Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Breitbart?

This edit restored content sourced to Breitbart. Since when is Breitbart considered a reliable source?CFredkin (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I removed it too. Brietbart is essentially an arm of the trump campaign, as Stephen Bannon chirman of brietbart, works for the campaign now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValarianB (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I missed this talk. The reason why I think it's valid content is that it's an interview where Trump presents a political position. So it's akin to a speech and other primary source material. The unreliability of Breitbart concerns its reporting, its ability to describe things accurately. Unless Breitbart also has a track record of falsifying interviews, I don't think it's a violation of the RS rule to include it here. But I don't really care that much about the content that was cut. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Incomprehensible edit summary

I disagree with this edit that deleted well-sourced information. The edit summary stated : "this is actually a non-sequitur and also it wasn't 'at the time', it was 'later'." I have no idea why the removed material is characterized as a "non sequitur". Here is what the edit deleted:

“ On January 28, 2003, the night of President George Bush's State of the Union address, Trump said that he expected to hear "a lot of talk about Iraq" and urged Bush to make a decision on Iraq—"Either you attack or you don't attack". At that time, Trump publicly indicated that President Bush should have been more focused on the economy than on Iraq. ”

References

Obviously, the words "at the time" refer to January 28, 2003. The cited sources say: "Cavuto himself picked up the thread post-debate on Fox Business Network, unearthing the clip Trump referenced, from January 28, 2003 – Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20." So, it was on the same day, not a later day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The cited source does not support the phrase "publicly indicated that President Bush should have been more focused on the economy." The source instead says that Trump said at the time: "Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They're getting a little bit tired of hearing 'We're going in, we’re not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it." That's very different from "publicly indicating that President Bush should have been more focused on the economy." Neutrality^talk 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed very different because you're quoting the wrong part of the source. The Politifact source says: "'I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.' So Trump put the economy ahead of confronting Iraq, but he didn’t speak against going to war. At most he suggested waiting for the United Nations to do something."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But that quote, too, doesn't match up with your text. Saying "the president must be more focused on the economy" is different from saying "the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned." The latter statement is much more vague and open-ended. Neutrality^talk 02:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither I nor the cited sources used the word "must", so I have no idea where you got that from. Please read the cited sources. Politifact says, "Less than three months before the invasion, Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy...." Obviously that supports the material you want deleted, right? And even if it weren't 100% supported (which it obviously is), has it never occurred to you that our role does not include blanking material that can be easily fixed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't delete any material. @Volunteer Marek: removed the material. Please be careful in who you ascribe edits to.

And, in any case, this material is classically cherry-picked. You omit, for example, the content that immediately follows the quote that you just gave: "...but he didn't specifically speak against launching an attack..." Or, from the very same source: "Trump's comments were few and far between, not to mention vague." That kind of quote-mining isn't right. Neutrality^talk 04:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You haven't criticized the blanking of this information, and have only said things in support of it. If you don't support it, then perhaps you might say so. The material blanked was entirely accurate, well-supported by the cited sources, and readers can make the same inferences from it that you allege were deliberately omitted. I don't agree it's cherry-picking to provide readers with basic material while omitting inferences from that material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The correct response, after misattributing one user's edit to another, is "sorry."

For clarity, yes, I oppose re-insertion of this text in its current form. I am open to a sensible reformulation that does not splice n'dice text in such a way as to unnecessarily require the reader to make inferences. Neutrality^talk 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You said above, "The cited source does not support the phrase 'publicly indicated that President Bush should have been more focused on the economy.'" The source says, "Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy". The correct response would be to acknowledge error. I am certainly not going to apologize for merely asking you whether you've considered that it's not our role to blank material that can be easily fixed (especially now that you've explicitly endorsed the blanking instead of offering any modification). Readers are perfectly able to infer from the material you want blanked that it didn't specifically speak against launching an attack and that it was somewhat vague on that point. I could just as easily point out material in the cited sources that you have omitted to mention and that would reflect well on Trump (e.g. that the January 28 statement "dialed back" what Trump said on the Stern show).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's "easily fixed" then feel free to offer a modification. As I said above, I'm wholly open to considering revised text. Frankly, it is not my job, nor the job of other editors, to untangle and contextualize a cherry-picked statement. Neutrality^talk 05:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:Preserve is Wikipedia policy: "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." Violation of this policy can easily amount to "censorship". In this instance, you are forcing me to guess about what you might find acceptable. Since we apparently disagree about which inferences from Trump's January 28 statement should be included in this article, I suggest we merely include the statement itself: "At that time, Trump publicly said about an invasion of Iraq that 'perhaps [Bush] shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations' and 'the economy is a much bigger problem' for President Bush." A close paraphrase would be better yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Something like this may work. If you give me a day, I will take a closer look at it. Neutrality^talk 08:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutrality, here is a close paraphrase:

“ Also on January 28, 2003 (two months before the March 2003 invasion), he publicly indicated that maybe an Iraq invasion should not be launched yet, that perhaps it would be better to wait for the United Nations, and that a bigger problem facing President Bush was the economy. ”

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I would just give the direct quote, even if longer:

“ In a January 2003 interview with Neil Cavuto, when asked what President George W. Bush should do about Iraq, Trump said:

Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing 'We're going in, we're not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it."

”

References

--Neutrality^talk 12:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Questions (October 2016)

I'd like to answer a few questions before editing:

• Is it possible to make comparison between Trumpism and Putinism, because there are similarities, given that Trump is emulating Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he admired?

• Is it possible to compare neo-Luddism to Trump's views on technology, which are mostly critical to the point of being hostile to technology, via anti-trade and anti-immigration policies?

• Is it possible to add encouragement of violence and mayhem by his supporters, thugs, criminals and mobs into the page, given the fact that he himself is a Manchurian candidate for the Russian mafia[1] to secretly, politically legitimize organized crime in the US?

2001:E68:542D:19FB:F8E4:9753:F327:F2E3 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless supported by reliable source, then no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Navigation and overall length

I've made a series of edits to hopefully make the article easier to navigate. Ideally the overviews in each section would cover the main points so we could create sub-articles on the major topic to address the length, but with the election upcoming I don't think that's a priority right now.Farcaster (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Mizusawa

diff. This was taken out. Is it already in? Don't see Mizusawa mentioned anywhere.

Advisor Bert Mizusawa argues that "Trump has a vision that is both coherent and overdue. The overarching goal is to provide American citizens with the best return on the tax dollars they pay into the U.S. Treasury, which should be used by our federal government to carry out its constitutional obligations."^{http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/25/trump-doctrine-foreign-policy-column/92718072/}

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk)

That's just vague campaign rhetoric, and not even coming from Trump himself. It wouldn't even merit inclusion if said by Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I took it out. It was good faith, but it was vague generalities from one of his own advisors. It added nothing to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fox News a FRINGE source on Trump's Kovaleski impression?

I have been told that I need to "get consensus" for including this Fox News article on Trump's "generic flustered" impression—which Trump supporters have long claimed exonerates Trump of mocking Kovaleski's specific disability—but I'm not sure where to begin. (A comment I left on the talk page of one of the reverting editors has gone unanswered.) How, exactly, is Fox News FRINGE? Because Fox is generally considered a right-wing (though not necessarily pro-Trump) outfit? Because a "consensus" of "experts" has read Trump's mind, and therefore knows exactly what his intention was? Or merely because there have been so many attack ads and attack articles repeating the claim by way of citogenesis?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Fox News isn't fringe. What is fringe is using that Fox News article which in turn uses a pro-Trump fringe website, Catholics4Trump.com, to argue the fringe view that Trump may not have been making fun of the reporter, when clearly he was. Please see WP:PROFRINGE.- MrX 19:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I enjoy the alphabet soup of policies and essays as much as the next guy, but I'd like a little more elaboration. If the only source for this content was the Catholics4Trump website, then it would be self-published and lacking notability (quite apart from its veracity)—but coverage in secondary sources like Fox (plus Ann Coulter, and a Washington Post rebuttal) could suggest otherwise. In addition, my edit attributed this interpretation to Trump's "supporters" (who are familiar with his act) to avoid any confusion about its relative prominence. It wouldn't be the first "situation when the video can lie—and Trump's odd sense of humor can backfire."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course Trump's supporters defend him. That doesn't need to be said in an encyclopedia article because it goes without saying. It is a widely accepted interpretation that Trump was making fun of the reporter. Why should we waste space saying that a few hardcore supporters like Coulter have contrived an alternative theory? From WP:DUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." - MrX 19:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Trump's own response/denials might be relevant, but not Coulter's opinion or some wacky statement by a pro-Trump blog (even if this was picked up by Fox, the Fox article carefully frames it in the blog's voice and never adopts the interpretation/spin they put on it). The overwhelming majority of news sources and fact-checking sources describe Trump's statement as mocking the disabled reporter. Neutrality^talk 21:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Israel award

One user keeps re-inserting (violating 1RR at least once) content mentioning how Trump won the Tree of Life Award from the Jewish National Fund in 1983. However, as best I can see, it is an award for his philanthropy, and it doesn't have anything to do with his political positions. If it has something to do with his political positions, what is it? Are the 'political positions' that he held in 1983 and was given the award for the same positions he holds today? What does this content actually tell us? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this should be included, but even if it is to be include:

(1) it shouldn't be at the top of the section (it's not really the most important thing — it is early chronologically, but even if we sort it out by chronological order, we would really need a topic sentence or overview to start with).

(2) we would need to include context, for example:

(a) the same Jewish Week article cited for the award ("Trump's Jewish Giving Rubs Against Tenor of His Campaign") notes that there is a "disconnect" between Trump's assertion of close ties to Israel and yet his "contradictory positions" on the subject. The article goes into detail about it, with an interview with leading American Jewish historian Jonathan Sarna. To cite the Jewish Week article for the award only — without going into the other details — is classic cherry-picking.

(b) the Israeli public opinion polling for context (to avoid the implication that Trump is a universally beloved figure in Israel)

(3) we would need some sort of explanation of why Trump got the award.

