Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trish Scalia

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.

---

FYI (for whoever is updating the table), Kaitlan Collins, Labor secretary's wife, who was at Rose Garden event, tests positive for coronavirus, CNN (October 13, 2020). BD2412 T 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The source says "Her positive test comes more than two weeks after the event, but it's unknown when she was last tested. The virus' incubation period can be as long as 14 days." —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm just noting that it is being reported in this context. I would presume that is the basis for making a determination for inclusion here. BD2412 T 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely merits inclusion, per NYT: Trish Scalia becomes 13th attendee to test positive Feoffer (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, that a reasonable basis. Feoffer, this 2nd source strengthens its merits. The caveat from CNN should be included. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:51, 14 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.

Media outlets pull reporters from press pool

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.

---

In the absence of basic COVID safety protocols, news organizations are, for now, keeping reporters out of the press pool and off of Air Force One Feoffer (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Included, but with NYT article that reports on WSJ and WaPo. —KinkyLipids (talk) 06:22, 14 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.

Edit request: Second presidential debate

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.

---

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

According to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself, or did I miss something since I last commented here? —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@KinkyLipids: 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) 14:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Could you provide the link to where Onetwothreeip says that they will voluntarily stop editing, as stated in the comment linked above? I want to know why you are voluntarily prohibiting yourself from making any edit to the article. —KinkyLipids (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@KinkyLipids: My behavior is currently under discussion at the Incident Noticeboard where I'm accused of edit-warring or "owning" this article. Until those concerns are resolved, it seemed wise to stick to the talk page as Guy Macon requested when he wrote "I hereby revoke your license to decide all by yourself that your edits are "believed to be uncontroversial". You have gotten that wrong far too many times. New rule: at least for now you need to ask first". (I don't believe Onetwothreeip has said they'll stop editing). Feoffer (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I had added text explaining all this, but it was removed three times by Guy, so I let the deletion stand. Feoffer (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). If you have a complaint about another editor's behavior, take it to WP:ANI. Posting accusations of user misbehavior on article talk pages is inappropriate. As is says at the top of the page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White House COVID-19 outbreak article. anything else is off-topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing any actual objection to moving the virtual debate out of the transmission timeline. Speak up if there's any good reasons to keep it where it is Feoffer (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 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.

"Potentially symptomatic" claims about Pence and Giuliani

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.

---

The most recently added citations added do not support these claims. The reference for Pence [1] 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)

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.

Edit request: Fix wikimarkup in table

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.

---

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)

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.

Edit request: Oct 10 event

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.

---

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,[2] which says "it is unclear whether Mr Trump is still contagious" (no medical expert mentioned), and directly contradicted by the source that precedes it,[3] 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)

We should not be belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"). Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my strong but accurate language. Let me rephrase.

• Feoffer made a low quality edit. Low quality to the point of being factually incorrect. To be specific they started with a source that says "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." and used it to support the claim "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" That's the exact opposite of what the only medical expert cited said.
• Feoffer claimed that the above low quality edit was uncontroversial and that my attempts to get them to stop adding unsourced and dubious claims to the article are "disruption".
• When confronted with the evidence that his claim is not supported by the source, Feoffer posted links to additional sources that also fail to support the claim.
• When asked to write up a new suggested edit that follows the sources and add whatever sources they think best so we can discuss the proposal, Feoffer failed to do so, despite making other edits in other sections.
• Clearly Feoffer is deciding what should be in the article first and then searching for sources that support his claims. What Feoffer should do is start with high-quality sources and then add claims that are directly supported by the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"at a time when he might still be contagious", "may still be infectious" Feoffer (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

And that's why you should not be editing this article. Maeve Reston, CNN National Political Reporter wrote those words. Maeve Reston is not a medical expert. You ("According to medical experts") just made that up. The only actual medical expert cited said "the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment redacted out of an abundance of civilty Feoffer (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, that is enough and too much. Guy Macon is correct, you are wrong, and I am listing this request as answered. Your "limbic system" and "no angry mastodons" digs are over the line and IMO you are on the very edge of being at least topic banned if not site banned. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have maintained laser focus on constructive edits and have displayed infinitely more self-discipline and civility to others than they have displayed to me. If I have edited against consensus at any point, I will happily self-revert. At all times I have behaved in goood faith -- it is not appropriate of you to threaten me with bans. Feoffer (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made my comment at the ANI discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 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.

Should this article cover the October 10 White House event

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.

