Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

In the section "Bedminster fundraiser, October 1", second paragraph, change

At least five of Trump's closest associates cancelled their scheduled traveled to Bedminster

to

At least five of Trump's closest associates cancelled their scheduled travel to Bedminster 2001:4CA0:0:F237:A971:D69C:8F81:4221 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out that typo. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Negative tests are not conclusive

The fact that Biden, Jill Biden, Harris, and Barr tested negative after the Trump announcement is somewhat preliminary. It should be noted that it may take several days for viral load to manifest in a positive test, so none of them are in the clear. I believe this should be fairly easily sourced. BD2412 T 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, great suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we please rewrite the lead?

Right now it is mostly a list - "On Oct 1 so-and-so tested positive, on Oct 2 such-and-such tested positive". I would like to see us make it more of a narrative and leave those details to the article text. Anyone agree? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. —KinkyLipids (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done, but what a bear! got it down to something more manageable -- great suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Feoffer, great job and a vast improvement! I have tweaked it a little, mainly to get rid of all those references (not needed in a lead section) and to reorganize it slightly. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

List of infections

The column that currently says "infection date" should instead be titled "tested positive" - it is slightly inaccurate to say that they were infected on these dates. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I see it's already been changed! Yellowmellow45 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you to whoever did that! Great suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Presidential powers

This section is only 1 sentence long, and the National security section also mentions transfer of presidential powers. What should be done about the Presidential powers section? —KinkyLipids (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I merged it into the National Security section. Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Column for Bedminster?

In the "List of COVID-19 infections and notable exposures", if Trump is the only one listed under Bedminster, is this column really necessary? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should do a check of reliable sources for reporting of infections resulting from Bedminster and remove if nothing is found. It can always be added back later if there is further reporting. William Graham talk 15:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
My quick search comes up with this article interviewing an attendee saying the Bedminster event was outside -- a fact I don't see in the article. William Graham talk 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Some elements of the event were indoors: [1] User: TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Who did and did not attend Bedminster is useful information. Feoffer (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The article has been expanded since I started this section, and the column now serves a purposes. I will archive this section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Timeline section

Currently we have an unsourced timeline at the bottom of the article. Thoughts on converting this into a floating table/visual for the Timeline of viral transmission section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Added sourcing Feoffer (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
  • Reviewed: Prince Bride Reunion
  • Comment: Article likely to be moved if Trump makes a nomination before this hook runs, so I've created a second hook to reflect that. In the event that the nomination is actioned upon before the article runs on DYK, I've put in both tenses. Because it's the political hot potato to end all hot potatoes, I don't feel comfortable nominating any hook that touches upon Merrick Garland (or any Senator), though the closeness of the vacancy would make for an interesting hook nevertheless. As RBG only died on Friday, the timing criteria for DYK nominations is obviously satisfied.

Created by Arglebargle79 (talk). Expanded by Sceptre (talk) and nominated at 22:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC).

  • This article is well-written and certain to be widely read in the days ahead. Because the NY Times article is behind a paywall, not all readers will be able to read the cited reference for themselves. If, as is expected, Because the President announced his nomination on Sept. 26,

Alt1 is the preferred hook, to say: "... that the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy is the closest to a presidential election since 1864?  JGHowes  talk 01:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (updated 26 Sept 2020)