Neutrality^talk 23:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it is written clearly on the front of Trump's award that it is being given to him for his contributions to New York and his 'support of Israel'. Secondly, secondary sources mention it specifically in the context of his positions on Israel (see Haaretz). Thirdly, Trump himself has cited it in relation to this. Fourthly, it should go at the beginning since it is chronological.Fifthly, it is a notable award from the JNF. (And as for the idea of including a poll - polling data is not relevant to his political positions, it is also inaccurate and out of date - as Trump went on to win the absentee ballot vote in Israel.) Avaya1 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

October edits

Give me a moment to put my justifications together. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Article is already arguably too long.
2. This is a page about Donald Trump's political positions, not the criticisms of those positions. Some amount of critique is merited, but this page has more than half of its content (that I have gone through so far) about why his positions would be bad for America. That's WP:COATRACKING and a WP:NPOV violation.
3. Compared to overall length of the page, and the total amount of criticism left on the page, I'm not actually removing that much. Per WP:Weight DaltonCastle (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   It's your opinion that it's coatracking, and it's my opinion (and probably the opinion of other editors) that the material is relevant to encyclopedic coverage of Trump's political positions. Replacing content with sound bites from Trump's campaign is the violation of WP:NPOV, not the other way around. The article is arguably too long, but only removing negative material is the wrong approach to correcting that.- MrX 18:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Its all negative material (fine, that's an exaggeration. But every section is more devoted to negative content about Trump). And I am not adding "sound bites" about his campaign. I am not "adding positive content". I'm removing POV content - big difference. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
2. When the page reads, roughly "Donald Trump supports this policy, but here's why this policy is a bad one" its not POV to remove some of those "but here's why this policy is a bad one" lines. Are you giving Hillary's positions page the same treatment? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's, Pence's and Kaine's false assertions in support of positions, and flip-flops are also on their pages. Negative analyses by experts also. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is precisely correct: we include negative/neutral evaluations on the appropriate pages for Clinton, Kaine, Pence, etc. This is not a new or novel concept. Neutrality^talk 18:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

---

For the record, I agree with Snooganssnoogans, MrX, and (I believe) Farcaster that the mass deletions of content from this article by DaltonCastle certainly require talk-page discussion and an effort to come to consensus. (Frankly, a talk page discussion should have been initiated here first, or at the very least after the first revert per WP:BRD). I'll also note that this article is under 1RR restrictions in any case, per the notice at the top of this talk page.

On the merits, we can (and indeed must) discuss each individual item separately, but overall my belief is in accord with that of MrX above that most or all of the material at issue belongs in the article, since it is (1) well-sourced; (2) includes in-text attribution when appropriate; and (3) is entirely within the scope of the article and is required for a full and complete understanding of the article subject. Neutrality^talk 18:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! Are we not seeing how such weight given to this constitutes a weight problem? I can elaborate. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, talk specifics, one-by-one. Frankly, as a general matter, I specifically and vigorously take issue with the idea that the views or responses of experts or qualified analysts should be removed. If X has "the moon is made of green cheese," then we can and should note when the reliable sources, speaking specifically in reaction to X's statement, respond that the moon is not, in fact, made of green cheese. And when Trump says "I have Y position based on Z grounds," it is more than appropriate to note, when the reliable sources do, that "Z" ground is factually faulty, or that the constitutionality of "Y" is in question. We are an encyclopedia that should give the complete picture. We aren't a vehicle for communicating the unmediated words of the candidate, stripped of all context. Neutrality^talk 18:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality and the others and agree with reverting to the pre-DaltonCastle version. If Mr. Trump states a view, then analysis of those views by cited sources (preferably by experts in the field related to the policy statement) makes sense. One edit from DaltonCastle I'd be open to discussing was moving some of the general commentary (opinions by others about Trump's policies in general, not specific policies) to lower in the article.Farcaster (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm courtesy-tagging @Farcaster:, @Snooganssnoogans:, and @MrX: — you three may wish to weigh-in on DaltonCastle's recent section-by-section list of objections (see below). Neutrality^talk 21:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Neutrality's responses below. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality's responses below pretty much reflect my own thinking. Beyond what is known of Trump's positions based on his campaign platform, sources have had to glean what many of his policies would be based on his past comments and actions because he has not held public office. DaltonCastle, you made several references to fact checker criticisms. Are there other fact checkers out there who have praised these same positions, or refuted the critical fact checking? - MrX 14:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

1. The second paragraph is far from being the second most notable aspect of his campaign. This section should likely be about his populism and concerns, rather than diving straight into criticisms.
2. “Signature issue” as simply illegal immigration: There is more to his platform than this. Trade deals, ISIS, jobs, and the national debt are also central to his campaign. The larger media coverage of his immigration policy is almost entirely because of controversial statements he has made regarding immigration. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on both counts. The second paragraph of the lead section is not "criticisms" but in fact very well-cited news reporting about Trump's frequently changing positions. That Trump frequently, if not constantly, changes positions is uncontested and is obviously critical information.

As for the second point, multiple reliable sources describe illegal immigration as his signature issue. If you have some source that describes something different as his central campaigning issue or signature issue, you can cite it here. I doubt very much that any reliable or credible source describes "the national debt" as a signature issue. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Political philosophy

1. WP:Due Weigh: Far too much weight is given in this section to critics and detractors of Trump. In addition, the over quotation allows for too many un-encyclopedic sentences that take too much of a writer’s POV onto the page. I count six mentions in the first paragraph calling Trump an authoritarian. That can all be condensed into one or two sentences. All of you would give this same treatment to Hillary’s policies page.
2. The second paragraph at some point becomes another criticism section of Trump about his supposed misunderstanding of the Constitution. Again, this can be condensed into one or two sentences, since by and large most people do not share that concern.
3. The “As described by others” subsection should not be at the forefront of this section. Hillary’s page gets a “As described by herself” section at the top. Why not Trump? She does not even have a “As described by others” section at all. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a misapplication of policy. Due weight instructs us to fairly represent the broad sweep of noteworthy opinion and views, particularly from prominent scholars, experts/analysts/commentators, etc. In some circumstances, this means that the majority of commentary will be critical, and that's OK. We are not here to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'd also note that all of the text is properly given in-text attribution here (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).

As far as the Constitution in particular, the law professors cited are highly noteworthy and come from a variety of places on the ideological spectrum. If you have some credible scholar or writer giving an opposing POV, then we can properly cite that. Or if you want to stick in a quote from Trump saying that he loves/respects the Constitution, then possibly that could go in as well. But we should not en masse delete the opinions of prominent scholars.

As far as self-description, if you want to add more on it, I would not necessarily object. Hillary has commented extensively on her self-identification, whereas Trump has commented less extensively on that. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Economic policy

1. His signature economic policies are not raising tariffs. His signature economic policies are renegotiating trade deals and infrastructure.
2. Child care is not the most premier topic within economic policy. Its really not even an economic policy.
3. 6 of the 11 paragraphs of this section are devoted to criticizing Trump’s policies. This should be condensed.
4. The “Economic History” subsection has NOTHING to do with Trump’s policies.
5. Trump’s claim that the real unemployment rate is in truth is next met by a much larger paragraph dismissing him as a nutjob. Not encyclopedic. Those criticisms should be condensed because, again, this is a page for his policies, not why they are wrong. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The critical commentary is from economists and experts. That's clearly relevant to understanding and comprehending Trump's policies and their likely impact. Trump's comments on the unemployment rate, and the fact that his comments are factually false, are amply supported by the cited sources. We must note that his comments are factually false because the authoritative sources do so unequivocally. That's the very definition of encyclopedic comment.

As far as child care, the order of subsections is alphabetical — not by perceived importance. If you have a better section to place it under, I'm open to suggestions. But child care seems to me to be a clear economic issue, especially since Trump's proposals on the subject relate to a tax deduction — i.e., an economic issue. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Monetary policy

1. In the Federal reserve subsection, “Trump said in September 2016 that Yellen should be "ashamed" of herself for keeping interest rates low, but earlier that year Trump said that low interest rates were "the best thing we have going for us" and that any increase could be "scary."” These are describing the same thing. He was commenting about how low interest rates have created an artificially high stock market. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have specific proposed language for making this clearer, then please suggest it. However, the current language seems to me to accurately reflect the cited sources. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Healthcare and social security

1. This section does not even mention what his proposals are – just the criticisms of it.
2. Lengthy quotations give too much of the writer’s negative connotation “the fact-checker for the Washington Post, gave this statement a "fourPinocchios" rating, writing that this was a "truly absurd" and "nonsense figure"”? You can just say “a fact-checker claimed the fact false”. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not an accurate characterization. The article as it stands does in fact mention Trump's proposals: allowing health-insurance companies to compete across state lines, making Medicaid into a block grant system for the states, and allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with prescription-drug companies. As far as the single quote from Glenn Kessler, I count four words of quoted material and a few more of paraphrase — hardly a "lengthy quotation." Neutrality^talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Labor issues and right to work laws

1. Run on and confusing quote can be very easily copy edited down to something more sensible. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire section is 69 words arranged in three sentences, with two citations. It seems clear and well-written to me. I don't see a "run-on" sentence anywhere. Which specific part did you find confusing? Neutrality^talk 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Taxes spending & budget

1. Third paragraph: nothing to do with policy. This is just another jab at Trump that editors are probably including because they are letting their personal bias get in the way. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that you're referring to Trump's past history of personal income tax payment/ponpayment: I'm neutral on this. It could probably be removed. However, if there is material on how Trump's tax proposals would affect his income tax liability, then this could probably be retained. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Early economic plan

Is this section even needed? It appears to be much of a regurgitation of previous sections, as does the “Current economic” plan section. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's tax proposals do not seem to be addressed in any earlier section. Which section do you think this regurgitates in part? Neutrality^talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Trade policy

1. Trump described supporters of international trade as bloodsuckers: taken out of context and, more importantly, not a policy. Just a COATRACK.
2. TPP subsection should be the foremost subsection, since it is the most pressing and notable issue for this election.
3. NAFTA subsection: We immediately hear from the fact-checkers who oppose Trump’s view. How about we include Trump’s reasons for his view, such as NAFTA allegedly costing jobs and lowering real wages? No one supports a policy on the grounds that its bad.
4. Trade with China subsection: again, its devoted to fact-checkers and critics, dismissing Trump’s arguments because there’s no possible way China is manipulating its currency! But nations don’t go out of their way to announce “hey everyone! We’re manipulating our currency!”. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The "bloodsuckers" comment is clearly relevant because it shows that Trump feels strongly about this policy position.

