Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak

Mention that Trump has bragged that COVID is God testing his greatness?

Not three months ago, Trump bragged that COVID-19 was God testing Trump's greatness. Seems quite relevant, as these recent events continue a quite Biblical cadence. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Eschatology aside, we could think about adding a "Background" section where we talk about the different attitudes towards pandemic-protection, but the contrast is so deeply saturated in the zeitgeist that a remedial primer may well be less-than-useful. Feoffer (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There's already another Wiki article called "Trump administration communication during the coronavirus pandemic." Thanks for the August 17 statement about "God testing me"; I quoted it in the "communication" article, where it's probably a better fit. — Tuckerlieberman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Some people think Trump is God. [1] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Widespread outbreak

How do you all feel about starting to break this section into subheads for: Journalists and White House Press Staff, Military, Congresspeople, White House staff, and Family members of those testing positive? There are at least two individuals from all of these categories at this point. ---TheMusicExperimental (talk)

Clarification needed: reporters revealed the outbreak, not the White House

It was Bloomberg News reporter Jennifer Jacobs who reported that Hope Hicks had been diagnosed with COVID. The White House did not disclose this until news had broken. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It also needs to be clarified that the White House does not appear to be doing contact tracing and that it is unwilling to disclose information that would help in contact tracing efforts.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Added Jennifer Jacobs and Jordan Fabian to the mention in the article about Bloomberg breaking the news about Hicks. Jacobs was first to tweet by a few minutes, but her tweet said "Story by @Jordanfabian and me", and the full article was published simultaneously. This Wiki article already discusses how the White House did not disclose this until pressed on it (by Hannity).

The White House's refusal to allow the CDC to help with contact tracing is mentioned twice in the article. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Numbers in infobox vs table

The infobox states that there are 36 confirmed cases. However, adding up the table (which includes one entry that says "11 unidentified persons", one that says "Two unidentified staffers", and one that says "Michael D. Shear & wife", I'm counting a total of 40. Given that the top entry also says, "Multiple unidentified staffers", should we change the number in the infobox to say "40+"? — Czello 15:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: I would be more comfortable with a range (of up to 40) because for the unidentified staffers and employees we don't have enough information to establish if a single person or groups of people are double counted. William Graham ^talk 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Frequency of Trump receiving tests

I found this article from Vox that seems to have good sourced information about the frequency that Trump received testing. Every 2 to 3 days from this CNN article. Can we get that integrated into the Background section? --William Graham ^talk 18:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The table

is a mess. Way too many colours and the colspans just make it confusing.  Nixinova   T   C   21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We could sort by event attendance, putting all the "other" exposures at the bottom, so that the colspans might be less disruptive to the flow. We could break them out into two tables as well. Other ideas? Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Two tables is good as of now, because the positive and negative groups became large enough, that splitting them into separate poz/neg groupings was commendable. -Mardus /talk 09:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Split

The page is currently 177kb of text, quite a ways over the recommended maximum length of 100kb as per WP:SPLIT. With it being a current news story I would imagine this is going to continue to grow as well. I propose that we separate out the section about Trump's stay in hospital to 2020 hospitalization of Donald Trump or something along those lines. --ERAGON (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's also extraneous and repeated details that can be removed from the article as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The 100kb recommended size is for readable prose content - this article has only 37 kB in readable prose content. But agree that this article would benefit from a trim of redundancy etc. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Still too soon, but when we split eventually, the new article should probably cover the entirety of his illness. Donald Trump's infection with COVID-19 or something like that. Feoffer (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree that whatever the new article is should directly reference that it is a Covid-19 hospitalization as opposed to something like the unscheduled trip to Walter Reed that happened earlier this year. That it is Covid-related is notable. Given the typical disease progression probably worth waiting another 10 to 15 days before splitting off. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be split. As Neutrality pointed out, it's only 37 kB in readible prose. Trimming WP:RECENTISM is the way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If prose is only 20% of the size of the article source content, there is likely too much technical data for one article here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah my bad on the length, I was looking at the total page size rather than text size. --ERAGON (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Appropriateness of covering Fitness Concerns.