  • @JGHowes: the hook wording is the closest is very unclear. It makes it sound like the nomination is the closest to being like an election. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @JGHowes: thank you, but ALT2 is way over 200 characters. And it says too much. I have formatted this template to reflect the page move to Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. Not sure why you're still calling it the 2020 US Supreme Court vacancy. Yoninah (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: see new Alt3, also pinging Arglebargle79 and Sceptre, who nominated/expanded this DYK:
  • @JGHowes: But a nomination is not a "period of time". It would help if you use an active verb, not "is". Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I have pinged Sceptre and also left a msg on their Talk page, as I'd prefer deferring to them as the nom for further parsing of the hook. Alt3 is a paraphrase from the article Lead. As to why I'm calling it 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy, that's the way the Template is listed, and any change (such as on Sceptre's Talk page) breaks the DYK link.  JGHowes  talk 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
How about ALT4: ... that the date of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination – September 26, 2020 – is the nearest to a presidential election in US history?" Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Sceptre's reworded hook looks good to me, as Alt4.  JGHowes  talk 13:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you could do without the date and just say it was 38 days before the election. That is confirmed by the New York Times cite. But where in the New York Times or Smithsonian sources that you cite does it say it's the shortest time before an election?
  • ALT5: ... that President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court 38 days before a presidential election is the shortest lead time ever in US history? Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think ALT6 certainly brings the hook up to date and will be of more interest, but it's Sceptre's call if he wants to do a double nomination. Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not averse to a double-nomination. Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Great. Feminist, do you have a QPQ to go with your nomination? Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, XTools credits Feoffer with the most contribution by text for the second article. Sceptre (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Since I'd like to promote this quickly, could someone else review the second nom? Pinging evrik for help here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:DYKR splits the reviewing process between reviewing the article and the hook. Evrik reviewed the article I nominated. I reviewed the ALT8 hook, which I did not suggest. My review solely concerns the ALT8 hook, and not the article (which has already been approved). But sure, I won't mind if another editor comes to rubber-stamp this. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 14:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Feminist: I expected you to give a "yes" check to the ALT8 hook. ALT8 builds on your ALT6 and 7 hooks with additional information that needs to be checked by an independent reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • My "yes" check concerns the ALT8 hook (apologies if it was unclear), but point taken regarding how it builds on my hooks and thus needs to be checked by another reviewer. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a "yes" check: {{y}}. What you used is an approval tick. Yoninah (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I see what you are referring to. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 02:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute, here. I originally reviewed/approved this DYK nom on Sept. 21 (which met my QPQ review requirement for a DYK in upcoming Queue 3), with the hook pertaining to the proximity of the nomination to the election. Now, we have 3 different approval ticks and a different DYK co-nom. Who gets "credit" for what in this matrix?  JGHowes  talk 04:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

JGHowes, I added the article White House COVID-19 outbreak to this nomination because I thought it would be timely and relevant. Because White House COVID-19 outbreak is not part of the original nomination, it needs to be reviewed again. Three additional hooks have been proposed; they include both Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination and White House COVID-19 outbreak. Long story short, the ALT8 hook has not received a proper review yet, thus another editor (this can be you) needs to review the ALT8 hook for it to be promoted. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve both articles. Hook 8 has already been approved. I suggest that we ignore the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination merge discusss and just go ahead with whatever is in place when the dust settltes. --evrik (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: sorry, but ALT8 is not approved, and it's your hook. I was just asking feminist if she liked it, and she used an approval tick instead of a "yes" icon. We really need another reviewer for ALT8 and the article White House COVID-19 outbreak. Kingsif can you help here? Yoninah (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. But we still need someone to review your ALT8. Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT8 seems to meet requirements, but I won't approve it because 1. the election is less than a month away, a hook about the vacancy does not need to be tied to such a controversial current matter, and 2. the NPOV of it relies on the single word "may", which could be overlooked. There's too much misinformation surrounding this for me to be comfortable with that statement on the main page. I'll be happy to review other hook suggestions with one or both articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: had this not languished we would not be two days past the 30 day limit. It's 28 days today. I created an 8a. --evrik (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We need to get Amy Coney Barrett on the main page before her nomination is approved. I say go with ALT4 and make a separate hook for the White House COVID-19 outbreak. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Approving Alt4. --evrik (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I have reopened this nomination as there appears to be consensus at WT:DYK that it shouldn't be run until after the election. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ron Johnson

Was it revealed on the 2nd or the 3rd that the test took on the 2nd Ron Johnson took was positive for Covid-19. Banak (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The CNN and ABC 27 WKOW articles about it were published on October 3, though I don't think we need dates in the lede. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Active Cases

There have been 13 cases. Why does the infoxbox only say 7? Trump, Melania, Stepien, Hicks, Conway, Lee, Tillis, Johnson, McDaniel, Jenkins and 3 reporters. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's part of the same issue described by the thread titled "Is this the right title?" The Stepien, Johnson, and McDaniel infections are not known to be directly related to the Rose Garden event. Also, the three White House reporters apparently aren't considered newsworthy enough by reporters to be part of a count. But I'm not opposed to changing the infobox to say at least 11. —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
In any case, the number is going to keep growing, as this is how these things go. I wonder if we should even bother to have a definitive number. BD2412 T 18:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a range of cases such as 8-11 would be best. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I also think the three suspected cases should be removed. They don't seem to refer to anyone. All reported cases are confirmed cases, as far as I can tell at the moment. —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