As to NAFTA, I would not object to adding a sentence about Trump's rationale so long as we make it clear that these are his justifications (i.e., we don't state it in our own voice).

As to Chinese currency manipulation: you have a beef with the media, which is fine but irrelevant to our decision of what to include/not to include. If there is some reliable news sources or even noteworthy commentary/opinion source on the issue, I would not necessarily object to adding it. Neutrality^talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Immigration

1. Border security & Wall subsections should be at the top. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The subsections are in alphabetical order. The border wall material is already clearly prominent, with its own sub-subsection. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying US Citizens in military tribunals

1. Trump saying it’s sad terrorists received medical help is not a policy. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the cited sources (straight-news articles) directly connect this to policies relating to and attitudes about civil liberties, and in particular the rights of the accused and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See NPR. There is no valid reason to exclude. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

LGBT issues

1. “He did not express an opinion on whether the law was right or wrong”?? How is that relevant or NPOV? DaltonCastle (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems NPOV to me since it is a simple factual statement phrased in a way that passes no explicit or implicit judgment. It is relevant because it clarifies his position. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Eminent domain

1. This is not a policy. It’s something he said years ago when he was a businessman taking advantage of business laws. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying that eminent domain is "wonderful" seems to me to clearly be a political position, and his past use of it seems like simple context. This is given a single sentence, so the weight is appropriate. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court

1. How is it relevant that all of Trump’s picks are white and male? That’s not something that’s notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this point and defer to other editors. I hope others will weigh in here. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. Reliable sources found it noteworthy, and there are plenty of academics who feel that gender and race affect judges' actions, so it's not irrelevant or non-notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Native Americans

1. The first paragraph is an event from 1993. It has nothing to do with policy. At best, this should be one or two sentences.
2. The Elizabeth Warren comment has nothing to do with policy. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly disagree. Both items clearly reflect his policies and attitudes toward Native Americans — and the cited sources treat the comments as such, not merely as campaign fodder. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Questioning Obama’s Citizenship

1. WAY too much weight given to this section. It’s not a policy at all. This should be one paragraph at best. “Trump for a time perpetuated Birther theories. He no longer does.” Boom. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and I disagree. This was a major episode in Trump's political life, with reverberations years after. The comments were not a one-off, but consistently made over a series of months and years. In the context of this article, three paragraphs is appropriate weight. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DaltonCastle and I even think the section should be deleted entirely. It's not a political stance. I dislike Trump, but this section does simply not belong in this article on political positions. I strongly encourage its deletion. 81.104.142.198 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a policy position, but it sure is a political position. The implication is that Obama is not legitimately elected president. It dovetails with other claims that Trump has made on Obama's alleged lack of qualifications (demanding his school records) and suspect loyalties (re: 2016 ISIS attacks).--Carwil (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Too much weight on Climate Change

That’s about it. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an ipse dixit with no supporting rationale. Climate change is an issue of international and national importance and hundreds of reliable sources have analyzed or reported Trump's opinions and actions on the subject. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant. The amount of space is guided by WP:NPOV "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." What's not much covered in the press should not be much present here. My rough guesstimate on the factual coverage is: not in his prominent spiels, not prominent thru debates, and even in second-party coverage would be something about 15% of the words spent on 'the wall'. So yeah, less words. I'll suggest cut it to just the first three paras, the tailend stuff on Politifact and individual rally quotes is going into low-level cites and doesn't seem to significantly change the impression from the first three paras. Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Trumpism

Trumpism is a RD page right now, however I think we'd better have a separate page for that. See this source please. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a neologism used by one journalist and only deserves its own article if it catches on. It sounds like an ideology, but Trump is ideologically both eclectic and inconsistent. Certainly he has a unique style of leadership, which may continue into his presidency, at which point no doubt a term will be coined and we can have an article. TFD (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a separate page until Trumpism has been firmly defined and recognized by numerous sources, including academic political science sources. Anyway, doesn't Trumpism simply revolve around the signature issues already mentioned here and/or his personality style which is already mentioned on his main article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: I agree with the first part of your argument while I think the second part is not a suitable motivation for not creating the page. If there are enough reliable sources we should create the page even if the case's covered partly elsewhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Re [2]. You need more than one source to include it in the lede. You have to show it's been widely adopted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Umm, that Guardian source says: "Trumpism has two main ingredients. The first is the notion that people of color and women are less than fully human. (...) The second component of Trumpism is what pundits insist on calling “populism” – more precisely, an anti-elite ethos that pairs a critique of corporate oligarchy with support for a degree of social protection". Do we really want to put that in the article? Basically people are just making up what "Trumpism" supposedly is, and there's no agreed upon definition (probably because it doesn't really exist, at least not yet).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The WSJ source is "a weekly column, “Capital Journal,” which brings an insightful, predictive and original understanding to politics, national affairs and foreign policy." "News organizations" says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So it fails as a reliable source, per policy and hence also "Biographies of living persons", which says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I will therefore remove it. TFD (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wrong call to remove Trumpism sentence; and TFD's comments are inaccurate and POV pushing: The Four Deuces' rationale to remove the Trumpism quote is a perversion of BLP policy. We don't need to source that Trump made comments against free trade, Muslims or immigrants; there are a bazillion reliable sources that attest to that. All we need to know is that those things are called Trumpism. The claim by The Four Deuces that Trumpism is a neologism used only by a single journalist is inaccurate. The citation Mhhossein cites and the citation I cite are by different authors. There are many other authors that refer to Trump's political positions as "Trumpism". Yes, not always the same political positions (though being anti-free trade and pro-giant wall generally make appearances), but it's almost always used to refer to political positions, which is why it's appropriate to redirect "Trumpism" to here and say that his political positions are referred to as "Trumpism". It's POV pushing to claim it isn't. pbp 04:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

How is it a perversion of BLP policy to remove material that is not properly sourced. It may be that there are sources available that say Trumpism has become a generally accepted term, but there is no requirement to retain improperly sourced material because reliable sources can found. As for POV pushing, it is only if you provide a reliable source that we can assess how to present the information in conformity with NPOV policy. Only then can we determine the extent to which the term is used and whether it has positive or negative connotations. TFD (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a perversion because you've improperly defined what constitutes a proper source. You've made it clear that you don't really think the term "Trumpism" is a thing, and now you're looking for any excuse to not have the term in the article. We could trot out 50 articles that use the term (and, believe me, there are 50 articles) and you'd still say it doesn't belong. Your last comment doesn't even make sense: "there is no requirement to retain improperly sourced material because reliable sources can found". Something's either reliably sourced (like Trumpism is) or improperly sourced (like you claim it is because you have a vendetta on the term). pbp 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not define what is a proper term, I use policy and guidelines, which I have quoted above. Also, could you please stop your personal attacks. They are a poor substitute for reasoned argument and reflect more negatively on you than anyone else. TFD (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Even by the way you call policy, the following statement would be compliant: "Many political commentators have referred to Trump's populism, anti-trade and anti-immigrant stances as Trumpism". Because news sourcing guidelines say that it's OK to have a statement beginning "People say" or "This person said", then follow it up by quoting an opinion. pbp 14:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Where you at in this discussion? These guys are taking the ridiculous position that "Trumpism" shouldn't even be mentioned in this article, even though dozens of political commentators refer to his political positions as "Trumpism" pbp 01:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources that use the term Trumpism

• The Guardian
• Wall Street Journal
• Washington Post
• POLITICO
• The Nation
• The Atlantic
• The New York Times

In light of the great many publications that use the term, mention of the term seems highly appropriate for this article. pbp 05:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You are throwing out multiple references hoping that one sticks. Statements in articles require one good source not multiple sources of varying reliability. I have already explained that the WSJ source fails WP:NEWSORG because it is an opinion piece. So does the next source you provide, which is an "Opinion" in the Washington Post. I can't be bothered to look at the rest. Read up on reliable sources policy, see if you can find one, and then present it. TFD (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to look at sources, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. I still say your claim that opinion pieces can't be used to source anything is over the line, a misinterpretation of policy. Besides, the pieces aren't being used to demonstrate facts, they're being used to define a term. If I were to say, "Many political commentators have referred to Trump's populism, anti-trade and anti-immigrant stances as Trumpism", it would clearly pass muster, because it's OK to say "This person has said" or "People have said", and then follow it up with opinion pieces. pbp 14:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why TFD thinks WP:NEWSORG is the determining criteria here, while most of what was listed by Purplebackpack89 were well know reliable sources. Nothing restricts us to WP:NEWSORG! The term is frequently and undeniably used by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I believe Purplebackpack89's list suffices, I found some more sources which are all a true WP:NEWSORG:

• BBC
• Reuters
• Reuters
• Perry blasts 'Trumpism' by CNN

What more concerns remain? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" is a determining criterion for inclusion. Note that NEWSORG is part of the policy. Your first source quotes Romney saying "Trumpism." Since the BBC itself does not use the term or say anthing about it, it is not a reliable source for claiming it is a commonly used clearly defined term. Did you read any of your sources or did you just conduct a search and provided links to them?

Instead of providing numerous sources that fail rs, could you please provide one reliable source.