The section was recently removed by User:Onetwothreeip. I restored it as reliably sourced. Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't removed due to issues with sourcing. Please self-revert your edit per WP:BRD. This is an article about a virus outbreak in the White House, not about commentary and speculation about Donald Trump. It's going to take an entire article to accurately and fairly assess Trump's mental state. This most likely belongs on Wikipedia, but not in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Onetwothreeip that it should be in a separate article. Deleting it instead of creating that second article and moving the information, not so much. Many reliable sources discuss the topic in depth. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that an article on the health of Donald Trump, which I participated in creating, was previously the subject of a deletion discussion which resulted in a merge to Donald Trump. While I personally think that it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia have articles on the health of both Trump and Joe Biden, I would expect that a consensus for having either such article would need to be developed before the topic could be restored. BD2412 T 02:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Agree that we would have to have a new consensus for a new article. Until we do, Fitness Concerns should stay. It has extensive coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better and easier to just move this into the other reactions. Otherwise it's just a POV section on its own. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you articulate why you believe WP:NPOV prevents us from summarizing the reliable sources documenting concerns about how the novel coronavirus, experimental treatments, and medication might affect the president's ability to exercise his? Feoffer (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, if we do initiate a new effort to create an article specifically on the topic of Trump's health or fitness for office, I would certainly wait until after election day to do this. Otherwise, the appearance might be that such an effort is intended to impact the election, however remote the possibility of such an impact might be. BD2412 T 03:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, and we are not prevented from doing that. What we are prevented from is creating lists of criticisms, concerns or controversies. Reliably sourced and due concerns should be integrated into the content of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The above statements do not articulate any specific ways in which the current text violates WP:NPOV.Feoffer (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably because you didn't ask that. Which text would you like me to articulate? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Secrecy section headings

Same user has repeatedly deleted the "secrecy" section headings that have consensus above. The lack of disclosure has been covered extensively in reliable sources. Feoffer (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Section headings should be neutral. Contentious information should be described in prose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing contentious. Trump and campaign have delayed releasing information on their positive test results and diagnosis. Several times they've gone on television and/or addressed press and either made no mention or didn't disclose it even after the diagnosis. I don't see what's contentious about this, it's notable. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict it being contentious information. Headings should be as neutral as possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

By all means, attempted to generate consensus for headings you prefer, but attempts to repeatedly edit-war against consensus will not be tolerated. Feoffer (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The same user has again removed the section heading they dispute. , and they've been reported to WP:ANI. The previous version will need to be restored before further changes can be incorporated. Feoffer (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The result of that ANI report was "Both of these content issues are being discussed on the article's talk page. Please continue discussion there to establish consensus, using WP:RFC(s) if necessary." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly a lie, as that clearly shows I moved the content, not removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The headings you object to were repeatedly removed by you without first generating a consensus for their removal. Feoffer (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works. If there's any objection to my edits I'm always willing to discuss them to avoid edit wars. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to diagnosis which was reverted with this edit, but I was not aware of this discussion. Please remember WP:NPOV still applies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm hearing people don't like the word secrecy, but that objection has been answered above -- our headings reflect the language used by RSes. Are there any other articulable NPOV concerns about the "amid secrecy" headings? Feoffer (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Medical personnel cannot reveal the status of their patients, even if said patients are famous. This is on the patients to reveal their status. But the patients are unenviably stuck: If they reveal their positive status, they'll be accused (correctly or incorrectly) of having been spreaders, and it's politically untenable; and if they do not reveal it publicly (informing family, staff and colleagues might be compulsory as a matter of course), they risk accusations of 'secrecy', but also accusations, that by not having publicised their positive status on time — especially after having attended crowded events — they delayed other attendees' efforts at contact tracing. Therefore, 'reveal as poz and be damned; keep secret, and be damned, too'. -Mardus /talk 10:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That is quite a pickle for public figures who may have concealed their positive diagnosis to attend events, but their dire straights don't impede our ability to write an article from a neutral point of view. Feoffer (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not write headings with the language of reliable sources. We write headings that are fit for an encyclopaedia to use in neutrally summarising the article section, not the reliable sources that the article section is based on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We should be WP:IMPARTIAL. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading the above comments, "amid secrecy" remains justified. Reliable sources do guide our verbiage, which does indeed reflects the views of impartial observers . Feoffer (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP and categorizations concerns

