Jump to content

Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration/Archive 1

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

About this draft

This is intended to become an article about the foreign policy of Trump as president. There is presently no such article. The existing article Foreign policy of Donald Trump is almost entirely about his positions during the campaign. The plan, developed at an RfC discussion, is that that article will continue to be about his campaign positions, and the article about his presidency will be called Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. That is what I am trying to create here.

I encourage others to help me develop this draft (please!!) Here is my approach: I have copied the entire existing article Foreign policy of Donald Trump. I intend to trim this material down to the point where his policies during the campaign are just summarized briefly. Then we can start to add his policies since becoming president.

I have not started on the lead sections and will probably do them last. My initial plan is to go through the country sections, one at a time, and trim them down to one paragraph or a few, each time preceded by "during the campaign". I am eliminating a lot of the detail and quotes, and virtually all of the commentary, analysis, and criticism of his policies. I am also eliminating any old material (pre-campaign - like something he said in 2011) in its entirety. You can look at "Cuba" and "Mexico" to see what kind of material I am leaving in.

After all the country and other sections have been trimmed, we can then tackle the lede, and then I think we will have an article ready to add to the encyclopedia as Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration.

If there are going to be multiple people working on this it would be good if we could list below what we have already done, so that others know what still needs to be worked on. Be careful about references; if you delete a reference with a "ref name" it might be cited elsewhere in the article, so don't lose it.

And before you start, it would be a good idea to look at the article history to see if anyone else is actively editing it. If someone is, I suggest you go away and come back later. If we should be so lucky as to have multiple people working on this article, let's not have them edit-conflict each other!

Thanks in advance for any help! --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Where else could I appeal for interested people to help? --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, this project looks an ideal use case for the Draft namespace. I suggest moving the draft to Draft:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, unless you object. — JFG talk 20:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done Good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sections already trimmed

  • Cuba
  • Mexico
  • Afghanistan
  • China and Taiwan
  • NATO
  • North Korea
  • Egypt
  • European Union
  • Pakistan
  • Philippines
  • Israel and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
  • United Kingdom
  • Saudi Arabia (main section)
  • Canada (new)
  • Iran
  • India
  • United Nations
  • Japan (new)
  • Ukraine

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBallioni (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to consider adding the 'trade policy' section from the article 'Economic policy of Donald Trump'

I get the feeling that the WTO, trade agreements and trade in general are going to a huge foreign policy issues in this administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you want to do it now, or after we finish the "trimming"? We will also need to add a section about the State Department: his appointments, and recent proposals and actions regarding it (i.e. the budget cut, the "out of the loop" impression, and the mass firings) but we will probably have to write that one from scratch - unless anyone knows of another article that covers it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to finish the trim here first, and then incorporate parts of other articles here, trim that down, and then write any new content that doesn't fit in the copied areas. This is going to be a big task, and I think doing it relatively methodically would work best. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As we've handle the trim of most of the foreign policy article from what I can tell, I've gone ahead and copied the trade section here. I think we probably need to trim a lot of it, but it is easier to move it over in one edit for copyright purposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Waterboarding/torture?

Does this really belong in a foreign policy article? It is really a human rights topic. I've been trying to consolidate sections where at all possible and I'm coming to a blank as to if we should include it in the article, and if so, where it should be. If it is included, I'm thinking somewhere in either United States Armed Forces and defense spending or in Action against terrorists' families but changing it to Actions against terrorists and their families. Thoughts would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A brief mention is warranted under "Actions against terrorists and their families". Still, we must bear in mind this was campaign rhetoric and be careful of not getting ahead of the Trump administration's actual policies on the issue, which have not yet been expressed. The only thing of substance is that Trump recently avoided the drama by saying he would defer to Mattis regarding waterboarding, and Mattis is on the record against any forms of torture, saying it doesn't work. — JFG talk 06:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia and Syria/Iraq/ISIL

MelanieN and Snooganssnoogans (and anyone else who may want to join us), we seemed to have trimmed most of the other country sections except the ones on Russia and Syria/Iraq/ISIL. These are perhaps two different conversations, but given how the are both very significant in different ways, I thought it would probably best to see if we could form some sort of consensus for what we think each should cover. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Syria, Iraq, ISIS