National security implications

Is this section needed, or can it be incorporated into a different section? I tagged it for relying on one source, which doesn't seem to make it particularly relevant as it currently stands. I think we need to find more sources that discuss national security implications or reduce the size of this section / incorporate it into another section so as to avoid giving it undue weight. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight is a concern. I had considered trying to cut it down and include media reporting on possible invocation of the 25th amendment, but that also seemed to be more speculation by pundits than anything. William Graham talk 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the section would be better as a general discussion of the wider implications of the outbreak. For instance, the stock market dropped sharply after Trump's positive test (though they partially recovered) – this seems like something that could be mentioned in such a section. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed the tag as there are now 6 sources. The 2nd paragraph could use some summarizing, preferably down to one sentence. —KinkyLipids (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2020

White House outbreak of COVID-19 → ? – I surprised to see how naming convention about this article. The reason is all article that have COVID-19 cases in one location titled as "COVID-19 pandemic in xxxx" even if there is not country (Ex. COVID-19 pandemic in the cruise ships, COVID-19 pandemic in Theodore Roosevelt ship, etc). On the other hand, there is a bit of inconsistency with all other articles which whether naming as such, like "White House outbreak of COVID-19". I hope any editors can decide which name of the article that be correct, because i decide to not adding the new title. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done "White House" in US politics has a special non-geographical meaning referring to the collection of individuals at the highest levels of the executive branch. The Russia equivalent is "The Kremlin", which is both a building and a term for the collection of individuals leadership at the top of that nation. Feoffer (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bidens

Hey Feoffer, how about we just move the negative results of the Bidens elsewhere? It's not a good fit in the current table and takes up unnecessary space. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

People want at-a-glance access to who was at the debate and later tested positive, that was a specifically requested feature in fact, if you'll read above. Incubation can take up to 14 days, the debate was only 4 days ago. Feoffer (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Only one person mentioned the debate in that discussion, and it clearly wasn't the main point. We can discuss the debate separately, even if it's another table. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Found a win-win that gets you narrower table with one less column AND lets Will keep his requested column! Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting a few days to see how this develops, where it would be clearer if we should have two separate tables or if the debate non-cases are irrelevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this video public domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgV9gBxwF1U Victor Grigas (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

From the White House "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to WhiteHouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a "yes", I presume? RobotGoggles (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, work of the federal government is public domain. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's tough because you have to make sure that White House videos aren't using a copyrighted work of the White House press corps press pool cameraman. The only question I would have would be if the podium speeches in the video were pool feeds or not. Based on the off center shooting locations of Trump at the podium, I think it's all White House EOP photographers and videographers. William Graham talk 01:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Gov. Mike DeWine

Jamplevia (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Lt. Gov Jon Husted

Jamplevia (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Emilia Sykes

Ohio House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes, D-Akron, was none too happy Friday after attending Tuesday night's debate in Cleveland. "Sitting in the debate hall on Tuesday, I was concerned with so many in the president’s entourage who refused to wear masks, despite urging from Cleveland Clinic physicians. I am frustrated today as I worry now about my own health and the health of so many others who were present that evening like journalists, support staff, Cleveland Clinic professionals, and many others who could have potentially been exposed." Jamplevia (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should consider including a few instances of public criticism (and support) by politicians (and doctors). William Graham talk 15:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

William Barr


Jamplevia (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jamplevia: this seems to be the only one of your comments which is on-topic. However I don't think the second source is enough to show a controversy since it isn't a great source and the criticism is coming from a law professor rather than an epidemiologist or similar. Which means I'm not sure we should add much more than Barr tested negative. If you find more sources demonstrating a controversy perhaps although this seems more relevant to the article on Barr than to the one on this outbreak. It will be different if he does ever become a direct part of this outbreak. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Testing too Early

