say China's reported numbers don't seem to be accurate - and that is according to RS. And I don't think that needs to be in the lead. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The U.S. has the highest reported death toll, but many people suspect that China's actual numbers are many times higher than their reported numbers. At this point this is suspicion and hunch, and so I agree, it should not go in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Blatant Proselytisation
article states:
While the United Church of Christ (UCC) and American Baptist Churches USA joined an ecumenical effort of American churches to provide much-needed medical supplies to China.[41]
source states:
<UCC and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)] are contributing a combined $15,000 to the American Baptist-led ecumenical effort, which at this point has collected almost $100,000.”>
So, that minuscule donation deserves special mention (for religious purposes)?
I think the communications section needs to be summarized and split out into its own article at this rate; it has become extensively long, and is now pretty much a topic in its own right that I think could be sorted out into individual topics better. The title I suggested on the split template (Communications of Donald Trump during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic) was only a draft idea, and we could probably come up with a better one (Trump administration communications during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?) ViperSnake151 Talk 15:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. This article would be better if it were more focussed on the pandemic itself, and that was a separate article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure we need to spin this off so call me neutral on that question. But I do have some recommendations: We're talking only about "communications", right? What was said, not what was done? Because I think we need to retain government actions here in the article, and in some cases it might be hard to separate them. If we do split out communications it should be the entire "communications" section, including comments by other administration officials as well as Trump. That would also make the proposed article more balanced since it would include communications by health officials (usually regarded as credible) as well as by politicians and political appointees (often regarded as not credible). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
It'd be simpler to have the "US Misinformation" article to be a separate article, rather than redirect. And this includes Trump's misinformation. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN I don't understand what you mean by "We're talking only about "communications", right? What was said, not what was done?" I'm thinking the two are interrelated. However, can you give an example or clarify what you mean? I may not be seeing this correctly. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
As I understand your proposal for the fork article, it would be pretty much what is in the current "Communications" section: what Trump said, and what his administration said. But the actual actions of Trump and his administration, which are in a separate section here called "Government responses", should stay here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
To everybody - I've been seriously thinking of starting an article such "Communications of Donald Trump..." for awhile. So i'm glad such an article is coming together. I think it should have a different name - although I haven't thought that far ahead at the moment. Maybe I can make a proposal later - based on RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I do think we need to re-look at the massive deletions EddieHugh made to that section. They seem almost random, like removing the China travel restrictions while retaining the Europe travel restrictions. But if we are going to have a separate article specifically about what Trump and his administration (yes, both) said, (looks like we have that article, thanks Starship!) we can restore a lot of that stuff in that article and leave a brief summary at this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