I would summarize Trump's campaign positions as advocating forceful action against ISIS, including collaboration with traditional allies + Russia. He gave no opinion on Syria's future government. He strongly distrusts Iran and is not willing to see them play a role in the region's future (contrast with Putin's embrace of Iran's help). He has expressed support for creating local refugee camps to host displaced populations from Syria and Iraq, notably near the border with Turkey, hoping to curb migration flows. Since taking office, Trump launched a couple of minor surprise operations and instructed his generals to draft a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. Tillerson is holding a meeting with 60+ allies in the coming days to discuss the issue, so we will probably hear updates soon. — JFG talk 06:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this where we would put his campaign comments about limiting immigration from certain countries, and his administration's attempts to do so? Seems to me they are part of foreign policy. And he justifies those proposals as being part of this overall subject: defense against ISIS and terrorism in general. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, I would put that as part of an overview in the Middle East and Africa or somewhere in the overview section. The justification is terrorism, but it has taken on a life of its own. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia

This will be a difficult section to write because of all the political noise around Trump's relations with Putin and the "Manchurian candidate" theory; I believe we should stick to facts and steer clear of the political circus in this article, which should remain focused on foreign policy, not electoral or partisan disputes.

During the campaign, Trump broke with U.S. diplomatic tradition by advocating potential collaboration with Russia instead of systematic opposition. He identified the struggle against ISIS and other terrorism as an area of conflict where Russia and the US shared the same objectives, opening the door to collaboration in Syria and Iraq. However, nothing concrete has emerged from these overtures yet, with the ISIS-themed summit by Tillerson conspicuously excluding Russia from the talks.

Tillerson's nomination to Secretary of State was seen as either a competent positioning allowing détente in the US–Russian relations and development of joint business ventures in the energy sector, or as a treasonous move sacrificing the interests of the United States and NATO allies for corporate profit. Again, we can't say which of these predictions will prove correct.

Trump's position on the Ukraine crisis has been ambiguous, putting the status of Crimea in a kind of grand bargain that should be discussed with Russia from a realpolitik standpoint (US clearly won't go to war over Crimea, so a diplomatic settlement must eventually be reached), while talking tough on any further Russian ambitions, either in support of the Donbass separatist movements or in perceived threats towards the Baltic states.

Finally, we must mention the ongoing inquiries into Russian interference in the presidential election and possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian officials, which obviously pollute the climate further; this affair must be resolved before any meaningful foreign policy options concerning Russia can be enacted. — JFG talk 06:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I have trimmed the "campaign" section of the Russia material pretty drastically. There is still a lot that needs to be done with the post-inauguration material. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this article include his immigration policy?

'Immigration policy of Donald Trump'[1] is pretty small and fairly inactive. Seeing as how the immigrant bans are having foreign policy implications, perhaps it's appropriate for the article that we're crafting here? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are that unlike the trade section, where his views affect basically the entirety of his foreign policy, and it really requires a separate heading, his immigration and refugee stance really only applies to Mexico and Middle Eastern countries. It can be pretty easily noted in either the overview, the Mexico section, and as a summary before the specific countries in the Middle East in Africa. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
No: immigration policy is as much a domestic issue as an international issue; perhaps even more so in the particular case of Trump's "America first" positions. — JFG talk 07:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tony that immigration-related matters should go under the specific country or area. We already have the "wall" under Mexico, and he hasn't made any other specific proposals to limit immigration from Mexico afaik. I think we do need something about the travel ban in the Middle East section or under relevant countries. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Right: mention relevant policies in the section for each country/region. — JFG talk 03:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