---

(I removed the RfC tags because this is not an RfC. Feoffer is free to post an actual RfC, but it has to be properly formatted and they have to follow the steps in WP:RFCBEFORE before they post it. -Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC))

On October 10, the President spoken unmasked from a White House balcony to a large gathering of non-socially distanced people estimated to be number at 2,000. Should this event be included in the article? (Several existing editors have opined above) Feoffer (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Now sure what else I'm supposed to post here. Feoffer (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is completely useless as an RfC statement. See WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC tag. The discussion can continue without it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be included, closely worded to reliable sources, and it would help give an ending to the section. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:28, 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.

Edit request: Oct 5

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.

---

Well-sourced material was removed because NYT "isn't free". Please restore it as shown in this edit Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: The removal violated WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I restored the material with modifications and filled out the citation. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit summary for the removal, it looks like the material was challenged for another reason besides having a paywalled source, specifically that it was "pretty outrageous". I added an in-text attribution considering WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (emphasis in original). —KinkyLipids (talk) 15:42, 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.

Edit request: Table

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.

---

Please abbreviate "United States" as US from members of congress and drop "United States" from cabinet as shown in this edit

• Seems reasonable to me. Does anyone object?

I would prefer changing United States Secretary of Labor to US Secretary of Labor, not just Secretary of Labor. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

These changes have been up for hours and hours, no one objects but you. Make it so Feoffer (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"No one objects but you"??? What part of "Seems reasonable to me. Does anyone object?" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled: why would you say US with members of Congress but not with cabinet members? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. You apparently forgot to sign your comment or comments here, so it is impossible to tell what you are referring to with "changes have been up for hours and hours". In any case "hours and hours" are not generally long enough to expect that anyone interested has already replied. Most people are not online 24 hours a day. Generally a day or two would be considered the absolute minimum. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In the US, we have state senators and federal sentators, so we use US to differentiate. Cabinet level postings, however, are wikilinked so we don't have to disambiguate them. We could use US on everything. Feoffer (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I made the change to US for everything based on the comments here. Note that I have no personal view on this proposal other than that it's not obviously wrong. I remind editors again that edits should only be used for changes that cannot be made for technical reasons. If editor's can make the changes, they should not make edit requests. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 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.

Edit request: Bost

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.

---

Please add Bost, who testied positive after contact with Lee, as shown in this edit. Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added instead to the paragraph talking about other members of Congress, with slight rewording, and filled out citation. Thank you for finding this. I had been looking for any other outbreak-related positive that had happened since Oct 7. —KinkyLipids (talk) 15:27, 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.

Oct 13 updates

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.

---

• Conley reports Trump "tested negative on consecutive days". Conley did not provide the dates when the president tested negative. Conley reported using rapid tests which are less accurate than PCR tests. ref
• Lee appears unmasked at SCOTUS hearing refref
• Trump holds Sanford Florida Rally, Oct 12 [4]
• Pence rally at The Villages, Oct 10 [5]

Feoffer (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Added the Sanford rally. I had added the Conley memo earlier. —KinkyLipids (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Independent article on the Pence rally doesn't directly tie it to the outbreak. It mentions the outbreak, but only in reference to Trump's South Lawn event, which is already in this Wiki article. I'm thinking Pence is outside the quarantine window now. —KinkyLipids (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Lee incident appears to be part of a larger topic on how the outbreak is affecting the SCOTUS hearing. It should be added with more context. —KinkyLipids (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Also: Graham appeared unmasked AND untested at the hearing ref Feoffer (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This WaPo article says that Graham says he tested negative "a week ago Friday", which probably means Oct 9. The article also says that Graham put on his mask when Lee talked to him and that congressional safety officials said that the hearing met CDC guidelines. It looks like Graham and Lee are only taking off their masks when they're seated apart from each other. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Turns out "a week ago Friday" meant October 2, according to AP, not Oct 9 the Friday in the week before the hearing. —KinkyLipids (talk) 22:32, 13 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.

Ongoing concerns about Trump status, Oct 12-13

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.

---

Sources that may merit incorporation:

• "How Likely Is It That Trump Is Still Contagious?"
• Doctors Are Questioning Trump’s COVID-19 Test After His Physician Said He Tested Negative "Trump’s doctor cited a rapid test as a key factor in determining that he is “not infectious,” but the CDC does not recommend using such tests to clear sick patients from isolating."

03:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, the Slate article's information about the CDC guidelines and about the PCR test could be an improvement. —KinkyLipids (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed News source notes a CDC statement on the use of antigen tests and isolation that could improve the article. —KinkyLipids (talk) 04:29, 14 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.