As this seems to be a spinout from this article, in a way, I thought I'd raise this here first. Are categories like Category:Exposed in White House COVID-19 outbreak and Category:Tested positive in White House COVID-19 outbreak appropriate? We're tagging BLPs for all-time that they were once possibly exposed to a virus, which seems concerning. ValarianB (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I feel like these Categories are ripe for a WP:CFD. Of course, it all may be too soon, but right now I don't think there's a need for the categories... --intelati^talk 12:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think those categories are necessary whatsoever. I also recommend bringing them to WP:CFD. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. CFD them. We need to be very careful about any health-related information is BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I thought, thanks. @Feoffer:, this would likely wind up as a deletion. We could save the time of a discussion if you just empty the categories and mark them for deletion as the sole author. ValarianB (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely! Seeing the discussion here, those two categories should be deleted. Feel free to mark them for deletion on my behalf or tell me how and I'll mark it myself. Feoffer (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think, and others can correct me if mistaken, that you could undo all the category additions you've added to articles, then once the Category has ben emptied, place a {{Db-author}} tag on the Category page. ValarianB (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 8. I was not aware of this discussion at the time. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

October 6-7

The last paragraph of the October 6-7 section doesn't make any sense. We have

• Trump announced on October 6 that he was ending talks with House Democrats and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi for an additional coronavirus relief bill.
• Three days earlier he had tweeted, "OUR GREAT USA WANTS & NEEDS STIMULUS. WORK TOGETHER AND GET IT DONE."
• Less than 8 hours after announcing that he would end talks with Pelosi, he announced that he would "IMMEDIATELY" sign a stimulus bill,
• reversing his previous decision.

The above assumes without evidence that "talks with Nancy Pelosi" equals "wanting a stimulus bill" and that "ending talks with Nancy Pelosi" equasl "not wanting a stimulus bill". Maybe he wants a stimulus bill, but not the same one Pelosi likes. Maybe he thinks Pelosi is dragging her feet and has decided to work with republican members of congress to create a different stimulus bill. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that much of what Trump has said since receiving a heavy steroid treatment doesn't make any sense. -- TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I expressed no opinion on whether Trump makes sense. I said that the Wikipedia White House COVID-19 outbreak page doesn't make sense. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. It's absolutely makes no sense that people in the White House were unable to keep themselves and their visitors safe from a Covid-19 outbreak. --TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      • PLEASE stop saying "I agree" when what you "agree" with has nothing to do with the comment you are replying to. It's really annoying. Also, this page is for discussing possible improvements to the White House COVID-19 outbreak article, not for your off-topic WP:SOAPBOXING. Knock it off. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @Guy Macon: The whole paragraph was removed as WP:SYNTH. Per WP:PRESERVE, the part supported by the NYT article should be restored: "Trump announced on October 6 that he was ending talks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for an additional coronavirus relief bill. Trump's behavior caused some White House staffers to wonder if he was being influenced by the cocktail of drugs he had been taking. A plan for a live nationwide address was discussed but was replaced with a plan to tape one instead. Aides said that Trump still sometimes sounded as if he was trying to catch his breath." —KinkyLipids (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
        • "Out of breath" and "caused some White House staffers to wonder" are good as long as they are sourced. Talks with Nancy Pelosi, or indeed anything about coronavirus relief or any other political decisions, don't belong in an article about the White House COVID-19 outbreak. This is about people getting sick. It isn't about political wrangling. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
        • I actually do agree with you on the political wrangling, Guy. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Widespread outbreak re-write/re-org

I've been wanting to do a rewrite of Widespread Outbreak for awhile that, instead of following known cases etc chronologically discusses the progression of positive cases as it has spread through different groups that interface with the White House and the Trump Campaign. Before I undertake that effort I want to see what the rest of you all think about that and would welcome feedback/encouragement/discouragement. -- TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Grouping the cases logically (e.g. by what group each person is part of or by what event they attended) makes it easier to track the viral transmission than chronological ordering of announcements/reporting of cases. —KinkyLipids (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Feoffer (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we all agree that there needs to be fewer section headings and that they need to be more neutrally written? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No, as of this time we still do not agree that the section headings should be removed or 'neutralized' in the ways you've suggested. See "amid secrecy" discussion above Feoffer (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I have not yet seen any section heads in this article that are non-neutral. Please take that up somewhere else, off-topic in this question. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