State Department

I was planning to write a brief section on the State Department - personnel, role, etc. But I notice that other Foreign Policy of... articles don't have such a section. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Worth adding. — JFG talk 03:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that it would be stale for 4-9 years, but I think it should be there. I recently removed the January 2009 analysis of Obama's yet to be confirmed team from that article, so I'd prefer something that is worded in a way that won't need as much updating until/unless there is a new SecState. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that. I think it should include only confirmed officials, and only the top-level ones. I think it also needs something about the mass firings and the proposed budget cut. These definitely reflect Trump's approach to foreign policy. I'll start working on it.
BTW I am going to be going on vacation in a few days. I will try to clean up anything I am working on before I leave, and I wlll leave it to the rest of you to go ahead and move this to article space when you think it's ready. I think we are about 80-90% of the way there. We need to add more about his actions since assuming office but we could do that after it goes live. You all have been a great collaborative team - Wikipedia at its best! --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, agreed on adding more about his actual foreign policy rather than just campaign rhetoric. I've been trying to do that as I went along but it definitely could use more. I'd also like to see if we could develop a good lede with a hook so we could get this to DYK once it goes live before you leave on vacation. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
About a lede: I looked at recent articles and found there are two different approaches. The George W. Bush article takes the same approach as this one currently does, treating it almost like a list article with a single-sentence lede. However, the Obama and Clinton articles have a fully developed lede section. If we want to take that approach, we could do it by converting the "overview" section into the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I also think the excellent section you have developed on trade should be summarized in the "Overview" section. Trade was and is an important part of his approach to foreign policy. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed the Israel/Palestine section. That only leaves the Syria/ISIL section in need of pruning and organizing. I won't have time to do that before I leave. We should probably keep the separate subsections for that one; for other countries I have eliminated the topic subsections, sometimes replacing them with "During the campaign" and "The Trump Administration" sections if the material is quite long. We may need to add those two subsections to additional articles as we add more post-inauguration material. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the "overview" section has way too much detail about his foreign policy advisors and their views. I would suggest a drastic trim but I'll leave it for someone else to do that if they agree. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, I've done that trim, and pretty drastically because the section was too long and was so campaign focused. Do we need to do anything more before moving to mainspace? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, just cut out a lot of the ISIL stuff, along with the ridiculousness around ISIS Founder Obama, which certainly isn't part of the administration's policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Now we have a lede (it's more paragraphs than is usually permitted, but we can deal with that if it comes up). I still think we need something about trade in the lede. I would suggest you go ahead and move it to mainspace whenever you want. We will continue to add to it (especially when we have current material as opposed to campaign material) after it goes live - and possibly trim campaign stuff as we get more info about his current positions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: lede trimmed a bit, but the move to mainspace is  Done. I've also alerted Coffee since he applied DS to the article that this was adapted from. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
information Administrator note I appreciate the heads up. I've placed this article formally under page restrictions, and replaced the restrictions on Foreign policy of Donald Trump (which I had not realised was once again the home of that article). This action has been logged. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Great job, Tony and Melanie, thanks! — JFG talk 12:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK

I like the idea of putting this up for DYK but I realize it's going to be difficult to find a neutral hook - one that neither promotes him ("Make American Great Again!") nor makes him look bad ("bring back waterboarding and torture!"). Here's a couple of attempts; you all can probably do better.

I really prefer to have a DYK hook be something catchy, maybe even cute, but I wasn't able to come up with anything. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd consider:
Unfortunately, noting cute. The friends one is kinda cute. maybe? Though the other concern for DYK is that while we did create new content, a good portion of this article was copied and then modified from a previous article, which means it might not be eligible. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Quick comment before I leave: I like the "friends" quote but not "has been described as". That was actually a quote from his own inauguration speech, not a way anybody else described his policy. Maybe "hopes to achieve diplomacy whereby" or something like that? Or "Donald Trump says he hopes to achieve a foreign policy whereby .... " --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Very catchy hook! I hope the article passes nomination review. — JFG talk 12:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The DYK is on the Main Page right now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

India section -- Trump Organization?

Is the blurb about TTO having business ventures and properties in India necessary to have under the "India" section? President Trump has made clear he is going to take a more hard-line position on Pakistan for perceived links to terrorism, and will use stronger ties with India to achieve this. Mentioning TTO in this section implies he has ulterior motives. If there were proof as to this implication, then I would not be against its inclusion; but as of this moment, I don't see any need for it to be included. Cheef117 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct, this is off-topic for a foreign policy article. I'm also surprised that we have nothing about the recent bilateral meeting between Trump and Modi at the White House; surely this needs coverage. — JFG talk 14:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My Preliminary Bibliography

October 13, 2017

Hello! I have a created a preliminary bibliography that I plan to utilize to edit this page, if anyone can give me any insight and consensus about the sources I have chosen I would appreciate it. Thank You

1. Agiesta, Jennifer. “Poll: Trump money fair game in Russia probe.” CNN, Cable News Network, 10 Aug. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/08/10/politics/cnn-poll-russia-investigation-trump-finances/index.html.