Relevant background: June 20 Tulsa outbreak following Trump rally and death of Herman Cain

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.

---

The June event merits brief mention in the background section:

• Health official: Trump rally ‘likely’ source of virus surge
• Seven attendees later tested positive: two additional Trump campaign staffers, two Secret Service agents, reporter Paul Monies, Herman Cain, and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Cain died the following month. (Text and sourcing available at 2020_Trump_Tulsa_rally#Coronavirus_impacts)
• Oct 12 Politico source covers the June 20 outbreak in the context of the current White House outbreak. Similar sources exist. (SNL also made reference to Cain's death in its satirical take on the outbreak, further demonstrating June 20 outbreak merits inclusion as relevant background) Feoffer (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A brief mention like "there was also an outbreak after a rally in Tulsa where two Secret Service agents tested positive" might be fine, using this NYT article that also mentions Tulsa, Trump's infection, and the Secret Service. The AP article is too old, and SNL is not a source. —KinkyLipids (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, we wouldn't want to use SNL as a source, lol! It was just a good sanity-doublecheck that yes, Cain's death is part of the "background" to the current outbreak. Feoffer (talk) 08:25, 14 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.

Edit request: Isolation tied to symptom onset

Please correct that isolation timeline tied to time symptom onset, not time of "after having COVID", as shown in this edit Feoffer (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't belong there at all. "Trump did X.[1] CDC says don't do X.[2]" is not appropriate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

CDC guidlines are currently covered in the text, but incorrectly. "after covid" should be removed as it is factually incorrect. Feoffer (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

See my comment below. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Other Rose Garden attendees

Per this source, other attendees included Ralph Reed, Liberty University president Jerry Prevo, Franklin Graham, Jack Graham, Paula White. Sen. James Lankford is isolating after exposure to Sen. Lee. Also, an unnamed colleague in regular contact with Fr. John Jenkis tested positive. We should add these individuals to the article. Feoffer (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Only if they have coronavirus. Otherwise, no. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your objection to covering notable exposures is well established and has been rejected. Do you have any reasons this particular individuals should not be added? Feoffer (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding individuals to tables for not contracting COVID. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure these individuals don't raise any new concerns Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

These individuals do raise new concerns

I don't see anyplace that not adding individuals to tables for not contracting COVID has been rejected or even evaluated. You are once again claiming consensus when there is none. I am going to ask that specific question below and see what the real consensus turns out to be.

However, there is still something to discuss in this section. Where is the evidence from any reliable source that the Rose Garden attendees were exposed? Note: Religion News Service / religionnews.com is not a reliable source for medical information. This appears have already been answered in the Edit request: Oct 10 event. Trump was not contagious at the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Rose Garden event has been described by Fauci as a superspreader event, if you look at my self-reverted edits, there are sources for negative tests after the event. Feoffer (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: whCovidTrack.com

Please add whCovidTrack.com to External links Feoffer (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No. A "crowd-sourced database" does not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is not the correct standard for external links. It appears you are wholesale rejecting any changes which originate with me, and your incivil comments lead credence to this assessment. Feoffer (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT. WP:MEDRS specifically covers all biomedical information in any Wikipedia article. and a "crowd-sourced database" also violates WP:UGS.

The first thing I did when I saw your suggested edits was to say yes to one of them and edit the article, so clearly I don't reject all changes which originate with you. I do, however, reject those changes that do not meet Wikipedia's standards, which so far is most of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to assuming good faith. Multiple non-controversial edit proposals await your attention. Feoffer (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have marked this request as answered since it's clear it lacks consensus. Feel free to continue discussion and change the template back to answered=no if consensus is achieved. That said, I'm fairly confused why it was used in the first place. AFAICT, everyone here is confirmed, not has anyone been topic banned from the article. Please remember that edit requests are intended for request changes to an article you are unable to make yourself due to technical limits or COI reasons. They are not intended for proposing changes you feel need discussion first. If you have such a proposal, just make a normal talk page comment. If the discussion reaches consensus and you need someone to implement it because you can't edit the article, then you can make an edit request. Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The template was used because Guy asked (well, told) me not to be bold here anymore and he also said he wouldn't look at anymore of my proposals, so I wanted to solicit any other person to implement my changes. I wasn't trying to cause problems, I won't use that template again. Again, I'm really editing in absolute good faith here. Feoffer (talk) 11:33, 12 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)

I added other health expert analyses to the Reactions section using the citations that were next to the Fauci sentence.

The Reuters-cited Fauci sentence meets the WP:BURDEN criteria.