For any who may be unaware, the DYK hook for this article was discussed at WP:ERRORS resulting in a change in the hook. The discussion (as at this moment) can be read here. I believe that it raises concerns about the article that are worth considering and about DYK processes that belong at WT:DYK. Some of these may have come up in the threads above (I haven't yet looked) but I do think a discussion of the article content issues should be held here. EdChem (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of tweet from Dr. Esther Choo

The section Fitness concerns currently includes a tweet by Dr. Esther Choo regarding Trump's behavior. I deleted the tweet earlier for several reasons:

1. While the tweet is by a doctor, that alone does not make it notable enough for inclusion. Plenty of doctors have voiced their opinions on the current situation via Twitter, but it would be ridiculous to include them all. In general, I do not think tweets should be included unless they are specifically mentioned in other sources – for instance, Trump's tweet revealing his diagnosis is worth including because it provides context for the other sources discussing the tweet.
2. The tweet may come across as sarcastic or flippant. Plenty of people on Twitter say things without meaning what they say. It is not immediately clear if Dr. Choo is being serious or if she is mocking the president in some way.
3. Per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as: [...] it does not involve claims about third parties. This tweet does not follow this criteria.

The user who undid my edit noted that Dr. Choo is mentioned in the adjacent paragraph, which is true. However, that does not justify including one of her tweets – we should not include a tweet by someone simply because they have talked about the topic elsewhere in the article. The reliable sources already cover her comments in the text; there is no reason to include less reliable tweets.

I would like to delete this tweet again, but I first want to get others' input on the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB also states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer" (emphasis in original). After searching for reliable sources that cover the tweet, I found none. Also, Wikipedia's Image use policy, which was given as reason to include the tweet template, does not apply to tweet templates. Since there is no consensus for it, it should not be in the article. —KinkyLipids (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's moot here, just for future edification, selfpub doesn't prohibit expert opinions in the precise way you suggest. It prohibits citing experts as fact (e.g. "Mr Smith was fatigued"<ref>Self-Published Medical Expert</ref>). But there's no prohibition on properly-attributed expert opinion (e.g. Professor John Professorson, an expert, observed: "I thought Mr. Smith, a public figure, appeared fatigued during his interview tonight"<ref>Self-Published Medical Expert</ref>). Feoffer (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Great feedback, RunningTiger! The concern that Dr. Choo's opinion might be read as "sarcastic or flippant" is a really important insight!!

It's worth noting here that Choo's opinions on covid and the president's treatments have been very widely covered: NYT, The Atlantic, Baltimore Sun, Slate, CNN, NBC news, CBS news,The Independent, Washington Post, NY Daily News, Al Jazeera, others. I could go on with sources, there's no shortage, but suffice to say, this isn't a self-published opinion by just some doctor -- Choo is a well-established public health expert who's impressions have been widely-cited in mainstream Reliable Sources.

But your point about the readers' thinking Choo is being flippant is greatly appreciated! The article now contains further explanatory quotes from Choo from a mainstream RS in which she reiterates her professional impression of the tweets as potentially indicative of mania, so our readers won't think it was just a sarcastic remark. Feoffer (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We should avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comments. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Who is ridiculing who now? I'm certainly not trying to ridicule anyone! I am genuinely grateful for the feedback, it was helpful! It had never occurred to me that a medical health professional might be misinterpreted as being "flippant", but readers might have made that mistake if we didn't clarify for them. Feoffer (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree that Dr. Choo's other quotes in the article should remain given that she is cited in multiple different sources; I just don't think we should use tweets as sources unless the tweet is a primary source and is widely cited elsewhere. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Unknown in table

I deleted the unknowns in the table but this was reverted by TheMusicExperimental with this edit. In my view they should not be included, as there is nothing notable to report. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, they should not be included. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to undo the edit, or do you want to wait for a stronger consensus to form? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I rolled those back because it is notable that we do not know the outcomes of tests for those individuals, many of whom are notable themselves. Please discuss more thoroughly before deleting large sections of this page. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources report these individuals have been exposed to the outbreak. Feoffer (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• One proposal: 'Unknown' can be replaced with an em dash —, until known information becomes available. -Mardus /talk 11:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  I know WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, but there is no guarantee information will become available. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

But that's not a problem. We may never know if some of these individuals tested positive or not, and that's fine. Feoffer (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias in headings and too many subsections