2. Balz, Dan, and Emily Guskin. “Trump foreign policy pronouncements split the Republican Party.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foreign-policy-pronouncements-split-the-republican-party/2017/10/01/5b544498-a580-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.15e471282155.

3. Bedard, Paul. “Poll: 70% support Trump's immigration policies, want Americans hired first.” Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, 9 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-70-support-trumps-immigration-policies-want-americans-hired-first/article/2636938.

4. FELBAB-BROWN, VANDA. “U.S.-Mexican Relations: After the Election’s Vitriol, Ways to Strengthen a Multifaceted Partnership.” Brookings Big Ideas for America, edited by MICHAEL E. O’HANLON, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2017, pp. 294–302. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt1kk66tr.34. (Scholarly Book)

5. News, CBS. “Poll finds Americans questioning Trump's policies, temperament.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 29 Aug. 2017, www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-finds-americans-questioning-trumps-policies-temperament/.

6. Paul, Ron. 2017. Trump's foreign policy: An unwise. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 36, (2) (Mar): 14-15, http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1870609077?accountid=11243 (accessed October 13, 2017).

7. Press, LUIS ALONSO LUGO Associated. “Poll: 93 percent of Mexicans have ‘no confidence’ in Donald Trump.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 14 Sept. 2017, www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/poll-93-percent-mexicans-no-confidence-donald-trump/.

8. Reuben Fischer-Baum & Julie Vitkovskaya, Washington Post July 13, 2017. “How Trump Is Changing America's Foreign Policy.” RealClearPolitics, www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/07/13/how_trump_is_changing_america039s_foreign_policy_415350.html.

9. Shepard, Steven, et al. “Polls: Trump, government earn low marks for Puerto Rico hurricane response.” POLITICO, 12 Oct. 2017, www.politico.com/story/2017/10/12/trump-puerto-rico-poll-243728.

10. Talkoff, Emma. “Donald Trump Polls: What Americans Think of His Policies.” Time, Time, 10 Aug. 2017, time.com/4892348/donald-trump-policies-polling/.

11. Wike, Richard, et al. “U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump's Leadership.” Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, 26 June 2017, www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaansheikh (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm reposting this for a student, Romaansheikh. He's going to make some small edits to the page - I've cautioned him about the article being sanctioned - and he will be using these sources, so I thought that these would be good to keep on the active talk page while he's making his edits. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Russia Polling Data

I plan to add foreign policy polling data and brief background information for three countries which are Russia, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. This is my information for Russia

According to a poll conducted by the SSRS, approximately 70% of Americans find that the federal investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election in the US should be able to look into President Donald Trump's finances. 60% of those polled view this as a serious matter that should be fully investigated, and it was recorded that 38% view it as a way to discredit the Presidency of Donald Trump. In an approximate two-to-one margin, those polled disapprove of the way the President is dealing the Russian investigation. President Trump has continued to advocate for U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Islamic State there. Within his first direct meeting and encounter with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he approved a collaborative plan for a limited cease-fire in the Syrian civil war.

01:40, 15 November 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaansheikh (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

US-Mexico Polling Data

This is my information for US-Mexico

According to a poll regarding the Trump Administration by the National Research Inc, and The Polling Company more Americans agree that legal immigration is at the right levels, but want illegal immigration curbed. The 1,201 that were polled believe that President Trump’s focus on illegals has cut those crossing United States borders without approval. It has been reported that the appeal of President Trump’s anti-NAFTA messages has been dominant among working-class white families in the US. These families do not have the capability to provide for the kind of education their children need in order to successfully live in this modern day economy.

Polls also show 5 percent of Mexicans trust President Trump’s decisions and role in international affairs The survey by the Pew Research Center said 93 percent of Mexicans had “no confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing regarding world affairs.” The president’s decision for a wall along the Mexican border had a proposed 2018 budget that included a request for $1.6 billion to begin construction. A survey by Quinnipiac University found that 64% of voters oppose building the wall and data showed only 33% supported the idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaansheikh (talk • contribs) 08:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Peurto Rico Polling Data