The sentence currently refers to the POVs of public health experts, not just Fauci, so this also meets the WP:DUE criteria for balancing major POVS. I support another editor removing the undue weight tag. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 16:00, 12 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)

 Not done It looks like this is disputed. In any case, as I've said elsewhere, this appears to be an inappropriate use of the edit request template. If you can make the changes yourself, please do not use the template. There is nothing wrong with opening a discussion. Someone will need to make the changes once it has consensus and it can be any participant who is technically able to. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would advise Feoffer as following:

Second choice: Follow WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT (exactly as written, not using an interpretation that several people have explained is incorrect).

First choice: acknowledge that they have been mistaken many times in the recent past about whether an edit is controversial and simply start a new section on the article talk page that says something like this:

(Section heading) Proposed change to Reactions section

I would like to make the following uncontroversial changes to the second paragraph of the reactions section.

Current wording:

Some medical experts noted that dexamethasone is typically administered in severe and critical cases of infection, to suppress an immune system overreaction that attacks vital organs which can lead to death. Dexamethasone has not been shown to be effective in milder cases of the disease. Others noted that such steroids can have mood-altering side affects ranging from depression to mania, even delirium and psychosis.

Proposed wording:

Sum medicel expertz[6] notd dat dexamifhazun iz typically administerd in seveer[7] an critical casez ov infecshun, 2 suppres an emmuen sistem overreacshun dat attackz vitel organz[8] wich can lede 2 death. Srsly. Decksamephazin has not been showed 2 bee effectiv in mildr casez ov teh dizeez. Oferz noted dat such steroidz[9] can haz mood-alterin sied affectz rangin frum depreshun 2 mania,[10] evin delirium an psychosiz.[11]

Rationale:

Who doesn't love LOLspeek? Srsly. ~~~~

No special template needed, no muttering under your breath about how unfair it all is and how evil those who disagree with you needed. Just a simple "I want to make this controversial allegedly uncontroversial change" followed by a friendly discussion and a consensus as to whether to make all or some of the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It reflects poorly on you that you do not feel bound by WP:CIVIL, and you are quite honestly hurting my feelings. Stop. Feoffer (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing uncivil about the above. It is just good, sound, advice. It not a difficult concept. Just propose a change and then discuss it. Why don't you try it just once? You might like it. spending all of your time complaining about other Wikipedia editors instead of talking about article content isn't really working out for you, so why not try something new? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

USA today estimates 6,000 exposed attendees?

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.

---

USA today is claiming that as many as 6,000 people have been exposed.link. Likely a claim we should incorporate into the article? Feoffer (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, needs more context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What context would you like to see? Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No. They did not say "6,000 exposed". They said "potentially exposing hundreds, perhaps thousands". This is speculation, not solid enough to include. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The article's entitled "White House coronavirus outbreak may have exposed thousands", lists 6,000 event attendees. I don't believe they're speculating on that figure. It merits inclusion. Feoffer (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The article's wording is "6,000 people attended...gatherings with [those who in the White House who tested positive]". It does not definitively say they were exposed, instead it says "may have" or "potentially". Saying "attended" would be more solid and faithful to the source than "exposed". —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The article says "potentially hundreds, perhaps thousands" may have been exposed. They then say that "at least 6,000 people" attended events where potentially exposed people may have been - kind of a hypothetical, secondary or tertiary exposure. It is WP:SYNTHESIS on your part to quote them as saying 6,000 people have been exposed. They don't say it, so don't quote them as saying it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. What would we think about paraphrasing this sentence alone:

"At least 6,000 people attended meetings, rallies and other gatherings with them within a week of the Supreme Court nomination ceremony Sept. 26 in the White House Rose Garden, pegged as a potential 'superspreader' event."

We needn't use the term "exposed", and could just summarize attendance counts. Feoffer (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. —KinkyLipids (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change! In my mind, "exposed" just meant "in attendance", nothing more; Never occured to me that there was distinction between the two, with "exposed" being stricter. Good discussion, team. Good win-win. Feoffer (talk) 20:58, 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.

Should we list people who were exposed but did not catch the disease?