Jamplevia (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither of these sources seem to relate to the Whitehouse COVID-19 outbreak which is the subject of this article. We cannot use WP:Syn to make claims about whether people have been tested too early. I'd note that it isn't uncommon for people to be tested more than once if they've been exposed, especially if they were tested before they developed any symptoms and later do, or to be expected to self-isolate despite a negative test although again we cannot comment on any of this without a source that relates this to the Whitehouse COVID-19 outbreak. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
You should spend more time reading the article. There was already one reference in use when I added those as there are better than what was there. Jamplevia (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jamplevia: Actually these aren't better sources. I removedthe Science Daily one as completely unsuitable since it has nothing whatsoever to do with this outbreak. I left the CDC one although it also has nothing to do with this outbreak, I'm fine with leaving it as a supporting source to allow readers to check further info on the testing norms since we have the Atlantic one. I would have removed the source and text if there was no source which related this to the outbreak. I would note our article does not say anything about "testing too early" despite your suggestion to the contrary. It just says a negative test does not mean someone is not infected which is a related but different point. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

HowTo: Make the rightmost column say "Oct 1" not "October 1, 2020"?

The "date reported" column in the table takes up far more space than it needs to. Is it possible to abbreviate the dates without breaking sorting? Feoffer (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, per the documentation of Template:Dts which is what we are using for dates, there are 2 ways. One is we simply abbreviate the dates ourselves, Oct 1 etc. The template will still recognise the dates although obviously won't know the year if it's removed. Since I doubt the year will ever be needed, this will likely be fine although I guess it may make things more difficult for anyone trying to automatically extract data from this or could have some other effects I'm not aware of. (If the year is needed, we will need some way to make the year change clear anyway.) The other possibility which is what I chose, is to keep the dates as is and add |format=md|abbr=yes. This makes the formatting a little more complicated, still it's easily removed and already there were 2 dates which were added without dts so I decided to just do it. (As an in between option, you could abbreviate the month and exclude/remove |abbr=yes and then just add/keep format=md.) Note that even if someone adds {{dts|Oct 6}} while the other dates are in the format I chose {{dts|October 5, 2020|format=md|abbr=yes}}, I believe it should still sort fine. It probably won't sort fine if someone adds Oct 6 without dts, but that's always the case. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Effectiveness of REGN-COV2

How can this be an effective treatment when there is nothing statistically significant about it improving the time to symptom alleviation?

Jamplevia (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Again we cannot use WP:OR such as original synthesis to make claims about REGN-COV2 and Trump or about REGN-COV2 in general. And this is an article on the White House COVID-19 outbreak, not on REGN-COV2 so general stuff on the experimental drug don't belong here. They may belong in the article on the drug, try Talk:REGN-COV2 if you have sources discussing the effectiveness (and not OR) that are unrelated to Trump. Or try WP:Reference Desk/Science if you have a factual question you want to ask, this page is only for discussing changes to this article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't ask anyone to use those links and I didn't use those links myself as references. It's not original research because I read it published somewhere else. I just don't remember where I found it yet. Jamplevia (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said, this talk page is intended to be used for improving this article. Comments including reference should generally relate to how we can improve this article. Posting references which are unsuitable for this article but could be used to help in finding references which are suitable is fine if you're clear on what you're doing. But especially in the early stages where the talk page is very active, off-topic posts such as random references you found interesting but don't help in improving this article should be avoided. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • “Suddenly, they’re throwing the kitchen sink at him,” Dr. McGinn said. “It raises the question: Is he sicker than we’re hearing, or are they being overly aggressive because he is the president, in a way that could be potentially harmful?” Jamplevia (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    That comment says nothing about the effectiveness of REGN-COV2, and I looked at the source and there is barely any comment on the drug at all, and what there is mostly that it's experimental and what its supposed to do. The big deal other than the general concerns over the diverse cocktail are over dexamethasone. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    I did here someone (a doctor) on Al Jazeera mentioning the lack of any real evidence of the effectiveness or REGN-COV2. After some checking I did find [2] which mentions the lack of statistical significant evidence of a benefit at this time. See also [3], [4], [5], [6] which make me think this isn't actually something that has received much attention and depending on what you are looking at. Probably the most accurate statement is REGN-COV2 is still in a very early stage of testing and so we have no real idea of any benefit and way to little of potential harm. I'd also note that even for this doctor, as indeed most discussions I've read or heard, the greatest controversy seems to be as I said before, over dexamethasone. That's because while we have decent evidence of a benefit in certain cases, we actually have good reason to think giving it too early or to patients without significant illness is more likely to cause harm than benefit, yet the info we have been provided about Trump's condition suggests it he doesn't meet the criteria when it may be of benefit. So either his condition is worse than has been described, or he's been given a treatment which rather than just a lack of evidence for a benefit, we actually have reason to think may be harmful. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Renaming Suggestion