This is my information for Peurto Rico

A majority believe the Trump administration isn’t doing enough to help Puerto Rico. Polls suggest that a majority of voters do not believe the Trump Administration acknowledges the problems in Puerto Rico, especially after the hurricane. A poll conducted by Quinnipiac suggests that 55 percent of voters believe that the Trump Administration hasn't done enough to help Puerto Rico in regards to the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. It was reported that only 36 percent of voters believe the Trump Administration has done enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaansheikh (talk • contribs) 08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Ukraine policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unresolved. The issue was whether to include some text in this article. What ended up being discussed was whether the fact in this text came from a reliable source & accurately reflects what the news media reports. A given fact can be true, yet there can be reasons for excluding it -- e.g. relevance to the article -- none of which were discussed or even mentioned. Just people talking past each other. P.S. The item in the LA Times TheTimesAreAChanging cites from is clearly an article, not an opinion piece. -- llywrch (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Does the following text on the Trump administration's Ukraine policy belong in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#Ukraine?:

In December 2017, the Trump administration agreed to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, including long-sought FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles. Source: Wilkinson, Tracy (2017-12-26). "U.S. decision to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine angers Russian leaders". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2017-12-29.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Wow! Propaganda straight from Breitbart or RT? You sound just like Putin. Well, it's Greenwald and demchoice, so there is no longer much difference. Extremely Putin-friendly sources of disinformation. Sad. Greenwald (and Assange) used to be independent and trustworthy sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Doing my best to ignore the characterising of another editor's motives above, which is rarely a good start to an RfC, has there been any prior discussion here of the issues? One trivial observation is that the use of 'lethal' is extraneous - most weapons kill! Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the reliable sources: "The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014."—Washington Post; "President Trump's long-delayed decision to provide Ukraine with defensive lethal weapons signaled a new willingness to oppose Russian intervention in its neighbor, but has made European allies nervous that a recent hike in fighting could escalate."—Los Angeles Times; "Obama decided that providing lethal weapons to Ukraine would accomplish little but antagonize Putin. Yet refusing to arm Ukraine had the opposite effect: It emboldened Putin. Obama's hesitance is one reason why Russia-backed rebels control eastern Ukraine today."—Chicago Tribune.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
We have to follow their content, but not necessarily their phrasing. Perhaps the use is standard in the US, if so, ignore my comment. In UK English it comes across as a clumsy tautology. Maybe our sources have been watching too many movies! Pincrete (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair point; I assume that the sources emphasize lethality because of the Obama administration's refusal to provide anything but nonlethal assistance to Ukraine, but I concede that stating that the Trump administration—unlike the Obama administration—has agreed to send weapons automatically makes the same point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
We're not going to end up including this if the best support for it is to trot out "The Intercept" or yet again to rely on a marginal WaPo opinion piece that doesn't even support the proposed edit. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The source is, yet again, the Los Angeles Times. SPECIFICO, do you ever read sources before editing? (Honest question; I'm not the only one to wonder.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Fails verification via LAT. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a new one! "President Trump's long-delayed decision to provide Ukraine with defensive lethal weapons signaled a new willingness to oppose Russian intervention in its neighbor, but has made European allies nervous that a recent hike in fighting could escalate. The State Department said Friday that the administration would supply the government in Kiev with Javelin anti-tank missiles to destroy armored vehicles used by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, and to raise the cost of Russia’s intervention in the conflict. ... Ukraine long had sought the portable infrared-guided Javelins to blunt the insurgents' advances. But some U.S. officials worried that providing the weapons could provoke the Kremlin to step up its military role and ruin any chance of easing tensions with Moscow."—Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2017. Why should SPECIFICO have veto power over my edits?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
First, it is not helpful to cite opinion pieces in support of what purports to be a factual statement. However, if we examine all the RS reporting on this, it is not attributed to Trump personally and it's not clear that the policy recommendations from the State Dep't and Dep't of Defense occurred within Trump's year in office. So according to sources, which are only cited anonymously because no official discussion has been presented, it may simply be that the same recommendations that Obama affirmatively rejected were simply swept in with a long list of recommendations that this delegation-loving POTUS greenlighted. Any suggestion therefore that this is a significant policy action will need to be supported by detailed and reliably sourced citations. Further, there should be no SYNTHy association of this sale with the ongoing media speculation about Trump being Putin-pander-prone. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about. Everything you said above is completely false, made-up, or irrelevant to the content and source under discussion. You should not have a veto over my edits, or anyone's edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, I don't understand why you say "Fails verification via LAT." It appears to me that the edit did no violence to the cited source and was a proper edit. I see no reason to remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Rephrase...The reporting on this is scattershot all over the place, even within a few days last week. Some says there was no official word and that the sale was leaked, some says it was announced, some says it needs 30-day Congressional review, some says it's a recommendation from the Obama-era state and defense establishment that was tacked on to something or other Trump OK'd, some says it's Trump beaurocracy pushing a new policy -- and more. No indication this is an Administration shift of policy or that it's a done deal or that Trump personally knew (knows) about it. The initial references offered for this were defective. After having looked for the weight of reporting on this, I would say WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM obtain. It's not at all clear what the encyclopedic substance is in this matter, and any SYNThy insinuation that this suggests POTUS TRUMP is taking an anti-Kremlin stance would be most unfortunate, pending RS reporting that gives a consistent and relevant presentation as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a new policy proposed in July 2017 by the Defense and State Departments; Trump personally signed off on the decision after five months of deliberation. There is no WP:SYNTH in my proposed edit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
While simply documenting what the source says is normally proper, since there are apparently differing POV on this action, I tend to agree that RECENTISM might apply, so waiting a couple weeks won't hurt anything. Let the dust settle and then use several sources, not just one. This approach echoes my initial concerns above at my Support !vote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a new policy -- As I said, and BR thoughtfully acknowledges, cherrypicking sources where they give an extraordinary range of conflicting accounts cannot resolve the question. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"extraordinary range of conflicting accounts"? What alternate reality are you from? There are two policies here. 1.) Allowing private U.S. arms sales to Ukraine is arguably a continuation of Obama-era policy, although the licenses were rarely granted in practice. 2.) Directly supplying the Javelins is a completely new policy that has been debated for five months and now approved. All of my sources are in detailed agreement, and you have provided none that say anything different.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
But we are bound to represent the weight of mainstream RS reports, not what you call "your" sources -- whether they're cherrypicked or randomgoogled or any other way that demonstrably weak and inapt subset originated. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
When an editor tells you that they have a preconceived notion of what "mainstream" reporting must be—and that it cannot be swayed by the combined weight of the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal et al.—you had better believe them. I believe that further discourse with such an editor will inevitably prove futile.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2018 (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.

