Talk:Social media use by Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title / Existence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I note that we have Barack Obama on social media, so having a similar article on Trump seems very likely to be a good idea.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Does he use anything besides Twitter, or can we consolidate with Donald Trump tweets? Compy book (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Twitter is the only app on his phone![6]. However, his staff does use other social media, so I think a broader title would be better, so other options could ideally redirect here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Donald Trump on social media. Trump has a personal Instagram account as well, where a few of his posts have attracted some attention, see e.g. exchange involving his post about the new Ghostbusters film. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• As for Donald Trump tweets, merge it here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support moving to Donald Trump on social media and merging Donald Trump tweets with this article as well. κατάσταση 16:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support Merge. Move is a reasonable thing to do. Ceosad (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Antisocial media reports he's building a backchannel social media platform, primarily to exchange sensitivities with a rebooted Soviet Union. Even if that never exists, the other article could include it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. No need for seperate articles, one on social media will mostly be about tweets. Fences&Windows 19:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• If this page and Covfefe are merged in, Category:Donald Trump's use of social media will need to be deleted. Fences&Windows 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Done - I merged some useful content from the Donald Trump tweets article history, since that article was recently redirected here. Apparently Finnusertop changed the title. Ceosad (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger proposal

SUPERCEDED:

MERGED: AfD result was a merge, so this discussion was made irrelevant.

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

---

I propose that Covfefe be merged into Donald Trump's use of social media. The current content of the article will be rather difficult for a reader not aware of the context (ie the Donald Trump's use of social media), so it's probably a good candidate for merging. There is currently not real possibility of development beyond 3 to 4 paragraphs, so a standalone article isn't needed to equilibrate articles' weights. Dereckson (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: I think that they should be separate articles, as Covfefe has a lot more information that could fit into a single sub-article. – Nixinova (talk • edits) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• disagree for reasons stated above --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support WP:1E single use of the "word", all else are references to the use instead of uses themselves (as it doesn't have a meaning, using it isn't possible). No need for a separate article, also per the AfD which seems to be trending towards merge or delete -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Ceosad (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• disagree Whilst a merger does make sense I agree with Dereckson that this topic has more than enough notable information in it to warrent its own page. Although a subsection of this event should cerntainly either way have its own subsection on the Trump social media page.--Discott (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree – this is too trivial to be part of any encyclopaedia article–even an electronic one. What a waste of editors' time and energy. Rwood128 (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: There is an active discussion at the AfD about related issues: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe incident. These different discussions should not be confused with each other. Ceosad (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - while trivial in itself, it's certainly become a bit of a (probably fleeting, but still) phenomenon. Not one quite so large as to require its own article though. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support --Snowstormer ^{(T | C)} 16:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Dereckson, maybe we should hold this discussion until the AfD on Covfefe concludes. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support waiting until the AfD is over for a merge discussion (if it's kept).  Seagull123  Φ  13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Waiting would probably be the best choice, considering that the Covfefe AfD has gained a lot of attention. This discussion could very easily get out of hand too. If Covfefe survives the AfD without a deletion, we should then preferably merge these articles. Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Cofveve er... I mean Support -- Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 23:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure, on the principle of due weight, that we would need or want to include much more covfefe content than this article currently contains. A strict merge from the standalone, as it currently exists, would be out of proportion here in the broader topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support You rarely do a "full merge." Instead we need a "Smerge" (a term coined by User:R. fiend) meaning "selective merge."It is the sort of thing people will want to look up, as I did when I saw it in Facebook posts the first thing in the morning the next day. But it fails WP:NOTNEWS since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a compendium of everything which gets a brief splash of news coverage. When a president stumbles, farts, pukes, gets a dirty look from his wife, doesn't think Israel is in the Middle East, lifts his dog by the ears, shows reporters his surgical scar, tells a joke, misspeaks, bumps his head, splashes a paddle at a swimming rabbit, catches a fish, hugs a girl, it might well deserve inclusion in a collective article about the person's public image, especially if it affects how people feel about the person, and especially if it affects his popularity, his ability to get re-elected or to get his legislative goals enacted. There is no evidence that one typo has made his supporters or opponents shift their positions at all. Edison (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: This is a blip on social media that was funny for a day. I think it's notable enough to include a brief section on the Donald Trump's use of social media page, but there's no way that the Covfefe article could expand beyond a few paragraphs. -- Danny (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Funny as it may be, doesn't need its own article. Definitely merge into the larger article on his overall usage of social media. -- numbermaniac (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as it's a clearly distinct topic which is best described ina separate article rather than a section of this article. Also, a procedural comment: I don't think it's appropriate for the merge discussion and AfD discussion to be running simultaneously... Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:42, 6 June 2017 (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.