would it be okay if we called this article the ""The Rose Garden COVID-19 outbreak"" Alhanuty (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlAboud83: I think last time there was a discussion on renaming there was consensus on using White House because the events included the outdoor rose garden speeches AND meet and greets inside the White House. William Graham talk 01:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Besides, the outbreak is not limited to attendees of the Rose Garden event on Sept 26; White House personnel and Trump Campaign have been widely affected. 11 debate prep staff have tested positive, for example. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all, but there's no reason whatsoever to believe the outbreak among WH folks ended (or started) with the Rose Garden. Feoffer (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
No. There were clearly a lot of people who got it at, or associated with, the White House somehow, but not at the Rose Garden event. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
No, unless it's the common name or scientific consensus pins it to that one event. We may otherwise be implying that the Rose Garden event is the source (which I believe it is but we haven't got enough evidence to state this as a fact). Banak (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW I have twice deleted attempts to refer to the Rose Garden event as "the Rose Garden Massacre". Apparently this is a bit of an online thing, but no Reliable Source has picked up on it that I could find. The International Business Times is cited, but according to WP:RSP IBT is not regarded as a reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Default order of table?

What default order of the table is being used beyond 'current status'? Nurg (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Noting I just moved Trump above Christie which to be blunt even if it didn't fit the general order makes the most sense; it looks to be current status, then whether they were present at any of the events, then date (oldest first). No idea what order is after date. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I had the impression they were being put in alphabetical order within their status. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
How about by date tested positive, then date of most recent known negative test, then alphabetically for the unknowns? TheMusicExperimental (talk)
Date tested positive, with alphabetically for unknowns sounds like it'd involve less reordering than with sorting by most recent negative test. Banak (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Remove "Amid Secrecy" from Hicks and Trump sub-headlines. There is a certain amount of detail that can only be released about tests of public officials to align with HIPAA. Secrecy implies a level of malice not yet proven by fact. After all, he did TWEET he tested positive, so "secrecy" is not yet an accurate portrayal. Truth2020InAll (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Truth2020InAll: Would you be alright with changing it to "Hicks diagnosis kept private", which is the wording used by The Hill, and "Trump diagnosis not disclosed" (per The Wall Street Journal, which established that Trump did not disclose his first positive test while he was on a live national show)? I don't know about secrecy implying malice, and as far as I know, HIPAA regulates the actions of healthcare organizations, not the White House, but in any case, we can defer to the interpretations of reliable sources rather than our own. —KinkyLipids (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Truth2020InAll: It is Trump, not HIPAA, that prevents details from shared in a timely manner. Since he could have chosen to release details in a timely manner but purposely did not, it seems that "Amid Secrecy" is appropriate. We still do not know when his most recent negative test was returned, for example. For an deeper explainer on how HIPAA works in terms of who and how things can be disclosed this article is useful. [7] — TheMusicExperimental
 Not done Per TheMusicExperimental. Communicable diseases diagnoses are matters of public health not personal privacy. "amid secrecy" is appropriate here. Feoffer (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Duluth and Bedminster events/Debate preparation

Could someone clarify (perhaps in the timeline section) what the Duluth and Bedminster events were (they are both part of the table, Bedminster is mentioned after the timeline section, but Duluth not at all). Also, the debate preparation is mentioned a few times (but not when that happened). If it is known who was present at that/these event(s), is it worth adding that to the table? --95.90.224.168 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A previous revision of the article and sources mentioned that Chris Christie was part of debate prep, but I don't recall any information on where and when the debate prep was held. Presumably it was in the executive residence. William Graham talk 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
C. Christie is still mentioned in the article as being present at the preparation. Also it says that "At least 11 individuals involved in preparation for the event later tested positive." If these individuals are known, this would currently make more entries in the table than the Rose Garden event (I'm not suggesting to speculate what the initial spreading event was, but this seems to be a significant event regarding the outbreak). --95.90.224.168 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the article leans heavier on the rose garden because is always going to be more reporting on public events over private events like debate prep and fundraising. I agree that we should try to find sources to balance that out. William Graham talk 16:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Added in the Detection section that the Duluth, Minn event was a rally and that there was a private fundraiser near the Twin Cities. —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Found an interview with Christie where he described the dates and circumstances of the debate prep (preceding Sat to Tues, at WH, no masks) and added it to the background section. William Graham talk 19:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I know I've read about the following people being involved in debate prep which occurred at the White House on Sunday and Monday prior to the debate: Conway, Stepien, Christie, Giulianni. I can probably relocate citations for these if we want to expand on it. User TheMusicExperimental — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've added with citation the ten members of the debate prep team (5 of whom have tested positive as of Oct 5 10pm Eastern) to the debate section. If someone wants to add it as a column have at it. I personally suspect that this event was significant in the spread given how many of the people are now infected and that the conditions--indoors with lots of talk and no masks--are known to be favorable to coronavirus spread. User:TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Housekeepers?