Comment on the lead

The opening of the lead says "includes a focus on security, by fighting terrorists abroad and strengthening border defenses and immigration controls; an expansion of the U.S. military; an "America First" approach to trade; and diplomacy whereby ..."

What political leader anywhere does not claim to "focus on security" as the primary goal of foreign policy? If what is meant is that the admin's "stated aims sre to focus on security etc...", the lead should say that.

Later we have comments about "terrorists", specifically about waterboarding them. Even the source used refers to "terrorist suspects", half of the controversy over waterboarding and other such measures hinges on the use of that key word "suspects".

Also, what does this mean "During the campaign, Trump promised he would provide presidential leadership with strong diplomacy to restore respect for the United States around the world"? It is simply a bit of campaign rhetoric, in no sense a foreign policy position. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article will be more stable and is better served if we stay away from too much campaign rhetoric and just document actual policy-based actions. Trump's rhetoric is notoriously unstable and untruthful, changing from minute to minute, usually spoken for the effect it can immediately generate, without thought of long-term consequences. Trying to document that is nearly impossible, while documenting real actions is much easier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Trump Doctrine" article

Could someone here have a look at my "skeleton" for a potential "Trump Doctrine" article? If I get overall approval, I will go ahead and publish it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vhstef/sandbox#Trump_Doctrine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhstef (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to try to pull this together. But IMO there is no general agreement on what is a "Trump Doctrine". "Trump+doctrine"&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS568U S570&oq="Trump+doctrine"&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5343j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 A few sources do mention it, but they seem to be in search of a doctrine that has not really been defined. Aside from the obvious point of "America first" nobody seems to know what it is. In fact the New York Times defined it as "Don't follow doctrine" and later as fitting on a tweet: "Obama built it. I broke it. You fix it." TIME described it as "less a clearly articulated doctrine, than it was a patchwork effort to place Trump’s actions under a single ideological framework, centered largely around his transactional view of the world." Your piece is written like an essay or term paper - phrases like "one can see that..." are a giveaway that what follows is WP:Synthesis, rather than simple reporting which is what we are supposed to be doing here. Bottom line, I don't think this is ready to be a Wikipedia topic. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe a shortened version could go into this article as a separate heading. I'm not sure what to call it, though. Scholars and commentators have not agreed that there is such a thing as a Trump Doctrine. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Trump doesn't seem to have much of a firm "doctrine", but rather ever-changing actions and reactions designed to gain popularity with a narrow segment of the American populace, always with the bottom line that nobody knows more than he does, he needs no advice, and that he always has the last word....which can then be reverted a moment later and the previous position's existence denied as if it never happened by invoking "fake news". We're looking at a "doctrine" based on quicksand. It takes real political knowledge and experience to formulate such a thing.
If multiple RS start creating real notability for that exact phrase, then an article can be created. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Current policies vs. campaign statements