• Feoffer argues that we should add these individuals to the article if they are otherwise notable.
• Onetwothreeip argues that we shouldn't add individuals for not contracting coronavirus.
• I am undecided.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We can't say they were exposed either, as that's far more specific. They were in contact with certain individuals, or they were present at an event. We're never going to have a complete list if we have to include everybody who was at any event with Donald Trump or with anyone who was in contact with an infectious White House personality, or was a close relative of those who were at any event with Donald Trump or of anyone who was in contact with an infectious White House personality. That's the clear implication if we are including persons who have tested positive and tested negative, because that's everyone. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"We can't say they were exposed". My understanding is that the attendance is the exposure -- Rose Garden attendance is cited as the reason they got tested, after all. Feoffer (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Still undecided, but we could create List of people who were at an event with Donald Trump or had contact with anyone close to Donald Trump or who are a close relative of anyone who was at an event with Donald Trump or had contact with anyone close to Donald Trump. Populating that list should keep Feoffer busy. For the rest of us, there exists WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll again ask you nicely to stop treating me with such incivility. I'm just here to write an encyclopedia, I've done nothing to deserve disrespect. Feoffer (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. (invited at random by a bot) Attendance does not imply exposure. Even a positive test after attendance only suggests the event caused the exposure. We are not running a contact tracing service. Jojalozzo (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jojalozzo:} this is an excellent point. To my mind, "exposure" was meant "in attendance" at a spreader event, no more. It's clear now that my usage is a little idiosyncratic -- to most editors, "exposure" means something a little closer than just shared attendance. I'll post a proposal/discussion in an new section, but I sincerely wanna thank you for your comment -- it made a light bulb go off above my head. Feoffer (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed scope for table of potentially-affected individuals

Obviously, the table can't be indiscriminant. As a first start, what would we think about the inclusion criteria of "RSes report individual sought testing or quarantined after potential-exposure to the outbreak"? This lets the RSes do the filtering for us -- people who test negative in private don't wind up in the article, only those individuals RSes feel are important enough to cover their potential-exposure/testing. Thoughts? Feoffer (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Simplify lead

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

This includes non-neutral and unencyclopaedic language. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The changes were primarily designed to increase readability. What specifically do you find objectionable ? Feoffer (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

As a start, you moved Chris Christie and Crede Bailey to the first paragraph while leaving Melania Trump, Ronna McDaniel, and Kellyanne Conway where they were. So why pick these two people for extra emphasis? Clearly you picked them because they were the sickest.

I see no actual readability improvements. The lead wasn't broken and did not need to be fixed.

BTW, please read this.[12][13] Can we at least agree to stop using "a romantic fiction invented by those who were nostalgic for the passing of the linotype era" that dates to the late 1970s and into the 1980s? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did start by moving hospitalizations to the top and moving minimally-notable folks to the body (e.g. Jenkins). I feel this make sense.

My suspicion is that you are wholesale rejecting any proposed changes that originate with me. Your comments lend credence to this conclusion Feoffer (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed changes improve the lead. For one thing, I think it made sense to have just Trump in the lead sentence, since his infection is far and away the most notable and impactful, rather than adding Christie and Bailey (aka "who?"). There were a bunch of other changes; maybe we could discuss the lead in a separate paragraph, how to change it and why, rather than posing a yes-or-no question about multiple changes all at once. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point -- Crede Bailey who now?!? I agree that proper name is out of place in the lede.

What would we think about moving those hospitalized up earlier but not naming bailey. Something like "Thre individuals were hospitalized: Trump, Christie, and a member of the White House security office".

The status-quo lede is more convoluted and trivial than it needs to be. Jenkins doesn't merit lead inclusion the title descriptions are far longer than needed, etc. My attempt at cleanup was obviously far from perfect, but the lede does need a little work. Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Table fixes

1) Remove non-attendance cells like "isolating". 2) Remove any other words in cells that contain "Negative". 3) Change "exposed to" to "in contact with". 4) Remove unknown results from table. 5) Remove "United States" from "United States Senator" and department secretaries. 6) Remove "Gen." from names. 7) Remove references to "prophylactic treatment" for Rudy Giuliani.

Are there any objections to any of these? I don't want to make these changes myself at this time given the precarious drama, and would rather someone else did these, to whatever extent they agree. This isn't to do with being unreliably sourced, they're just not due in these tables. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely oppose. Isolations, prophylaxis, and other texts are well sourced. Unknowns are sought in table per above. Gen. & Adm. prefixes are useful for branch ID. Feoffer (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't to do with being unreliably sourced. Guy Macon? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is sourced. First we need to decide on WP:WEIGHT. I am still thinking about these. I will be away from my computer for the rest of the day. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear consensus that this material is reliably sourced. It's hard to imagine a consensus forming that mention of post-exposure isolation and prophylactic treatment constitutes undue weight in this context. Feoffer (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for or against it being reliably sourced. Please stop fabricating consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This section demonstrates otherwise -- Onetwothreeip and Guy Macon are both on the record that this material is reliably sourced, that's 3-0. Feoffer (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Blatantly false. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The source says that Giuliani tested negative, That's what the table should say.