From Maggie Haberman of the NYT:

"More info on 2 White House residence staff members who tested positive - they worked for the housekeeping department on the third floor, and didn't come in direct contact w the first family. When their tests came back positive, they were told to use "discretion" in discussing it."[8]

Also covered here:[9][10][11] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Same as the "Two unidentified staffers" listed as tested positive? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clear on whether these two housekeeping staffers are the same as the unidentified Sept 16 staffers. People are talking about them now, but are they new cases in addition to the Sept 16 cases? User:TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Table?

Perhaps it'd be easier to follow who has tested positive for coronavirus if we put who has tested positive in a table? Banak (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see a table added in addition to the in text descriptions. Something that indicates whether the person attended the Rose Garden event, debate and the date of diagnosis. William Graham talk 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm struggling to keep up (and avoid conflicting information on dates).
Person Position Positive Test result Disclosure of positive result Latest known status
Donald Trump President Evening of 30th September Evening of 1st October Hospitalised in the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, not on oxygen and without a fever. "Very concerning" condition according to anonymous source
Melana Trump First Lady Morning of the 2nd October Isolating in The Whitehouse
Thom Tillis Senator
Mike Lee Senator
Ron Johnson Senator October 3
Michael D. Shear Whitehouse press Corps
Unknown Whitehouse press Corps
Unknown Whitehouse press Corps
Ronna McDaniel Republican party Chariwoman September 30 October 2
Chris Christie Former New Jersey Governo
John I. Jenkins University of Notre Dame president
Is my work so far, if someone else wants to take over/change how it's formatted. Banak (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
At the very least, this needs sources. Many of the people listed as testing positive are not named in the article as it currently stands. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Correction: The people in the table are named in the article, but I still think the sources should be provided in the table, particularly regarding current condition. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above as a table would really bring the article into focus and some much needed structure / making it easily understandable for readers. Jccali1214 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the color in the table of infected (or not infected) necessary? Wikipdeia has plenty of tables. Why color this time? Plus, this might create visibility issues on some devices.Dogru144 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times has a helpful article, "Tracking the White House Coronavirus Outbreak," which I believe they plan to keep updated. It has an infographic of all the high-profile people affected by this outbreak. I don't see it cited yet in the Wiki article, so I'm just mentioning it here in case anyone wants to refer to it. — Tuckerlieberman (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata and visualisation

I have started mapping the outbreak on wikidata, and produced a barebones visualisation. This should probably be used for the table as well. Paul Dehaye (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Expected positives

A place to hold tips on additional positives until they're reported on in a reliable source.

Oct 6, Journalist Michael Shear's wife tested positive, per a tweet from him. TheMusicExperimental

Oct 6, 2 more WH press staffers, Jalen Drummond & unnamed https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1313575076772667392 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Miller incoming Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Ray