Wrangling the External Links

So, this article has a lot of external links, most of which are to official accounts on various social media platforms. However, there's a relevant content guideline, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, that requires that we minimize the number of official-site external links (typically to one, except in "very few limited circumstances"). This is very likely one of those "very few limited circumstances". However, the current situation (two official Twitter accounts, an official Instagram account, two official Facebook accounts, an official Reddit account, the playlist of the official YouTube vlog; plus two non-official external links to third-party Twitter archives) more than strains compliance with the guideline. Culling unilaterally seems like a great way to trigger some editor conflict, so I'd rather see if we can hash out some consensus on what should (and should not) be included in the external links section here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a text-book case of meeting WP:ELMINOFFICIAL's "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". Trump does not have an official website where he would centrally list all of these distinct social media accounts of his. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

All covfefe and no Qatar?

The Qatar crisis seems to miss.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

With Tillerson and Trump going opposite directions in dueling speeches, it's not just social media anymore -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

I don't think he attracted any attention when he joined Twitter in 2009. Most of the world didn't know him. --92.74.21.211 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump has been very well known since the late 1970s, at least since the first tower named after him, Trump Tower in New York, was planned. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Covfefe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that section on "covfefe" should be deleted, along with the named article. WP is not a news channel but an encyclopaedia. This is simply trivia and I think that there's clear WP policy on this. Rwood128 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree It went crazy viral; it should have a place on Wikipedia. – Nixinova (talk • edits) 20:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is moot, we have a consensus AfD outcome to merge "covfefe" to this article. Removing it would need an RfC, in at least 3 months from now (since we just determined the outcome at AfD) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• See discussion to restore page: WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 10#Covfefe. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Official statements"

The article says "The tweets are considered official White House statements." and sources Sean Spicer. I don't believe Sean Spicer's statements should be interpreted as "generally accurate". The White House Press Secretary engages in "spin" on a regular basis. Without a different source (e.g. a press release from the White House), this should be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this through attribution in-text. Neutrality^talk 08:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Twitter Library

Added a line about the Daily Show's Twitter Library. Not sure how much space it merits. It seems to be getting a good amount of coverage, but for now I've just added a simple line. Perhaps more controversially, I put an image of the library at the top of the article. Since we already have a traditional portrait (unrelated to social media) in the sidebar, it doesn't seem ideal to just use another such portrait for the lead image. I don't know if this library image is the best alternative, but it seems directly relevant enough. No objections if someone wants to move it. Unfortunately, when I stopped by, people in line near the entrance said they had been waiting in line for about 2.5 hours... so I have no pictures of the interior. Hopefully some Wikimedian was more inclined to withstand the humidity.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dress Like A Woman

Does anyone here feel that Dress Like A Woman could be merged into this article? I'm not going to propose the merge, but if anyone else feels like this would be appropriate please feel free. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is only for social media activity by Trump himself (hence its name), so probably not. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 01:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a repost of a deleted article by the creator of the previous version. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dress Like a Woman -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! A student had created it as part of a course, so I was wondering if it would be mergable or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• There's no point in merging material that was determined to be deleted by a prior consensus. The student shouldn't have recreated the content in the first place, and the instructor should not have allowed the student to do so. Content on deleted articles shouldn't exist in articlespace, it should be in a sandbox or DRAFtspace, and then submitted for review (such as via WP:AFC submission or WP:PM merger) since the content was previously deleted. As it was posted into articlespace, it is subject to immediate deletion as recreation of a deleted article, without merging. Instructors need to be informed of not going around and recreating articles that were deleted via WP:AfD consensus, those recreations need a new community consensus (such as using a WP:RFC) before they can reappear in articlespace. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