Whether or not he coughed and/or had prophylactic treatment is irrelevant in a table of who was exposed and who caught the disease. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please build a consensus before removing well-sourced information from the article. Feoffer (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Feoffer: You should be well aware of WP:BRD. Consensus is required to include content, not to remove content that does not have consensus. The content being referenced, correctly or not, does not give you any special exemptions. The burden is on you to demonstrate consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We are building a consensus. We are doing that right here. Did Onetwothreeip edit the table? No. Did I edit the table? No. We both chose to discuss the proposed change here. As should you.

Feoffer, please explain, in detail, why we shouldn't list someone who has tested negative for coronavirus as having been tested negative for coronavirus in a table showing the results of coronavirus tests. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with covering negative test results as well, but deletion of well-cited materials without a consensus would be unacceptable. Feoffer (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable if the "well-cited materials" don't have consensus. Citations don't exempt any content from WP:BRD. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken when you interpret WP:BRD to mean "I can show up at an article, delete anything I want, and demand a supermajority to undo my deletions" . Feoffer (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's actually not too far from what BRD means, except it only extends to removing things that don't have consensus, and it's only a consensus required to restore that content, not a supermajority. Although editors should always do so with care. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that's the heart of why you keep winding up at ANI. BRD means you can undo new changes, not that you can show up to existing articles and delete anything you find objectionable and demand consensus to return to status quo. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, you'll just keeping being a bull in a china shop. Feoffer (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to withdraw that first comment. That's not true, and not appropriate for an article talk page. It has just been you who has started an ANI discussion about me twice in one week.

I have checked WP:BRD again and there is nothing there that says BRD means you can undo new changes, but that's kind of irrelevant here since I was only removing newly added content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the WP:BRD page should be updated to be clearer. When I show up at a new page, I never imagine I can edit-war to remove anything I object to -- that's a recipe for winding up at WP:ANI as you have multiple times. Feoffer (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Hope you don't mind me pinging you to this section when you get back. I don't want this to be forgotten among all the other sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the rule is that we can show up to a new article and delete anything we object to, I've been editing under a misunderstanding for years. If we want to play by those rules, we can, but it's not the ruleset I learned Feoffer (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can "show up" to any article, and can make an edit which removes content. This can either be a bold removal of content, or it can be a removal of bold content. If it's a bold removal, this can be reverted/restored and the next step is talk page discussion. If it's a removal of boldly added content, then the next step is talk page discussion, prior to potential restoration of the content if there is consensus to restore. This is all documented at WP:BRD. You seem to be unable to accept that most of your edits on this article are bold, for spurious reasons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Small text to convey my friendliness :) . When I'm an active editor on an article and someone makes a new controversial edit, I feel comfy reverting it. But when I show up to an article I've never edited before, I generally take that version as "status quo", and don't edit war to remove established material. Be well :) Feoffer (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty irrelevant, given that I am an active editor on this article anyway. There's no guideline for how active an editor has to be in order to revert any edits. Any suggestion that there would be is very repugnant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of tweet from Dr. Esther Choo

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.

---

}

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)

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.

Any sources connecting the Biden/Harris positive tests to his cluster?

It stands to reason that the recent positive tests (Liz Allen, flight crew) might stem from the White House cluster, but I can't find any RSes actually showing a link. Anyone know of any? Feoffer (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found any. In the statement, both are being connected to having had time off during which they saw family members. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:51, 17 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)

Adding a timestamp so the bot will automatically archive this. I'll come back to it perhaps at some point in the future. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we now expanding this article into a coatrack about everything that happens in US politics?

"Two of the senators who recently tested positive in the outbreak, and one senator who was at the Rose Garden event in September, were members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which began holding hearings on October 12 for Judge Amy Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court..."

Wow, some people who were at the Rose Garden later continued doing their jobs. What a shock.

"Ted Cruz appeared remotely from quarantine after coming into contact with Sen. Lee ... who had earlier tested positive but had been cleared by the attending physician."

So now we are reporting when someone quarantines themselves after coming in contact with someone who attended the the Rose Garden event and caught the virus?

"The chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was at the Rose Garden event, said he tested negative the week before and also wore his mask when Lee approached."

So now we are reporting everything that happens later to people who who attended the the Rose Garden event and didn't catch the virus?