Can we have agreement here that there needs to be fewer section headings and that they need to be more neutrally written? I have seen concerning edits from Feoffer and TheMusicExperimental to retain these irregular headings and amount of subsections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the subsections are too short, and so I do agree that there are too many of them. What isn't neutral, though? The "amid secrecy" parts? Lots of sources have been talking about the White House not being forthcoming with information. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The "secrecy" parts are being discussed in another section on this talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be in a heading. That's something to discuss in the body of the section. That perspective on the outbreak in headings is an issue all across the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As stated thrice now, we do not support removal or "neutralization" in the way you suggest. Feoffer (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by "irregular" or how factual, cited content is somehow non-neutral. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In what way are the section headings disputed? I've seen no disputes. Saying something is needs "to be more neutrally written" isn't a statement of dispute. I don't see anything that's disputable in the headings as they are all true and well sourced. Maybe there's too many, I don't know what too many means. I do know that some editors have been deleting stuff they personally find objectionable without engaging here in the Talk page first etc. I much prefer a discussion about structural stuff. But I'm just one editor here. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have not heard anyone articulate any NPOV concerns about the headings, aside from an objection to the phrase "amid secret".Feoffer (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the existence of a neutrality violation presupposes that there are at least two views whose existence is supported by reliable sources. In this case, one view is that Hicks' and Trump's positive tests were kept private and not disclosed. The reliable sources include The Wall Street Journal and The Hill. The other view would then be the opposite, that their positive tests were not kept private. So where are the reliably sourced citations that describe the opposite? These must be provided in order to assert a neutrality violation.

A possible compromise might be to replace "amid secrecy" with "kept private" or "not disclosed", which are the exact terms used by the cited reliable sources. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "kept private" would work -- there's no such thing as privacy when it comes to threats to the public health. If I break my leg, I'm free to keep it to myself; If I test positive for ebola, I'm not. Feoffer (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No, neutrality can be violated regardless of how many views exist of something. The heading should be something completely benign and undramatic, like "Hope Hicks diagnosis". There is absolutely no need to explain anything in the heading. There is very clearly a consensus here to remove "amid secrecy" and to merge sections, so I will be carrying that out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You've been warned about this multiple times. Repeatedly removing texts without consensus will result in a blockrequest. Feoffer (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

By which you mean that you objected to it before, which has been noted. The discussion in this section clearly shows there is consensus for at least those two things. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: There are three editors who do not consent to an NPOV removal: myself, Feoffer, and TheMusicExperimental. There are only two who consent. After I cited actual reasoning contained in WP:NPOV, you rejected it in favor of your own definition of neutrality and declared (at 1 a.m. Eastern) a "very clearly a consensus" and that you will be carrying out the removal. This is misapplication of WP:NPOV and would be a violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". Please answer this question per NPOV: Where are the reliably sourced citations that say that Hicks' and Trump's positive tests were not kept private/undisclosed? Once reliable citations provided, we can then discuss whether each view is a major, significant minor, or an extremely small minority view, per WP:NPOV. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you expect them to prove a negative? The WP:Burden is on the editors who want to include something. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is about verifiability. The nondisclosures are verified by the cited reliable sources. There is a pattern here of generalizing WP:NPOV and now WP:BURDEN for one's convenience. WP:NPOV requires that you prove the existence of the opposite view through reliably sourced citations. I'm not expecting you to prove a negative. —KinkyLipids (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the opposite view that you are wanting someone (not necessarily me) to provide then? You wrote Where are the reliably sourced citations that say that Hicks' and Trump's positive tests were not kept private/undisclosed? Once reliable citations provided, we can then discuss whether each view is a major, significant minor, or an extremely small minority view. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it sounds like I miscounted you as consenting to the NPOV removal. So it looks like it's just Onetwothreeip consenting and those who do not consent are me, Feoffer, and TheMusicExperimental. The quote you gave answers your question. To explain further: when a fact is given by reliable sources, and an editor asserts that singling out this fact violates neutrality, the editor must then point to reliable sources that contradict that fact. E.g. "Here are reliable sources saying that Nixon actually did not order a coverup." Such reliable sources would then suffice to prove that singling out Nixon's ordering of a coverup violates neutrality. —KinkyLipids (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There aren't any facts in the article that I am suggesting violates neutrality here either. What is it you think I'm consenting to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Just say no