Just driving by, never having edited the article, but was surprised to see that so much of the article was about things said during Trump's 2016 campaign. As it is, the article is very large, running at 216K bytes, and when it was started back on 3/20/17, just 60 days after he took office, it already had 173K. Much of the article has evolved, although it currently still has 55 sentences referring back to his campaign.

So it seems that some trimming and tightening of all the campaign stuff, and updating to the current time with newer cites, would be practical. Especially for the lead, which contains around half the text covering his campaign, and the balance mostly limited to his first 6 months in office. In addition, there are 24 separate citations in the lead, when none are needed for an introduction and summary of the article. Of the 24 cites, 18 are only used in the lead, which makes it more of a standalone essay as opposed to a summary of material already in the main body. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering the above rationale, and the fact that the article is bloated with daily news stories lacking context to foreign policies, I'd like to trim the article down to keep it relevant and readable. Any objections? --Light show (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting detail regarding American retreat

New reference regarding US retreat from Syria. Kurds hurl potatoes at US troops. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

add FactCheck.org "Trump’s NATO Remarks" item?

Essay in the guise of an article?

It seems that the article is essentially an anti-Trump essay pretending to be a neutral article. As the editors obviously know, the lead section of an article is supposed to summarize the material in the body of the article: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."

However, in this article, the lead serves as a standalone essay, having 27 citations, nearly all of which are used only in the lead. That is also contrary to guidelines. Essentially, few of the facts stated in the lead are in the body of the article. The so-called article is clearly not neutral due to those factors and is presented as a cover to state general criticisms about Trump. The article should either be fixed or deleted.--Light show (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Campaign issues vs. administration actions

It's worth mentioning that in the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article, it seems that there is but a single reference in the body to his presidential campaigns. However, in this article there are about fifty, excluding citations. That would be 50 times as many. I suggest either deleting or moving those campaign details into a separate article, similar to the Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign. To leave the campaigning issues here commingles events which should obviously be separated. Since I may not have the time or ability to carefully construct a campaign article, if I delete such material I'll state the rationale clearly, such as "removing campaign topics," so someone else can add them to a new article. Other suggestions are welcome.--Light show (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Anachronistic editing practices

Timeline of notable events
2016
During his campaign, Trump declared some of his foreign policy goals which became his rationale behind running for office: "I ran for president because I cannot watch this betrayal of our country any longer. I could not sit by as career politicians let other countries take advantage of us on trade, borders, foreign policy and national defense."[20]

This isn't an acceptable editing practice. The quote and citation originate from a RNC speech Trump gave in 2020. We don't add a quote from 2020 to a timeline about 2016. What we do instead, is cite a notable event from 2016, such as Trump's April 27, 2016, speech at the National Press Club, which was held by the National Interest magazine. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The full quote starts with "four years ago" and the way it was put was misleading. Using a quote from 2016 seems the best solution, especially if it can convey the same informations. If the 2020 quote is still worth keeping it should surely be more clear about it's origin. That part seems to come from a single large edit and not from later modifications. The page doesn't seem to be protected and this matter isn't really controversial, so if you have a more pertinent quote and a source for it feel free to replace the current one or make some suggestions here. Personuser (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The appropriate quotes are found here, and there are several transcripts and media sources that covered it in 2016. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_(describing_Trump's_foreign_policy_interactions_with_NK)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_(describing_Trump's_foreign_policy_interactions_with_NK). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC over at Donald Trump

There's currently an ongoing RFC at Talk:Donald Trump over whether or not to include mention of the Abraham Accords in that article. Any page watchers here, feel free to participate in the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration/Archive_1&oldid=1256685578"