TFD (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If the sources attest to politicians characterizing Trump's positions as Trumpism, we can say "Politicians and pundits alike have referred to Trump's positions on [whatever] as Trumpism." That's what the sources say. And NEWSORG, which you're so wedded to, says it's acceptable to use opinion pieces as proof somebody said something. pbp 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89: However the general consensus is to include this term and TFD needs to carry the burden of building a consensus against the current one. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure it you were writing a journal article you could read columns, tweets, comments on blogs, interview people in the street, and report your conclusions. And people reviewing your article could examine your methodology and decide whether it supports your thesis. But policy prohibits original research. In this case you are drawing a conclusion about the use of the term Trumpism based on your research. Furthermore, per "Weasel", we cannot say "politicians and pundits alike." Which politicians and pundits? Is the term positive, negative or neutral? Are they using the term the same way? What are the differences in the meaning of the term by different writers and how major are the differences? TFD (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to go into that much detail in the lede; questions like that can be answered a) In a subsection of this article (though probably not, because this article is too long); b) In a separate article about Trumpism (what Mhhossein suggested above), c) in an article about something else, or d) by reading the actual sources. In the meantime, you're the only person advocating for removal of the term at the time, and your reasons for removing it are getting more and more ridiculous. The whole thing about tweets and people on the street is a complete red herring and the claim that what I'm saying about Trumpism is OR could be used to remove almost any verbiage about anything. pbp 21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, so if the lead for the Clinton article said, "Hillary Clinton, also known as "Lyin' Hillary," that would be fine, without any explanation of who used the term, what it meant, or whether it was derogatory. All that matters is that a few columnists have picked up on it. That's just tendentious propaganda, not serious neutral writing.

It is not a matter of votes, but whether we are following policy and guidelines. I have posted the issue to NPOVN.

TFD (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so you're forum-shopping now? OK, gotcha. Your analogy is comparing apples and pianos: "Lyin' Hillary" is a clearly derogatory statement and "Trumpism" is a clearly innocuous one. There is a small article devoted to the anologous term for Hillary (and Bill) to Trumpism. It's called Clintonism, one of many articles, or sections within articles, about politicians that have [THEIR NAME]+ism. Are you going to demand that EVERY [Politician's name]ism reference be purged from this site? (Because, like Trumpism, almost all [Politician's name]isms were started by it being called [Politician's name]ism in an op-ed). Detailed explanations of jargon do not belong in leads of articles; if the ridiculously high floor you demand for "Trumpism" being mentioned at all belongs somewhere, it's in a spinoff article or down in the body of this or another article. Or you can just get your answer by reading the sources. Plus, it clearly states who refers to Trump's political positions as Trumpism: politicians and pundits. Too many to enumerate even from the sources Mhhossein and I have provided, and there are hundreds more behind them. Also, remember that Wikipedia rules by consensus, and bukko, consensus is against you at the present time. Take your IDONTLIKEIT express elsewhere, please. pbp 05:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Farcaster adds original research on US-China trade. Please delete.

Please revert this edit.[3] No original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

More OR.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Section with lone sentence attacking Trump

"According to the New York Times, many of Trump's statements on legal topics are "extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis," with some appearing "to betray ignorance of fundamental legal concepts.""

Can I get rid of this?ShadowDragon343 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the NYTimes' opinion is not notable here? EvergreenFir (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Given the negative tone of the entire page, it would be expected. Notable, no...it's OPINION and was part of a report attacking Trump.Dfoofnik (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

RT

RT was mentioned in the Russia section as a propaganda network (debatable, but you cannot instantly label it here) and said that it praises Trump, the source being used is completely not neutral (that's the point!) . In reality, RT has described the choice of both candidates as being the choice of the lesser of two evils, and have made negative articles on Trump. This needs to be corrected as it is pretty much false and the source used for it is also unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseop (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source at all to support your suggestion? See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 02:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I must add that the source used for it is not neutral at all, and key information was used from this source, therefore I believe that this needs to be corrected or removed. If you search on RT, you should be able to find stories that try to refer to the election as 'the lesser of two evils', and I remember one very negative article on Trump around late October. It is still not a good idea to use a source that is not neutral that tries to attack one side, even using "another bad guy was Russian President Vladimir Putin...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseop (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

split

split this article ASAP! Way too long.--NotablePeopleFan (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed pbp 15:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a split, but I think certainly we should make a plan first for how exactly we should do it. Neutrality^talk 19:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I can go along with a split into three parts. Maybe create "Economic policy of DT" (which would include trade), "Domestic policy of DT" (which would include labor, immigration, healthcare, social issues, law and order, science, environment) and "Foreign Policy of DT". I'm completely opposed to splitting this article into half a dozen or more separate articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. Certainly no more than three parts. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree; 3-4 parts should suffice. Someone might want to write an overview paragraph here first where we can easily debate them, for each section we plan to break out.Farcaster (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the three articles suggested by Snooganssnoogans. I also think we should use the splitting to review contents and purge them of outdated and insignificant campaign-related cruft. Then we can start filling in actual actions on policy and compare them with electoral talk… A daunting task indeed; better get it done before the inauguration. — JFG ^talk 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose we just split the articles into the three suggested above, writing up a bit of a lede for each one, then start editing the articles down after the split. It would be unrealistic to try replace the text in this article with a shortened version right after the split. There will be a huge overlap in content at first, but that's OK. JasperTECH (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the Economic policy of Donald Trump article. I have only brought in text verbatim from the main article so far. I included the trade section there as suggested above.Farcaster (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Israel-related content

The consensus in #Israeli-related awards, #Sarna and ADL, and #Personal standing in Israel / Israeli public opinion is to exclude the text for being WP:OFFTOPIC. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

A disagreement has arisen as to what content should be included under the "Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict" section. Please indicate your thoughts on whether each of the three passages below should be included or excluded. Because the sections relate to each other, editors may wish to express conditional support/opposition (i.e., include section A only if section B is also included; otherwise exclude). Neutrality^talk 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am courtesy-tagging @Snooganssnoogans: and @Avaya1:, who have commented on this issue earlier on this talk page. Neutrality^talk 23:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Israeli-related awards

Shall the following text be included or excluded?

In 1983 he received the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, with the dedication mentioning his "humanitarian support for Israel".

...Trump received the Algemeiner Liberty Award in honor of his contributions to Israel–U.S. relations; at the ceremony, Trump stated:...

References

Survey

• Exclude, unless Sarna and ADL material are also included. The awards and public expressions of support may indicate his political approach and positions, but these shouldn't be noted without noting that expert observers (e.g., Sarna) and prominent organizations (e.g., ADL) find some inconsistency. To do otherwise misleads the reader by showing only one part of the story. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include - they are identified as notable by the candidate ("I've received the Tree of Life Award and many of the greatest awards given by Israel") and secondary sources. As for the above comment. The point is to list the known facts. I don't understand how this links to a desire to add cherry-picked journalist's opinions or content related to non-Israeli related Jewish charities like the ADL (the ADL stuff has nothing to do with Israel). Just stick to listing the known and reported facts here that are relevant to Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - as WP:OFFTOPIC. This might deserve a mention on his bio page Donald Trump, but it's not the topic of this article - it's both long ago and not a political position. Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, unless Sarna and ADL material are also included, for the reasons expressed by Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - I don't see that an award received 33 years ago has much relevance to Trump's political positions.- MrX 13:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, per comments by Neutrality, Markbassett and Snoogansnoogans. (editor is volunteer for Wikipedia:Feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude agree with Mark Basset. This is not a political position and is therefore entirely offtopic. SPACKlick (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude I honestly don't see the relevance. In his bio, perhaps, but that is a matter to be decided there. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude but ensure that it's on Donald Trump, not his political positions page. _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as offtopic. Trying to read tea leaves is definitely original research and as such is not allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral Although they feel a bit off-topic on a page cataloguing his political positions, I don't feel strongly about excluding these awards. They add some context and supporting evidence of the stated political position on Israel. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - with Sarna comments. The actions leading to the wards, and the subsequent policy pronouncements illustrate an essential character of policy positions as neither longitudinal nor normatively consistent. These are facts whose exclusion is more POV than their inclusion. Brought here by Legobot to comment as disinterested observer. 14.137.65.224 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarna and ADL

Shall the following text be included or excluded?

Trump's donations and expressed support for Jewish and Israeli causes was viewed by many observers as inconsistent with his subsequent rhetoric during the 2016 campaign. Professor Jonathan Sarna, an expert on American Jewish history at Brandeis University and National Museum of American Jewish History, stated that: “It is precisely because of his Jewish friendship, donations and his record that many have been mystified by the tenor of Mr. Trump’s campaign and seeming insensitivity to minorities and refugees. … There seems to be something of a disconnect between his impressive donations and the values that he now espouses." In March 2016, the Anti-Defamation League announced that it was redirected the $56,000 that Trump had contributed to the organization over the years, "specifically into anti-bias education programs that address exactly the kind of stereotyping and scapegoating that have been injected into this political season."

References

Survey

• Include. (And especially include if we note awards.) This is significant and lends necessary context. Sarna is a leading scholar, and this is properly attributed in text to him. The ADL's reaction is also significant. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. It is cherry-picked op-ed content. The purpose of the section here is to gather the known facts, not to cherry pick journalistic opinions - especially those written during an election campaign. The most irrelevant part of this is adding parts about Jewish charities (like ADL) which have zero relation to Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about the ADL. The ADL is extensively involved in Israeli-related advocacy and has been for decades; see ADL and Israel: 65 Years of Advocacy (2013). As to "cherry-picking": if you have alternate suggestions, propose them here. You can't get much more authoritative or mainstream than Sarna. Neutrality^talk 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - this is WP:OFFTOPIC. It's not about "Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or any of his political positions at all -- it's highlighting a small action of a charity on vague remarks, which also seems WP:UNDUE of not even significant enough to mention. Got many stories that have much more coverage and depth in press and publications than this one. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as having nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. TFD (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include - I think this does a good job of explaining the lack of clarity around Trump's position on Jewish and Israeli causes. I would like to see some additional sourcing, and I think there needs to be some additional material about the appointment of Steve Bannon and the ADL's reaction.- MrX 13:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as written -- long quote could be paraphrased in a few words. Also, as a Wikipedia reader, my POV-alert-o-meter moves into the red when I see a rather minor quote being puffed into importance with attributions of extensive expertise in wiki-text. The last sentence is likewise way too specific (amount) to be encyclopedic (overview of issues from the dawn of time) with an overlong quote with only the most tenuous connection to the subject (the Ain article in Jewish Week). recentism, etc. SashiRolls (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as offtopic. Trying to read tea leaves is definitely original research and as such is not allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude This certainly does not belong in an article about his political positions. The ADL's opinion on Trump's 2016 campaign rhetoric would only be valuable in a more narrowly targeted article. Here it seems out of place. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal standing in Israel / Israeli public opinion

Shall the following text be included or excluded?