Charles Ray should be removed from the table because he was not connected to any of the events in question, nor is he part of the White House personnel -- Phileo (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I second this. It's unclear how Ray is connected to this outbreak, and the source does not connect him to it either. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Correction: According to the NYT, he was at the Gold Star families reception with the Trumps and Pences. Perhaps that event could be added to the table? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Second thought: Should we include a fifth column for other presidential or White House functions that are not covered by the four events in the table? The NYT article lists several infected individuals took part in, for instance, that Gold Star families reception or debate prep or Air Force One travel or White House press briefings. Could be useful. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doc Strange: There are a few things that aren't on the table that I think will be useful, though it makes the table unwieldly--the fundraiser on the 25th which includes Trump, McEnany (person with greatest connection to the most number of currently known positives), and Ronna McDaniel (person with earliest publicly known positive test) and allows some incubation time for the Barrett nomination events the following day (i.e. people don't get breathed on in a room and then five minutes later begin spreading it to others, incubation time is an important element of spread); the Gold Star Family event which included the JCOS, Adm Charles Ray and others and eventually causes the quarantine of the JCOS. As we get more and more "wider spread" and 2nd order effects resulting from the WH failure to contact trace this stuff is only going to get more complex. Making some decisions about how to handle the table, how wide of a scope to include etc is probably worth its own discussion section. TheMusicExperimental

"The apparent cause of the cluster"???

Our second paragraph currently begins, "The apparent cause of the cluster was a ceremony held on September 26 in the White House Rose Garden for the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court..." I challenge this statement as not supported by the facts or the reporting. There appear to have been many causes for the cluster of infections; it affected many people who had nothing to do with the Rose Garden ceremony; and some cases predated the ceremony. It might be said that the cause of the cluster was the White House's attitude of antipathy toward safety measures like masks and distancing, but the Rose Garden event was just one example of that attitude in action. I am going to remove that assertion pending discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence to say, "Many of the infections appeared to be related to a ceremony held on September 26 in the White House Rose Garden ..." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think the fundraiser the day before was the biggest thing setting it in motion. At that event we have Ronna (the first positive test result we're aware of) and McEnany (the individual with the most connection-time to the most number of individuals currently testing positive). Whoever spread it at the Rose Garden had to have had it already (which is why people doing cough/sneeze analysis on the big seating chart photo are barking up the wrong tree). I don't think we need to mention anything at all specifically--there are a ton of these events and they all add to the end result. The Rose Garden just has the most photos. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this the right title?

Is this the right title given that many of the events of the article and of greater concern are not really "White House" at all? Yes, as to Trump and the First Lay and Hope Hicks. The Rose Garden ceremony, perhaps. But once you get to the debate and rallies and travels, that's not White House exactly. We also have content we need to reconcile:

Any help reconciling all these overlapping pages appreciated. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is (in my opinion) definitely noteworthy enough for it's own page seperate to the two above ones. Perhaps something referencing to senior government figures or Republican figures? Banak (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The White House is the epicenter for an on-going outbreak, but obviously diseases never respect geographic boundaries, and White House personnel have widely traveled. Feoffer (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I could see it changed to something like "Trump Administration Covid-19 Outbreak" but I think White House does the same job just fine. That the president, his campaign manager, three of his close advisors, members of the White House press pool and staff etc have all tested positive together within a matter of days is certainly noteworthy and distinct from generic Washington DC or events in the US. It is common and normal for "White House" to refer to a specific administration as much or more often than the geographical building itself. TheMusicExperimental (talk)3 October 2020
Keep the title. This is where the outbreak is widely seen as where it happened. Photos show the consequently found as infected as being in the front two rows at the Rose Garden.Dogru144 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a change like "White House and Washington Outbreak". And in addition to listed "notable" people, maybe a table of White House / House / Senate / Agencies (including DoD?) Cases and Deaths [ with the 28 in the article, 123 on Capitol Hill .. I calculate the probability -- based on the case-fatality-ratio -- of at least one death = 98.7% and a projected 4 deaths ] Alanf777 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My original research

The following is WP:OR, which means that it is not allowed in the article but that we are allowed to talk about it on the article talk page in the hope that good sources can be found.

I have noticed that the popular press has glomed on to "is he on oxygen" as if this somehow indicates something. Having been hospitalized several times recently I can assure you that paramedics pretty much put a nasal cannula on you whether you need one or not, and that when you get to the hospital nurses routinely offer you supplemental oxygen even when you are breathing fine without bothering to asking a doctor for permission.

Now a ventilator with tracheal intubation (often mistakenly called a "respirator"), that would be significant. The doctors are kind of OK with a mask ventilator, but they really don't want you intubated and they want the tube out as soon as possible. Unlike supplemental oxygen, there are significant risks associated with intubation.