This has expanded from people who were in contact with Trump while he was infectious to people who were in contact with Trump after his doctor said he was no longer infectious to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump and caught the virus to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump but tested negative. If we keep this up, soon the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon will kick in and everyone on earth will qualify for inclusion in this article.

The connection between White House COVID-19 outbreak and the Supreme Court nomination hearings is extremely tenuous, and there are dozens and dozens of things that senators who attended that event do every day that have an equally tenuous connection between White House COVID-19 outbreak. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that I could follow our standard practice on this page and just go ahead delete the section. That would no doubt result in some responses to the above... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's just difficult to engage with you Guy because you get so cranky whenever you post something. No one wants to hurt your feelings is all. Additionally, it's difficult to wade through what you've written above and figure out what you're asking or what dialogue you're inviting. It looks more like a statement of your opinions than any sort of request for conversation. You're of course welcome to your opinion, everyone has one. TheMusicExperimental —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. In response to your attempt to "explain" the above incivility at ANI, my explicit inclusion of a link to WP:POINT and the :) at the end made it clear that I was not seriously suggesting just deleting the section.

Meanwhile, while you were willing to take the time to post a snarky comment, you failed to address my question; how many degrees of separation are we going to list? Do we list a senator who went to a barber who earlier cut the hair of someone who's husband came within 20 feet of Trump after an M.D said that Trump was no longer infectious? What, exactly, are the criteria for inclusion in these lists?

Also please sign your comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, forgot that also: What you describe as "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" is in fact exactly what contact tracing an outbreak is like. This is a wikipedia page describing a Covid-19 outbreak that originated at the White House in late September/early October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• And you think it is Wikipedia's job to do contact tracing... why? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• (...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• In a rush? TheMusicExperimental (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey TheMusicExperimental, first, you can use short links like WP:NORUSH. Secondly, Guy Macon has a point. See my comment replying to Guy's initial statement. Please ask yourself if the contacts are relevant to the article. I dunno myself, but I haven't followed the outbreak closely. --intelati^talk 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

intelati: Noted. I have, they are.TheMusicExperimental (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Been passively watching this entire saga with the thought of WP:RECENT. I feel like the entire Trump presidency has been overly covered in Wikipedia. I won't suggest any changes because this is still an ongoing story, but I definitely feel like the table of positive cases is too recent and not historically relevant. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in.--intelati^talk 18:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester are listed because they tested negative after attending a debate where the organizers enforced proper precautions and nobody who attended the debate got infected.

Statement from Cleveland Clinic clarifying 11 people who tested positive for COVID-19:

“It’s important to clarify the 11 people who tested positive never accessed the debate hall. These individuals were either members of the media or were scheduled to work logistics/set-up in the days prior to the event. Individuals did not receive credentials or tickets to enter the debate hall until they had a negative test, and all were advised to isolate while they awaited their test results.”[14]

Again I ask, what are the criteria for inclusion? It looks like the Cleveland Clinic had proper precautions in place.

From NBC News:

"Face masks, tickets and a wristband proving a recent negative COVID-19 test result are required to enter the hall for the first 2020 presidential debate and the precautions continue inside... Anyone entering the debate hall has to pass through airport-style security run by the Secret Service at the perimeter then be checked by agents once again at the entrance to the hall itself before getting their temperature taken and displaying the wristband that shows a recent negative test from the on-site rapid testing center. The debate is taking place inside the atrium of the clinic's Samson Pavilion, which has high ceilings and plenty of space to enhance ventilation. The audience has been limited to a much smaller-than-usual 80 to 100 invited guests, allowing for chairs to be blocked off between groups and plenty of spacing between the rows."[15]

Picture of the hall:[16]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"It looks like the Cleveland Clinic had proper precautions in place." Masking wasn't enforced and Trump wasn't tested. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, masking wasn't enforced while Trump's party was backstage. The Cleveland Clinic had no power to force the president to follow the rules. What should they have done? Tried to grab him and physically throw him and his heavily armed secret service bodyguards out the door? There is plenty to criticize Trump for in this, but the Cleveland Clinic did indeed have proper precautions in place -- and it worked, despite noncompliance by Trump.

The candidates were not required to be masked while debating, but Cleveland Clinic distance and masking rules were followed by everyone in the audience, including the Trump family. Everyone in the audience was masked. And zero audience members contracted Covid-19 Compare this with the Rose Garden event to see what happens when the audience doesn't follow proper procedures.