An October 2016 survey of Israelis showed that they strongly favored Clinton over Trump, 42% to 24%. A March 2016 survey of Israelis conduct by Walla! found that Trump was the favored U.S. presidential candidate of some 25% of Israelis, ahead of his Republican rivals but behind Clinton, who received 38%.

References

Survey

• Exclude, unless we include the Israel-related awards, in which case we should include. Generally, I don't think public opinion polls are directly related to political positions. However, neither are the awards. If we include the latter, we have to do the former, or else we give a (misleading) impression to the reader: that Trump is universally beloved in Israel, which is not true. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - they are two out-dated polls of uncertain methodology. Especially as we now have the data from voting in Israel. But the main point is that they seem to have no relevance to the subject of the article (Trump's own view towards Israel). Avaya1 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - WP:OFFTOPIC as neither "Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict" nor "Political positions of Donald Trump". On a side remark, I'd also mention that polls and whether to show online had a fair bit of controversy in WP at his bio page and given the election results think they are currently a bit discredited. Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, unless we include the Israel-related awards, in which case we should include, for the reasons expressed by Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - We saw how accurate polls were in this election. Enough said.- MrX 13:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude Does not seem relevant. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as offtopic. Trying to read tea leaves is definitely original research and as such is not allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude As above, irrelevant to his political positions. Even if the other two items are included, this should not be in the article. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:40, 2 December 2016 (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.

Trump's opinion on Pakistan

The current article mentions that Trump previously called Pakistan as one of the most, if not the most dangerous countries in the world. But again he swayed around and himself mentions talking to Pakistan's PM and saying "fantastic", "terrific" and "intelligent" to refer to them. That as far as Foreign policy is concerned shows that Trump accepts Pakistan as an Ally not a threat. 103.27.171.54 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not try to guess what Trump means, or to interpret between Trump (last year) and Trump (this year). We should stick to what he actually says. In fact in his recent phone call to the prime minister of Pakistan he ruffled some international feathers[5] by being very accommodating and encouraging. That, and not "ally or threat", should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find where Pakistan was even mentioned in the article. I have expanded an "India and Pakistan" section. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot figure out Trump's positions by reading what he said since what he says is inconsistent. We should leave interpretation to experts. Your section does not actually explain much. Will Trump penalize Pakistan for its alleged ties to insurgents in Afghanistan and possible cooperation with China? Will he support Pakistan or India or neither in the Kashmir dispute? Will he see Pakistan as a U.S. ally in the region? None of what he has said clarifies any of this and it may be that he has not decided. TFD (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is ambiguous, or even contradictory - and it is - that unfortunately is an accurate depiction of the current state of our knowledge. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And there you have it, you are attempting to write an article that is actually futuristic, until he has actual power to do anything you are just reporting commentary and trivia, completely worthless really. its also hard/impossible to accept anything out of new york or Washington press as a neutral source for anything regarding Trump, the strong bias from those sources is clear. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually if the NY or Washington Press did say what Trump's positions were, then it would be fine to use them. It is editors who are supposed to avoid future forecasts or neutrality. The problem is that some editors want to interpret Trump's positions, rather than leave it to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP Neutral Point of View Policy (Social Issues, Abortion)

WP has a clear Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. The abortion section must not be tinged with flagrantly biased language. Therefore, the prefix anti will not be used, as it carries with it severe negative connotations. Instead, in order to establish balance, the terms pro-life, and pro-choice will be used respectively. We will not be using the terms "anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-fetal rights, anti-choice", etc. as these are deliberately incendiary and biased terms. Please do not reintroduce biased language. Instead, discuss terms on the talk page. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is rather off-putting for a single editor to unilaterally explain, as from on high, what "will not" and "will" do. We use the terms used by the respected journalistic and academic sources. We don't use phraseology usually associated with particular political camps. That means that the right phrases to use are "anti-abortion groups" or "abortion-rights group..."

There is nothing wrong with "anti-"; to the contrary, it's frequently the most clear way to express something. Frankly, it is quite extraordinary to say that terms like "anti-abortion" is "deliberately incendiary and biased" yet "pro-life" is somehow not. Neutrality^talk 02:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not neutral to use the terms that groups use to describe themselves, but to use the terms normally used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We can't use the term "abortion-rights" as this term is highly incendiary. To use this term would violate Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. To use this term would imply that an abortion is a right. If we were to include this term, than we would need to also include the term "fetal rights" in order to provide balance. Moreover, we can't use the prefix "anti" in order to provide a negative spin on one political ideology. Instead, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are more commonly used. Using both of these terms would provide balance.

There are plenty of sources on both sides of the issue that use biased language. Just because a journalist holds pro-abortion views, and uses pro-abortion language in a source does not mean it is okay to exclusively use pro-abortion language in the WP article. There are plenty of other sources which use pro-life language. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You talk about "biased language" while using loaded -- and factually false -- shibboleths like "pro-abortion", so no, I don't think you have any kind of handle what is an actually neutral point of view. Reverted. --Calton | Talk 09:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd:: I've reverted your recent edit, here, which essentially tried to carry into effect your preferred wording despite the lack of consensus here on the exact same issue. As explained above, we follow try to use the most clear and direct language as used in the cited sources. Your edit basically fails to do that. If you'd like to set up a request for comment (RfC), then indicate so and we can try to set one up. Neutrality^talk 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality,

You claim to be seeking "clear and direct language", however what you are actually doing is including language that holds an obvious and flagrant bias in favour of abortion. What I am seeking is balanced and neutral language. Can we simply agree that language must be fair and neutral in tone in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? Once we have reached this agreement, then we can talk about specific terminology which is currently heavily and alarmingly lopsided. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ontario teacher - the article currently uses most descriptive and NPOV language. We should not adopt, as you suggest, heavily ideological labels ("pro-choice" and "pro-life") favored by opposing special-interest groups. And the range of reliable sources agrees with me. See this, from NPR's ombudsman in 2010. I quote:

I checked with NBC, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer and not one of them uses the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life."
"We call them pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights because it's the right to abortion that we're talking about," said Linda Mason, CBS senior vice president of news and in charge of standards. "What does pro-life mean? That leaves people scratching their heads."
... Both the New York Times and the Washington Post advise staff to avoid the terms "pro-choice," "pro-life" and "right-to-life" because those terms are coined by advocates in the abortion controversy and should be viewed as loaded terms, according to the newspapers' stylebooks.
"The political and emotional heat surrounding abortion gives rise to a range of polemical language," reads the Times stylebook. "For the sake of neutrality, avoid pro-life and pro-choice except in quotations from others."

--Neutrality^talk 03:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality,

Firstly, the terms "pro-abortion rights " and "anti-abortion rights " are blatantly biased in favour of abortion. Obviously these terms imply that abortion is a right that you are either in favour of or opposed to.

The other extreme would be "pro-fetal rights" and "anti-fetal rights", which would either imply that fetuses have rights that you are either in favour or opposed to. We cannot include either POV language.

Secondly, the flagrantly partisan POV statement "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark" has been removed as it is quite clearly a pro-abortion statement. A pro-life statement would read "Roe revokes a unborn baby's right to life before he or she is viable, which medical experts content is around the 20-week mark". So, rather than include either POV statement, we should include neither. A wikilink would suffice for those who are unfamiliar with Roe v. Wade. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You've presented no actual arguments — just labels with your own conclusions. And you've failed entirely to respond to the NPR survey on the style-guides used by major media outlets, all of which run against your idiosyncratic view. If you want to pursue the issue, then start a request for comment. But stop popping up every two weeks to try to shove your views in the article in contravention of the consensus here. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality,

Please read the changes I've made prior to reverting. I removed all POV language on two key issues and added a neutrality dispute tag.

I've presented a clear and concise argument for the removal of POV language on each of the two issues.

1) Firstly, the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" are Loaded language in favour of abortion.

Your NPR list only includes left-wing American media outlets like The New York Times, and NBC. Mysteriously absent are any of the conservative American media outlets: Fox News, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Dallas Morning News, and the Wall Street Journal. Therefore, this list cannot reasonably be used as it does not include a balance of political perspectives.

2) Secondly, the POV statement "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark" is blatantly biased. Can you honestly argue that this statement is not biased? I challenge you to at the very least remove this partisan and wholly unnecessary statement.

3) Also, if you are reverting part of the changes, do not remove the neutrality dispute tag. As this issue is obviously still under dispute. This is the first step prior to a request for comment page. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming silly.

(1) No, sorry, making a conclusion ("this is loaded" or "this is in favor of X") is not an argument. It's a conclusion.

(2) The article does not use the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" (and never has). It's used the terms "antiabortion (groups)" and "abortion-rights (groups)." Please don't make misrepresentions on the state of the article.

(3) I've provided evidence that leading journalism outlets (like the Associated Press) use the language this article uses. You are entitled to believe that respected media outlets are "left wing" conspiracy. But you are not entitled to disregard the range of published, mainstream sources. You've never brought forth any evidence whatsoever on usage or style elsewhere.

(4) And, since you brought up the Wall Street Journal, you'll note that they use the same exact language (Verizon Wireless Bars Abortion-Rights Group's Texting, Antiabortion Group Lays Out Central Goals for 2016"; "Antiabortion Group Behind Planned Parenthood Videos Faces Challenges"). The WSJ specifically "advises that abortion rights is the preferred term, instead of the edgy pro-life and pro-choice, which should be used only in quotations. ... Antiabortion (as in antiabortion advocate and antiabortion campaigner) is considered a neutral term in the stylebook" (source). And so does the Dallas Morning News ("Abortion rights advocates submit petition against Texas' proposed rules on fetal remains"; "An anti-abortion Catholic supports Obama -- here's why").