Just say no to one-paragraph subsections. They clutter the table of contents, and they are usually biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that nobody seems to disagree, and that I certainly agree, I will merge some of the sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, your edit summary is blatantly false. I clearly have not rewritten anything in those edits, and I merged section headings as well as merging the sections, keeping the section headings that remained in place. If you objected to merging sections, you should have said so on the talk page here. You now have the opportunity to do so here, but I would encourage anybody to restore the section merges I made given the lack of opposition on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Guy Macon (talk · contribs) for their view on this edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip is very well aware that their repeated deletions of subject headings was controversial and they need to stop disrupting our work here with that behavior. Feoffer (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If by that you mean merging sections, then no, that's not controversial or disruptive. So far it's just you opposing that. If you can't engage constructively here, then you might find it better to edit other articles instead, which are less contentious. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, Feoffer, should apologize for making a false statement in the edit summary. I just compared both versions side by side,m and then as a double check I compared the list of refs created by the organize references script. I saw no change to content, only a reorganization of the order and fewer headers.

Secondly, I challenge the claim "Onetwothreeip is very well aware that their repeated deletions of subject headings was controversial and they need to stop disrupting our work here with that behavior." One could just as easily say "Feoffer is very well aware that their repeated deletions of subject heading reorganizations was controversial and they need to stop disrupting our work here with that behavior." As far as I can (please correct me if I am wrong) until I did it a moment ago nobody has evaluated the reverted header changes or commented on their quality. This is normal. Most editors don't care much about the headers unless the changes obviously suck. If Feoffer claims support from other editors they need to provide diffs showing that support. I simply don't see anyone supporting or opposing either side here.

So, were Onetwothreeip's changes an improvement? I say yes. To Feoffer I woulk say "if a change to the headings is unambiguously bad -- meaning that if you ask pretty much everyone will agree that it was bad -- go ahead and revert. If both versions are reasonable go to the talk page and seek consensus before reverting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. If you agree that my changes were an improvement, I would recommend reverting to this version. I would do so but I don't want to participate in an edit war. These changes were fairly safe and minimal, and not the ideal changes I would have otherwise wanted to make, assuming that this would not be controversial at all as a starting point. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I did two things.

First, I restored the last version before the edit war[3] this is a standard and non-controversial way of dealing with edit wars. See WP:STATUSQUO.

Edit summary was "Restored 02:11, 11 October 2020 version (last version before the edit war) If I see either of you edit warring again we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI Take it to talk and seek consensus instead of repeatedly editing and reverting."

Second, based up my personal judgement only, I did my best to roll back in the header reorg while leaving out any content change.[4]

Edit summary was "WP:BOLDLY restoring Onetwothreeip's header reorganization because I think it was an improvement. If anyone other than Feoffer thinks that the changes weren't an improvement, feel free to revert and we can talk about it on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip, please leave it alone even if Feoffer reverts again. Let other editors deal with this."

If I missed something and accidentally changed the content, let me know and I will fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"People who have not tested positive for COVID-19"

Are we actually doing this? Really? Come on. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see #Unknown in table -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Readers specifically requested a table of notable exposures. The VP, the joint chiefs, biden have all been exposed, after all. Trying a better title that makes it more clear. Feoffer (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did "readers" specifically requested? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Given the notability of the people exposed and nature of Covid testing to be both delayed related to exposure and of low specificity, having a place where people can see who has tested negative or is unknown is useful. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether that place is Wikipedia is the question we should be asking though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not useful here. For the most notable potential exposures, prose is sufficient. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Fauci statement in the lead

I do not think it is due to have the single statement from Fauci in the lead. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Could you please revert you edit and link to this section? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Feoffer (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Why? The WP:BURDEN is on the person who wants inclusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement is reliably sourced, so WP:BURDEN is irrelevant. Or is the claim here that Reuters is not a reliable source? Einsof (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe change to "Many public health leaders said that the outbreak at the White House could have been prevented" so that it's not the statement of just one person, however notable? —KinkyLipids (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Or just "The outbreak was seen by many as preventable" (e.g. a doctor on MSNBC and Michael Cohen). —KinkyLipids (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If Fauci, the individual tasked with knowing the most Covid within the US, has a reliably sourced statement on this specific Covid outbreak, then it's notable and worth inclusion. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and in fact I removed the statement that "numerous public health experts" said it was preventable, because the source talks about Fauci only. We could and should have a subsection under "Reactions" that collects the analyses of public health experts, but we don't. Einsof (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Potentially symptomatic" claims about Pence and Giuliani