The question is, can we find a source that confirms the above OR, and if we can, is it worth adding to the article? Maybe, maybe not. I could go either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Great thoughts, thanks for them. I might be wrong, but I think most people understand the difference in severity between merely having oxygen via mask and having a tube inserted down your trachea so a machine can breath for you. Oxygen administration isn't a big deal, but the fact that it was prompted by a drop in saturation is. Feoffer (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue Guy Macon raised may vary from location to location. This wasn't something I was paying much attention to but IIRC even my mum had pneumonia, I don't think supplemental oxygen was that common except in the very early part. From what I've read before, as well as sources like [12], I think in quite a few places supplemental oxygen is only offered if there is actually some indication which goes beyond the person being sick. This could be breathing difficulties or oxygen saturation below ~96%. It may not have to be very severe, but it's not just a case of 'well it's probably no harm so why not?' As is often the case with Trump, the issues seems to have mostly been an own goal. Being on supplemental oxygen may not have been that big a deal. But the fact that they tried to hide it made it a bigger deal than it had to be, especially since it was so obvious what was going on. When I first heard the doctor semi-live, I thought 'Wait did he just tell us Trump received oxygen yesterday? Why else did he phrase it so carefully?' then I later heard something about Trump not being on oxygen yesterday or Thursday, I didn't heard it very well since I wasn't paying attention but my thoughts still were 'Did he phrase it to avoid something that I missed?' Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Fascinating. This source jumped out at me:[13] It confirms my observation that (at least in in one particular hospital Southern California) "Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults" but it looks like I was wrong about it being generally safe even if not really needed. Good to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Given the current number of cases -- 28 Rose-Garden-Massacre + 123 Capitol Hill , and the Case Fatality ratio (CFR) 210K/7.4M -- a probability of at least ONE death = 98.7% and likely 4 deaths. Alanf777 (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
And that's for the general population, including children. In this case many of those exposed were elderly. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

George Conway

Elle reports he has it and got it from his wife. Any other sources confirming this? Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway has since contradicted the Elle report in a tweet: "Claudia & I are faring well in quarantine. Everyone else is negative" Mark Taylor (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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.[14] 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)

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)

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)

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. Neutralitytalk 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)

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... --intelatitalk 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 StrangeMailboxLogbook 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [15] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:20, 10 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)

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)
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)

Removal of elected officials' affiliations from Tables

Recently, Onetwothreeip removed the party affiliations of elected officials 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)

Mike Bost

Looks like Bost as been added Feoffer (talk)

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

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)
Bost was exposed to Lee, and thus the case count now stands at 37 per reliable sources. If the article was not experiencing on-going disruption, I would add it. Feoffer (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"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)

See above (or archives) for where it was first requested. Our coverage reflects that of RSes, who have extensively discussed notable exposures. Feoffer (talk) 12:14, 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)
The neutrality tags are attached to the nondisclosures of Hicks' and Trump's positive tests. You said you want the mentions of the nondisclosures removed because they violate neutrality.
Let's stick to the actual content of the WP:NEUTRAL policy here. NEUTRAL is about balancing multiple POVs backed by reliable sources. It shouldn't be oversimplified to "it doesn't sound neutral, so remove it". As the WP:RULES policy states, "the shortcut is not the policy".
The neutrality dispute tags should be removed because there is only one POV that is reliably sourced. No reliable sources have been provided for any other major or any significant minor POV. Therefore there is no actual neutrality violation according to WP:NEUTRAL, only the opinion of some editors that something doesn't sound neutral. As WP:NEUTRAL states, "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors". —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:24, 11 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[16] 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.[17]
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)

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)
@Nick-D: Thanks for the link. I was under the impression that it was a recent discussion specific to this article. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

added to article Feoffer (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

ADD: Il Senator Mike Bost - symptoms on Oct 7, tested positive Oct 8 Il campaign chair for trump 207.161.243.201 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I would implement this change if there were not on-going disruption Feoffer (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Katie Miller introduced a little bit before necessary

done Feoffer (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Currently we introduce Miller, say she announced a staffer had tested positive, and then reveal that she tested positive. It would be simpler for our readers if we merely say "a spokesperson" announced a staffer had tested positive and then introduce Miller as another person who tested positive. That way, readers don't have to "remember" who Miller was. Example change: diff Feoffer (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House_COVID-19_outbreak/Archive_1&oldid=983925778"