(5) You've articulated no basis whatsoever to remove "civil liberties" from the section header. The effect of the change is to classify all the subsections of that section — including "First Amendment and defamation law"; "Rights of the accused"; and "Privacy, encryption, and electronic surveillance"— as "social issues" and not "civil liberties." There is no reason for that.

MelanieN, Calton, do you care to weigh in here? I'm rather frustrated with this since we have about a 4-1 consensus. One editor should not be able to game the system in this. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, if you want to start an RfC, I invite you to do so, but you can't pop up every three weeks, revert to your preferred version, and then filibuster. Neutrality^talk 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:Neutrality. I was actually intending earlier to comment here, but got sidetracked by a sockpuppet situation. I haven't followed this whole argument, but I had noticed that the user Ontario Teacher BFA BEd has been making drastic, POV changes to the article, several times. In fact I went to their user page to verify that they are aware of the Discretionary Sanctions in place for both Trump-related articles and abortion-related articles; since they have received both warnings, apparently they have been editing close to the line in these areas for months. Your analysis above is very convincing, particularly your point that their suggested "non-biased newspapers" like the WSJ use exactly the same language. One thing we would never use here (although this user has repeatedly used it) is "pro-abortion". Nobody is pro-abortion; they are pro-choice (their preferred terminology) or pro-abortion rights (our preferred language). The other side is anti-abortion (our preferred terminology) or pro-life (their preferred terminology). Meanwhile, Ontario Teacher is the only one who finds anything controversial in the original language. As an example, they said above "To use this term would imply that an abortion is a right." As a matter of fact, according to the Supreme Court there IS a legal right for a woman to get an abortion. That is not POV or opinion; that is simply fact. This user's attempt to add a "disputed" tag to the section, when they are the only one disputing it, appears to be blatant wikilawyering in an attempt to escalate this to RfC. There is no need for an RfC here. It is clear to me, and to any neutral party arriving at this article, that the language of the section has long since passed the neutrality test. (Except that it's possible the sentence about viability at 20 weeks might need some work.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, pretty much everything important's been said. though I will say that Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was at least a bit more subtle -- a bit -- in the POV pushing. But hell, one of the changes didn't even make grammatical sense: In the same interview, Trump stated his opposition to abortion: "I will protect it, and the biggest way you can protect is through the Supreme Court." He will oppose abortion by protecting it?

I'll also note that User:Bishonen has topic-banned Ontario Teacher for one year from "all pages connected with abortion, broadly construed"[6], since it appears to be their pet issue. --Calton | Talk 14:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! That was well deserved and was exactly what the Discretionary Sanctions were designed for: protecting contentious articles from POV disruption. I am still going to work on the wording of the last sentence. I don't think it is well supported by the source in its present state. I will bring any proposed revision here for discussion before adding it.--MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the sentence: " Short of overturning Roe, Trump has pledged to sign legislation from Congress banning abortion at the 20-week mark (Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark)." I don't find support in the reference for the parenthetical stuff, which seems to be trying to explain how proponents square their proposal with Roe - but it isn't in the source, and they actually seem to tie it to their "pain-capable fetus" theory. Also the "Short of overturning Roe" introductory phrase seems out of place; while he has said he will appoint pro-life justices, I don't think he has ever called directly for overturning Roe. I think both should be deleted, leaving "Trump has also pledged to sign legislation from Congress banning abortion at the 20-week mark." @Neutrality and Calton: Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank sounds good to me. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 16:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

1) Content: I am relieved that we are finally in consensus to remove the outrageously biased and unnecessary POV phrase "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark". I urge another user to remove this phrase as we have agreed it is biased and not supported by the sources.

2) Conduct: This has been the main phrase that I have been trying to REMOVE. As you can see, I am not adding POV language, but the exact opposite is true. I am REMOVING POV language without adding the other side's POV language. Therefore, the accusation that I have been adding POV language is completely unfounded, when in reality I have been removing it. Please withdraw your accusations as I have been the one REMOVING POV language. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, stop SHOUTING. Writing in capitals does not make your point more strongly, it just makes you look like a teenager having a strop.

Secondly, you're the one who is trying to remove the neutral label "anti-abortion activists" which – as has been explained carefully to you above – is the choice of reputable news sources and which we follow on Wikipedia. Your suggestion of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" has been rejected time and again on Wikipedia because those are intrinsically meaningless phrases that special interest groups advocate for themselves. For a teacher, you don't seem to have done much homework before coming here and attempting to lecture us on "The Truth™"

Finally, as of 10:22 today, you're topic-banned from this page and related ones. Which bit of "topic ban", didn't you understand? Any uninvolved admin can block you from editing for that post above - you're lucky that Bishonen is remarkably tolerant of such ignorance. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many citations

Don't you guys think there are too many citations for the statements:

• "Trump's political positions, and his descriptions of his beliefs, have frequently changed" - 5 citations
• "...families who pay no federal income taxes—the families most likely to be unable to afford child care—would not benefit from this plan." - 7 citations
• Trump identifies himself as a "free trader," but has been widely described as a "protectionist". - 5 citations
• "...viewing them as likely to start trade wars and harm consumers.[viewing them as likely to start trade wars and harm consumers." - 10 citations
• "...and pledged to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court." - 7 citations
• "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" - 6 citations
• "Trump has on several occasions asserted that crime is rising in the United States." - 6 citations

I think we should remove some of them. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversial content should be backed by at least a few citations, especially when news sources are cited. It's OK to remove redundant citations, but you have to make sure that the remaining citations fully verify the information cited and, generally, only the most reputable sources should be retained. - MrX 14:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Since pretty much everything in the article could be considered to be "Controversial content " I would agree with Mr X that sources should be removed with extreme care. If at all. Multiple references also documents how well covered these issues were/are.Carptrash (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Do we really need five citations for the following: "Trump's political positions, and his descriptions of his beliefs, have frequently changed"? -- Kndimov (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, in my view. I can easily see the statement getting challenged in the future ("don't all politicians change positions?", "it's bias to say that Trump's positions have changed frequently but not [insert Trump's 2020 opponent]"). As for the examples cited above, the substance of Trump's positions on those issues has been frequently challenged by editors (at least on his main article), which necessitates numerous reliable sources to illustrate due weight and that the language is accurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement, "Trump's political positions, and his descriptions of his beliefs, have frequently changed" does not cite substance. Each point is sourced below. As for statements like, "...and pledged to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court" I don't think it requires 7 citations. If this was any other politician we would have stopped at 1 or 2... maybe 3. - Kndimov (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing characterization not the source

This section here would be better if they quoted trump directly on this topic not quoting characterizations :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Muslim_immigration_ban

   In late July 2016, NBC News characterized his position as: "Ban all Muslims, and maybe other people from countries with a history of terrorism, but just don't say 'Muslims.'"[12]

we should work on improving the factual nature and have pristine sources for the information in Wikipedia. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is misleading to say NBC, it was an NBC writer, Jane C. Timm. And it would make more sense to say what Trump's policy is, which is a matter of fact, rather than quote someone, which presents it as a matter of opinion. TFD (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The section does quote Trump directly. The NBC News characterization is used because Trump's statements on the issue are vague and contradictory word salads that took on frequent changes, and because he never answered questions about this in a clear-cut manner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be more informative to actually say that (phrased a little more diplomatically), rather than quoting a sarcastic comment by a news reporter. The trouble with sarcasm is that it uses misleading statements for humorous effect, but readers may take it literally. We do not for example know that Trump told people not to use the term Muslim, although it would be a reasonable inference that he was speaking about Muslim countries only and would not for example ban Europeans, although there is terrorism in Europe too. TFD (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't see the statement as sarcastic, but re-reading it now, I can definitely see how it can be seen that way. I would be fine with rephrasing the statement to remove the appearance of sarcasm. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Under "First Amendment and defamation law", add something about how Trump said he has "a running war" with the media at a speech to the CIA on January 21. 174.97.175.173 (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Please change section titled 'Political Philosophy' to 'Political Ideology' (so as to accurately represent the content of the section.)

Support: Please see page Political Philosophy or my post above to see an explanation of why the content of this section has nothing to do with political philosophy. The misuse of the term 'political philosophy' for 'political ideology' should be discouraged, especially since we explicitly point out why this usage is incorrect or, at best, "vernacular" on the relevant pages. Donald Trump does not have a "political philosophy." Plato is rolling in his grave at the very idea that Donald Trump has a "political philosophy". If Trump has a political philosophy, the word philosophy no longer has meaningThink about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.196.124 (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted second paragraph because of extreme negative bias.

Deleted entire second paragraph for being shamelessly biased and non-neutral. Calling the president "dishonest" and a "liar" and then hiding behind quotes from "expert sources" is laughable and would not fly on any other president's article. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the "biggest liar" quote as UNDUE and too POV. I also removed the word "dishonest" where it was not supported by the source provided. I also replaced the rather random "17 times he said something and then denied having said it" sentence with a more general sentence which has been approved by consensus at the Donald Trump page. See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses, consensus #7 for agreement to include "false" in the lede; the sentence and references I inserted comes from the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section of the text. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Did we agree to fork out all these sections?

There was a discussion on this talk page as to whether we should fork out different parts of this article. As far as I remember, there was only tentative support for the idea of forking, with the condition that we'd only create roughly three separate articles: (i) Foreign policy; (ii) Economic policy; and (iii) Domestic policy. I just want to make sure that this article won't get dismembered into a large number of pieces without consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus that this page had grown way too long over the last 18 months of campaign interest, and some sections were already repeated in other articles. I moved the longest sections to their individual articles to make things more manageable; I have no intent to fork out other sections for now. Also, the {{Donald Trump sidebar}} has a new section on political positions which will be expanded as detailed articles for each policy domain are created. This is obviously a work in progress; next steps should be:

• Editorial review and update of each policy article
• Writing a proper lead section for individual policy domains
• Copy the lead sections into the main "political positions" article as a legit summary
• Repeat the process with other policy domains which currently have less coverage

All help towards improving the quality, accuracy and relevance of coverage is appreciated. — JFG ^talk 13:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a section titled "Political Philosophy" which begins the article that has scarcely anything to do with Political Philosophy? Please re-title to "Political ideology" or "Political affiliation" and leave philosophy out of it.