Don't try to dump the blame on the Cleveland Clinic. You can blame Trump, and maybe some blame should go to the Commission on Presidential Debates (a lapdog created by the Democrats and Republicans for the primary purpose of making sure no Green or Libertarian ever gets to debate). If you think it is so easy to force Trump to wear a mask, show us how it is done. Head on down to the White House and force him. I will visit you as you await trial.

Still waiting for an answer to my question: What are the criteria for being listed in this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not ignoring you, but we're not a discussion forum either. Feoffer (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You might not like my criticism of how you and others are editing this page, but asking "What are the criteria for being listed in this article?" is the exact opposite of WP:NOTFORUM. Why not simply answer the question? Is the answer embarrassing in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Count needs updating

The count in the infobox says 36 but the lowest count per the table below would be 47. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontusenumbers (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. When the table has an entry for '11 unidentified persons', it should be counted as 11 and not 1. -Abhishikt (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. When we have a report of unidentified individuals, we have to guard against them being doubly-counted. For that reason, we have to look at the counts made by RSes instead of just counting the people in our table. Feoffer (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on a range instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontusenumbers (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Pence cluster

New COVID cluster in the staff of Mike Pence, definitely close enough in time that they could’ve caught it from people in the initial WH cluster. Note of caution though, there is some thought that this is a ploy by Pence's people to sabotage Trump's reelection to give Pence a better shot in 2024. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Again I ask, what are the criteria for being listed in this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward. Intersection of White House and COVID spread. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Good criteria, if we follow it. In what way way do Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester meet the criteria? They didn't get infected after attending a debate where everybody in the audience was tested beforehand then self quarantined, where everybody in the audience wore masks and practiced CCD-recomended social distancing, and where nobody in the audience got infected. How is Covid not spreading an example of "Covid spread"? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources report Coons and Rochester sought testing after potential exposure to white house team. Feoffer (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Beats the hell outta me. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have also been thinking about the question at the top of this section. OK, first we have an unknown; where someone caught Covid-19. Let's take an obvious one; the first lady. It is highly likely that she either caught it from or gave it to her husband, but the possibility exists that the two came from different places. But OK, we simply report "exposed to Trump" and "caught Covid-19" without claiming that one caused the other. That seems reasonable. But now we are talking about someone two steps away; Someone on Pence's staff who caught Covid-19, and was exposed to someone who was exposed to Trump.

I have thought about this and in my opinion the criteria for being talked about in this article should be:

Came closer than ten feet to Trump. Someone who sat 40 feet away from Trump (that's my rough estimate of the balcony speech) should not be listed.

AND

Did so during the period when Trump was infectious. Let's give that an extra 48 hours on either end in case we got the timing slightly wrong. No listing of people who had contact with Trump way before or way after he was infectious.

AND

Contracted Covid-19. We should not list people for "not" catching Covid-19.

This is basically what you (Hyperbolick) said above ("Intersection of White House and COVID spread.") with a few of the details fleshed out.

Does anyone disagree with the above criteria? If the disagreement can be removed with a small modification, I will make the change. If you disagree with the basic idea of the above criteria, please explain why and what your preferred alternative is. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article isn’t "Donald Trump Covid outbreak," is it? Unless changed to that, not seeing why it matters whether infected were within some distance of Trump specifically, or near Trump specifically during some time period. Even so, there are still some open questions about infectiousness. Apparently the longer and louder one talks, the farther you can go, so 40 feet is not out of the question during a loud and lengthy speech. Similarly don't really know when the “no longer infectious“ time limit is. Trump gives Covid to a random usher, and two weeks later that usher goes and works a crowd at the White House and gives it to 20 people there, still part of the same outbreak, and clearly the same White House outbreak. One of those in the crowd goes home to Milwaukee or Kansas City or wherever and gives it to 1000 people later, i’d call that beyond the bounds. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Hyperbolick, this isn't a Trump bio subarticle and it predates Trump's diagnosis. Feoffer (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong disagree with the proposed. Far too much of it is imagination-based with individual assessments of what is likely or unlikely etc. in addition to being a fairly tedious evaluation criteria. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am unwatching this page. Perhaps someone else can have better luck improving it. You can respond to this but I won't read the response. Please don't ping me. I am no longer willing to work on this article. My final comment: while some editors are clearly making a good-faith effort to improve this article, others refuse to define what the criteria for inclusion is and are obviously unwilling to accept any definition. Feel free to prove me wrong by suggesting a set of criteria that you will accept, but don't expect me to read it or respond to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You have my sympathies for whatever you're experiencing after consensus didn't support your vision of the article; that's never a fun feeling for anyone, as everyone on this talkpage can attest. Godspeed. Feoffer (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)