The most recently added citations added do not support these claims. The reference for Pence [5] certainly has a click-inducing headline ("Pence’s Red Eye Raises COVID Concerns"). But in the end all it's really saying is that Pence had a red eye, and that people on the internet were speculating about it. Yes, conjunctivitis is sometimes a symptom of COVID-19, but it is also a symptom of lots of other things. And the source for Giuliani only claims that he was "coughing through an interview". Again, people cough for lots of reasons. Unless we have a source claiming that medical experts think that Pence or Giuliani might have COVID-19, this speculation doesn't belong here. hSuffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Speculation has by no means been confined to "people on the internet", Pence's symptom was covered on ABC news by medical experts, while Fox's MacCallum even went so far as to speculate during the Giuliani interview itself. Can you think of other wording instead of "potentially symptomatic" that would be better? Feoffer (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Far too tenuous for inclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support mentioning symptoms (with reliable sources), but not calling any persons with symptoms 'potentially symptomatic', as that would be speculation. -Mardus /talk 12:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Our BLP policy does not allow us to say that someone is likely to have a particular disease even if multiple sources say that they do. For us to report on any medical condition we require an actual diagnosis by a medical professional. Special care should be taken when there is an obvious political motive for making the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should remove the whole paragraph of speculation about Pence and his red eye. We are an encyclopedia, we don't deal in speculation. In this case I believe such speculation is a BLP violation. The most likely explanation I heard from TV commentators was that he got makeup in his eye. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact I see enough people in this discussion questioning this that I am going to remove it from the article, pending further discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Mike Bost

Mike Bost was diagnosed with COVID can he be added to the list? -> CNN. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No. The name of the page isn't List of republicans who have tested positive for COVID-19. You need to show that he attended a white house function or in some other way was in contact with Trump, and the timing between contact and symptoms has to be right for the contact being a plausible source of the infection. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump Still Contagious? Experts Say It’s Impossible to Know

Story from AP:[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not clear on your edit. Are you asking us to add this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about including Wikinews article?

Several days ago, I added a link to the Wikinews article about Trump testing positive. Nick-D (talk · contribs) later removed the link and mentioned an RfC in his edit summary. However, I don't see any mention of the RfC anywhere on the talk page. Could someone please link me to the discussion?

Thanks! Ixfd64 (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 152#Restrict Wikinews links in articles for the RfC. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of elected officials' affiliations from Tables

Recently, the party affiliations of elected officials were removed from the table without discussion here on talk. They should be restored. Feoffer (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be. Just the person's name should be in that column. Readers can go to the respective biographical articles if they like. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

de facto fullprotect

Guy Macon has begun repeatedly reverting all constructive changes and has requested any further changes be proposed on talk. WP:ANI has been alerted Feoffer (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Second presidential debate

Please move out of virus transmission timeline as it is virtual / cancelled as proposed here. Feoffer (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Simplify lede

Please simplify the lede as shown in this edit Feoffer (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Simplify March and May

Please polish the background paragraph as proposed in this edit Feoffer (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Fix wikimarkup in table

Please apply a simple fix to the table as shown in this edit Feoffer (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Oct 10 event

Please incorporate latest event as shown in this edit Feoffer (talk)

• Oppose. The claim "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" is not supported by the source which follows it,[7] which says "it is unclear whether Mr Trump is still contagious" (no medical expert mentioned), and directly contradicted by the source that precedes it,[8] which says "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." and ignores the factor of distance from the white hous balcony to the crowd below. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources. Conley's statement definitely merits a mention, as does the height of the balcony. If the article wasn't undergoing disruption I would include those facts as you suggest. Feoffer (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The "article is undergoing disruption" because of your bad edits. And it's only you and the main person you have been fighting who has been asked to take it to talk. The suggested edit above completely sucked. Please write up a new suggested edit that follows the sources, add whatever sources you think best, and I and others will be happy to evaluate it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)