This has nothing to do with Political Philosophy. There is no conceivable meaning of the term "Political Philosophy" under which Trump has anything like one. Generally speaking, most politicians are far more likely to be opportunists or rhetoricians than to have any deeply held philosophical beliefs about the nature of the political--and remember, this is the guy whose "co-author"/ghostwriter expressed skepticism that the man had ever read a book all the way through in his life. There is no plausible suggestion that Trump has philosophical views on any topic.

I would suggest possibly changing the title of this section to something like "Political Ideology" or "Political Affiliation" to more accurately describe its content. If you insist on keeping the present section title, please replace the entire section with a sentence like "Donald Trump is generally believed by philosophers to entirely lack a political philosophy." (You might reference the political philosopher Aaron James' recent book Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump, which proposes the view that it is Trump's assholedom, in the precise philosophical sense James gives this term, that explains Trump's political success: "Donald Trump is an asshole is a fact widely agreed upon—even by his supporters, who actually like that about him. But his startling political rise makes the question of just what sort of asshole he is, and how his assholedom may help to explain his success.")

In conclusion, please change the title of this section. I have offered you several proposals. If you mean Trump's "political ideology" or "political affiliation", then use those words instead and do not distort the meaning of the word of "political philosophy", which refers roughly to general inquiries into the nature of very abstract political concepts such as the nature of authority, freedom, legitimacy, law, justice, rights, morality, fairness, equality, liberty, and so on, as well as the history and origins of these notions. Immanuel Kant has a political philosophy; Donald Trump does not, and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise, or that there are any reliable sources that speak of "the political philosophy of Donald Trump." This is an encylopedia; let's not make ourselves sound like uneducated plebs. 2600:1017:B403:2668:20C5:E92A:3FD3:E83B (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. I have used "Political positioning" as a neutral term. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Scope and overlap

Due to strong overlap between several Trump-related articles, editors may wish to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Scope of this article? — JFG ^talk 13:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

American Civil War

I think the recently added "American Civil War" section should be deleted. This is not about a "political position" of his. It is just a way of detailing a few controversial (and arguably ignorant) comments he has made about Andrew Jackson. They have no bearing on current politics or any political position of his. I don't see any need for those passing comments to be immortalized in an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted as WP:TRIVIA, even before reading this. Deleted the "birther" section too, which is not a political position, and is widely covered elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Birther section

I deleted the "birther" section as off-topic for an article on Trump's political positions, and the issue is already widely covered in other Trump-related articles. Snooganssnoogans disagreed and reverted. Let's discuss. Was this a political position? No, it was just a smear on Obama. Do we have "Trump is a racist bigot" in Political positions of Hillary Clinton? I don't think so. — JFG ^talk 16:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an old debate: [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_1#Obama.27s_eligibility_for_the_presidency) + [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_2#Questioning_Obama.E2.80.99s_Citizenship). Accusing his predecessor of being ineligible to be President of the United States seems to be about as important a political position as any. It was the issue that Trump kinda started his presidential campaign on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete that section. It is a political position associated with the Tea Party. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to prior discussions. Essentially there were people considering this was not a political position and others who disagreed, so I don't see consensus. Surely it's a political statement but it's not a position, i.e. there's nothing actionable from a policy standpoint. Also the section was considered too long: if we do keep it, I would advocate trimming it. — JFG ^talk 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a political issue. It's extensively covered in the context of politics (as a campaign issue, in the "politics" section of newspapers, in interviews with political reports, etc.); it obviously involves a political figure (Obama), and it deals with a discrete, definable topic. Neutrality^talk 00:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A political issue, certainly, a political position it is not. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a political issue/conspiracy theory and it does not belong here. Full stop. I am going to be bold and remove it. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Trump a Luddite?

There are a lot of articles mentioning Donald Trump as a Luddite, or a neo-Luddite. Particularly this, it states that: "But the comments confirmed what everybody close to him already knew: He’s sort of a Luddite." Is it an opinion or something that can be added on the article? – 2001:E68:5435:1005:D9D9:7703:6298:5637 (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Trump a Luddite?

I'd like to add the fact that Trump himself is a Luddite, not just in the article but also in Luddite, neo-Luddism and technophobia. These articles such as [7] and [8] say so, but I do not know whether this is opinion (or WP:POV) or not, but you seem to be insisting on, just to defend Trump and, by extension Putin. – 2001:E68:5435:13F3:C25:CBA1:12DC:6028 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

They are speaking figuratively. Luddites don't have escalators in their hotels. TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

LGBT

What is Trump's position on LGBT issues? The article makes no mention of them. Jim Michael (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Trump's position on LGBT issues is described in detail here. Jarble (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Should probably summarized and linked from this article somewhere. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is a biased mess

I've trolled around Wikipedia for a decade, and have never seen an article so blatantly bias against a subject. It's like this article was written by a Left-wing newspaper. Every section is written as an attack piece, even positions that have wide consensus among the American people. No other president's views page is presented this way. Present a neutral view on the issues, or stay off Wikipedia.

The entire article needs a re-write from the ground up by someone more fair-minded. 24.231.214.242 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree.Classafelonymonkey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Classafelonymonkey: I haven't yet seen any examples of bias in this article. Are there any specific issues that can be addressed here? Jarble (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above, whilst I think we can leave out his chopping between parties I am not seeing any bias.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jarble (here because of post to WP:NPOV/N.) I don't see any blatant bias in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's just the facts, mam, just the facts. Carptrash (talk) 18

09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Just registering some disappointment

It appears to be an obvious content gap that the Iran nuclear deal is not mentioned, for what it's worth. The word Iran is not even mentioned in the article. No time to add it myself now, but it was derided as being "the worst" and one of the worst.[9][10]. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your first source is an opinion piece by a writer who consistently supports the Democrats. Had Clinton won her opponents would be saying the same thing about her policies, whatever they were. That's what the two party system is about. TFD (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So the article shouldn't include anything related to what was characterized as the worst deal ever? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

ADD: Trump withdraws from UNESCO On October 13, 2017 President Donald Trump made the decision to withdraw by the end 2018 from U.N.'s cultural heritage Organization UNESCO, citing it as 'Anti-Israel Bias." The State department stated that it will remain as a nonmember observer state, allowing the United States to engage in UNESCO activities but not be able to vote. The U.S. has already stopped funding the organization in 2011 due to the admission of Palestine as a full memeber of the UNESCO. Now, UNESCO will face further economic shortages. Annnarclv (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Annnarclv (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Annnarclv: Where? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article on "Foreign Policy of Donald Trump" and "Political Positions of Donald Trump" a subsection should be probably added regarding the withdrawal from the UNESCO.

Withdrawal from UNESCO:

On October 13, 2017 President Donald Trump made the decision to withdraw by the end 2018 from U.N.'s cultural heritage Organization UNESCO, citing it as 'Anti-Israel Bias." The State department stated that it will remain as a nonmember observer state, allowing the United States to engage in UNESCO activities but not be able to vote. The U.S. has already stopped funding the organization in 2011 due to the admission of Palestine as a full memeber of the UNESCO. Now, UNESCO will face further economic shortages.

Annnarclv (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you for the response. I have added your response here (copied and pasted from my talk page). In the future, please try to keep responses to the location in which they are asked (unless directed otherwise) as that helps to keep everything together. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done I believe that this would be better added to the foreign policy article rather than this one, which I have gone ahead and added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhm?

What about his views on abortion and gay marriage???

Shouldn't that be in this article too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting this. I have added a brief summary. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Chart I removed

I have removed a good-faith addition to the "health care reform" section: a county-by-county map of "premature death". It was interesting but did not appear related to Trump's positions. The caption read, The map illustrates the frequency of premature deaths (those under age 75) adjusted for the age of persons the county. This pattern of higher mortality in the south and "coal country" (Kentucky, West Virginia) was consistent with Trump's bleak portrait of the U.S. situation. Many of these states did not expand Medicaid as part of the ACA.[190] That struck me as commentary ("Trump's bleak portrait" is unsupported by anything in the article text) and synthesis (suggesting a correlation with lack of Medicaid expansion). Any comments on this? Should it be re-added, maybe with a better caption? --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Farcaster, I see that you re-added it, this time with a caption that links "death from despair" to "likelihood of voting for Trump" with a citation. I have two problems with that: first, IMO new referenced material like that should be in the text, not in an article caption. And second, I don't think this is the right article for that material. This article is about "Political positions of Donald Trump". That info might be better suited for another article, such as Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you guarding this article...I've been in your shoes before! I think it makes sense in both articles. My thought is that a big part of Trump's "political position" is about claiming he would help whites left behind in the Heartland, who are dying at alarming rates from various issues. It's a big part of the anti-globalist narrative underpinning his Presidency. This shows where they are and conceptually who he's trying to help. It was central to his victory, as Deaton points out. In a logical world, he would be beating up on the states to get Medicaid expanded, so he can directly help millions of people (still working on that linkage). I do agree the citation and much of the caption should be in the text (an easy copy) but I didn't want a chart that profound removed again for synthesis concerns.Farcaster (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Egregiously false statements in the lead

"The policy positions of United States President Donald Trump have elements from across the political spectrum. For example, he has proposed sizable income tax cuts and deregulation consistent with conservative (Republican Party) policies, along with significant infrastructure investment and protection for entitlements for the elderly, typically considered liberal (Democratic Party) policies."

Perhaps Trump talked about these "left" positions on the campaign. I can't recall him doing so, and I see no source for the claim. But I think anyone reasonable can now agree that a year into his presidency, he is the most far-right President of the last 100 years, and has no close competitors. My god, the man makes Richard Nixon look like a communist by comparison. He has no one in his cabinet who could be remotely considered a democrat, and has proposed exactly zero "democratic" or "left" proposals during his time in office, let alone passed any into law. He just proposed the most regressive tax reform in the entire history of our nation. Are our writers paying attention, or are they merely projecting the image of who they imagine (for some reason) Trump to be? If I'm wrong, please cite a source regarding any of these alleged "left" proposals from Trump, during his time in office. His campaign rhetoric, if there ever was any, is no longer relevant. He has proposed slashing basically all entitlement programs, and has not proposed an infrastructure program, contrary to the falsehood being perpetrated above. Please cite for me with sources even a single example of a "left" proposal which Trump has actually signed into law or proposed during his Presidency. (No hot air from from the campaign, please) Otherwise, there is no reason to include this canard that Trump "borrows from across the ideological spectrum." Any historian worth his salt would tell you Trump is unquestionably the most far-right figure to have ever been elected in this country. This is a man who publicly expressed sympathy for Slavery, the Confederacy, and National Socialists in 2017, after all. Infamia (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017

Please delete the nonsense in the lead that "Trump borrows from across the ideological spectrum."

1. There is no source for the claim. 2. The claim is demonstrably false. Far from borrowing from across the ideological spectrum, it is well recognized that Trump is the most far-right President in U.S. history. Indeed, he may be the furthest right head-of-state of any Wesern Nation since the fall of Nazi Germany. Point is, there is clearly no evidence for the claim that Trump is a "middle" or "moderate" who borrows elements from both the Left and the Right. He has not proposed a single piece of Left legislation in his time in office, and there is no source for the above claim, which is fairly described as a lie. Infamia (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The original citation was a WaPo article that pointed out he picks many elements from the Democrats (infrastructure, tariffs, vow not to touch social security and Medicare, pro-coal, and several others.) You may hate the guy, but you have to understand he won over Democrats by taking a position to the political LEFT of HRC on labor issues.Farcaster (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but I'd still disagree. To start with the obvious, being pro-coal is not in any way "left." Coal stands somewhere between racism and tax breaks for billionaires on the list of things the Left opposes, and the right has consistently supported coal election after election (see Mitt "I like coal" Romney.) Pulling out of the Paris agreement because of coal workers in West Virginia is not by any stretch of the imagination a left-wing policy. As for the other proposals, which might arguably be left (though I'm not so sure the left is really pro-tarriff in 2017, but perhaps I'm wrong) the other proposals were campaign rhetoric which haven't even been proposed, let alone enacted, since the campaign. There is NO genuine infrastructure program, and the only proposal Trump made was essentially to privatize it. Certainly, Trump is not "to the LEFT of HRC on labor issues" and I'm not sure how you could even make an argument for that when HRC supports raising the minimum wage to $15, while Trump wants to lower it, and increase the lowest tax bracket, eliminate lower and middle class exemptions, and increase the cost of health care and education. The vows not to cut entitlement programs turned out, simply put, to be lies. Trump plans to cut all those programs. He simply lied and told people what they wanted to hear when he made those statements. Likewise, the infrastructure thing was total campaign hot-air. He has made no remotely "left" proposals on infrastructure since elected. Quite to the contrary, he proposes as right-wing of a proposal as one can get on infrastructure-- privatize it! What could be more right-wing than that? So I guess while I would agree that it is at least arguable that Trump "borrowed" from the Left in some non-zero amount of his campaign rhetoric, in supporting infrastructure and not cutting entitlements (which would hardly be unique anyway) I don't see how anyone could still think he actually is doing any of those things. The fact of the matter is that he has the most staunchly conservative and right-wing cabinet in American History, has nominated nothing but extremely ideological right Judges, and the few crumbs he may have thrown to the democrats during the election he has already all but abandoned, and has pushed nothing but right policies since the election. I'm afraid this lead is missing the forest for the trees, in emphasizing a few campaign statements that were never taken up, at the expense of the overwhelming evidence that Trump is the furthest right political figure to ever be elected in this country, who has surrounded himself with nothing but right-wing ideologues, and has supported nothing but far right policies-- pulling out of the Paris agreement, ending DACA and implementing a Muslim ban, stuffing the judiciary with extreme-right wing judges, refusing to staff the state department and various government agencies, massive increases on military spending, massive (proposed) cuts to the corporate tax rate and those of the wealthy, attempts to privatize infrastructure and health care, harsher enforcement at the Justice department, ending the estate tax and alternative minimum tax, etc. I've seen nothing in what the President has actually done that suggests he is the moderate figure which this lead falsely suggests, and I know no political commentator who would suggest otherwise, notwithstanding the mere claims he may have made during the campaign. Unless I'm mistaken, this is not a page about Trump's campaign, but about his actual positions while in office. So I'd have to respectfully dissent from your views above. Infamia (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with everything in this article, but I'm inclined to agree that it does not accurately convey the bulk of mainstream coverage of his presidency. He said all sorts of things during the campaign, but once he was in office the longstanding Republican party agenda and the policy beliefs of his inner circle were steadfastly pursued and there was none of the center/left talk that he occasionally presented during the campaign. It appears to me that this article needs a thorough overhaul. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article will shift from his campaign proposals to actual policies as time progresses. See Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration for where we're headed. A $200 billion infrastructure amount (increase in the deficit relative to baseline) is in his 2018 budget. He has said many times that he has no plans to touch Medicare or Social Security. His 2018 budget also includes sizable cuts in military spending. Anti-immigrant policies historically were driven by unions; only in the past decade or so have unions supported immigration as they are making a political calculation. The economics is that if you bring in labor supply, the price falls (see Fed economist view); the political calculation is to unionize as many immigrants in the services occupations as you can. His anti-globalist positions are neither right nor left; they are something new as both right and left embraced neo-liberal Chicago-school economics until Obama started pushing back on the inequality created.Farcaster (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You may have some valid points. That said, I believe he is generally viewed as a far right ideologue and even a demagogue by the political press, not as a moderate who borrows equally from democrats and republicans. I don't think we are realistically presenting the consensus on how Trump is widely perceived as governing from the far right, without compromise.Infamia (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of lead changes to reflect left/right balance

I would suggest that even if we are going to keep the disputed language about Trump "drawing from both sides", it should be significantly qualified as a minority opinion, with something like this: "Although Trump is believed by some commentators to draw from positions from "across the political spectrum," he is more generally viewed as a far-right, extremely conservative figure, due to his conservative positions on taxation, health care, gun control, abortion, the military, immigration, and the judiciary." I'm concerned that we are for some reason presenting it as a plain, unvarnished fact that Trump is a moderate, when, even if that happens to be true (I disagree, per above), it's still a distinctly minority position. Infamia (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Find some credible sources (NYT, The Economist, Vox) that agree with you. The article in WaPo makes a pretty good case that he has many Democratic proposals. I think what will help your case is his policies are more far-right than his campaign promises; you might draw that distinction (e.g., While he campaigned with a blend of both parties' proposals, he has governed...) One thing that you might include in the article is a summary of his appointments; that is quite a cast of far-right crazies. Be careful with immigration, as that can be viewed as something that transcends party lines (part of his anti-globalist stance).Farcaster (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the general tenor of your suggestion is good and would improve the lead. I'll see what sources I can find and report back. Infamia (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD at Pardon of Joe Arpaio if anyone is interested

Just FYI, there's now a deletion discussion at newly created Pardon of Joe Arpaio, if anyone wants to contribute to the discussion or help improve this newly created article. As it presently stands,, the article is primarily split off from Joe Arpaio], and also contains some material from my dearly departed proposed article Persons pardoned by Donald Trump, which, alas, did not make the cut (apparently, the powers that be believe a list cannot consist of a single item.)

Discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio_(2nd_nomination)

Infamia (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I also raise this here as I found it somewhat curious this article doesn't discuss the Arpaio pardon at all, even just to briefly mention it (since it is covered elsewhere.)Infamia (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No mention of alleged white supremacism, sympathy with fascism and neo-Nazism?

I understand what Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral point of view, but ignoring that Trump has been called a white supremacist by a number of political commentators and pundits does seem to be whitewashing his image through omission. J.M.Ike (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

“shithole countries with no skills”

Re NY Times and hundreds and hundreds of other media sources worldwide, isn't this somehow slightly notable? Shouldn't it be added here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence "The political positions of United States President Donald Trump (sometimes referred to as Trumpism) have elements from across the political spectrum, merging populism with plutocracy and authoritarianism." makes Trump a populist, a plutocrat and an authoritarianist, i.e. bad guy. Then from the rest of the paragraph we learn that through his tax cuts and other actions he is actually a conservative. Couldn't the word conservative end up in the first sentence as well, or do we want to have that sentence unchanged and continue to have POV? --1l2l3k (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

In the "Energy independence" section of the article, below the the last sentence I wanted to add these three paragraphs:

On March 28th, 2017 President Donald Trump signed his Energy Independence Executive Order. The Executive Order directs the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, to revise portions of the previous administration’s Clean Power Plan which include: Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, Presidential Memorandum of June 25, 2013: Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards, Presidential Memorandum of November 3, 2015: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment, Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016: Climate Change and National Security. President Trump’s Executive Order also rescinds: The Report of the Executive Office of the President of June 2013: The President’s Climate Action Plan, and The Report of the Executive Office of the President of March 2014: Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. President Trump’s administration has claimed that climate change agenda of the previous administration has limited the country’s ability to become energy independent; also citing that President Obama’s failed to use the best available science and economics in regards to regulatory analysis. During President Trump’s candidacy he promised to eliminate the Clean Power Plan, stating that “…these unilateral plans will increase monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable improvement in the climate.” The Trump administration believes that removing federal overreach will boost the U.S. energy industry, thus beginning the process of making the country independent in regards to energy production and consumption. However, energy independence means that a country produces as much, or more than, energy than it consumes; and the Energy Information Administration reported that for the first five of 2019 the U.S. produced 41.5 quadrillion British thermal units of energy, or BTUs, but consumed 42.1 quadrillion.

<ref>https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-remains-committed-expanding-energy-production-increasing-manufacturing-united-states/<ref> <ref>https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trumps-energy-independence-policy/<ref> <ref>https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf<ref> Kphillips771 (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Kphillips771 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Gangster8192 03:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking for quote

I know I read this not that long ago, but now I can't find the quote/article. I once read that Trump said that in the 1980s he was a Democrat because every business person in New York City was a Democrat and he had to be one too in order to do business/make deals/smooze with them, or something along those lines. Does anyone remember this quote or know which interview it was?Phibesfan (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)