youtube playlist

@Ceosad: This is admittedly a fairly trivial thing, but out of curiosity, why did you restore the playlist? If it's serving to verify what's said in the article, it should be a citation. It should only be in external links if it provides a resource for readers to learn more about the subject -- and since the videos are all private, it's effectively like restoring a broken link. Not a big deal, but seems kind of pointless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Not all of the videos are private. Nine of the videos are still public. For instance, there are two public videos about Donald Trump answering to tweets. (Tweets Answered Part One and Tweets Answered Part Two) Those probably qualify as being useful resources for readers. If they all became private, it would be fair to remove the external link. I do not really mind if the link gets removed again. Ceosad (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Must've stopped scrolling before getting to one that's still there. Thanks for clarifying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

article doesn't include some of Trump's more notorious tweets

The article doesn't include some of Trump's more notorious tweets, which have received quite a bit of press coverage, such as the "taco bowl" tweet,[7] [8] and his attacks on Kristin Stewart's private life (which Kristin Stewart has personally addressed on Saturday Night Live and the new Colbert show)[9]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be "Donald Trump in social media"?

The use of "on" to describe the use of social media (as in, "he's on Twitter") is still, I believe, indicative of a colloquial rather than a formal register. In that register, people are rather present "in" media (in the press, in TV, etc.). "On" might lead readers to believe that what we describe here are Trump's views on social media, which is not (primarily) the case.  Sandstein  08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe the choice of naming is for two reasons. Firstly, consistency with Barack Obama on social media, and secondly, distinguishment. 'Donald Trump in social media' would imply inclusion of social media content about Trump but not by him, which is not part of the topic of the article (inclusion of this would lengthen the article significantly and force removal of more in-depth content, when there are already other articles for the additional info). User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 08:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rv

@BullRangifer: I am not sure what you want to discuss. It seems odd that you immediately restored the close paraphrasing. Perhaps you should explain why, since your edit summary gave no reason. zzz (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My first restoration of the properly sourced content was an accident. My edit summaries are pretty clear. (I needed to leave an edit summary for why it should be restored.) My message there, which is why we are here (thanks for that), is so we can discuss properly, rather than through edit warring. This is good.

It appears to me that the content was pretty exactly from the source. Normally a deletion of such properly sourced content is considered deletionism and vandalism, but you've been here long enough for me to AGF. Maybe you have another reason.

I want to understand more properly and in depth why you deleted that content. Maybe you're right. Let's find out. You mentioned that it "misses the point". Okay, if that's the case, the proper solution is to fix that, rather than delete it. What is the point it missed? Add that point. Can we develop that content better? Please propose a better version here and let's work toward a collaborative solution. I just don't want to see any deletionism. Per WP:PRESERVE we should always seek to keep, improve, and add content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll move the copyvio/close paraphrasing issues I notice here.

• "Trump's social media messages often address people as individuals, distinguishing his communications from Obama's, which generally mobilized his supporters en masse." Could probably be used in some form, somewhere, however I don't get why the "background" section is separated from the "twitter" section.
• "Trump's tweets are spontaneous, unfiltered and reveal his emotions." The text this is from is: "Trump’s tweets are unfiltered, spontaneous, and reveal his personal feelings and emotions about everything from the media to L.L. Bean, creating the impression that a relationship is in play." Possibly just quote the whole sentence somewhere.
• "He often delivers barbed commentary concerning his political opponents, and offers insults to a variety of persons, places, and things" A pointless "preamble" sentence. Possibly unintentionally here AGF, but "delivers barbed commentary" is generally how you describe insults which you think are particularly clever. Please use your own words before adding back or better yet, don't bother. Cheers zzz (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Short and fat comments

Should we include mention of yesterday's "short and fat" tweet in the Comments about North Korea section? It got a lot of RS coverage (not to mention an extraordinary number of likes and retweets). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Highlight title?

I'm going to be bold and boldface "Donald Trump on social media" in the first sentence if no one objects. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: It probably should be in bold. But in that case, the wikilinks need to be removed per MOS:BOLDAVOID. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: How about this? "The presence of Donald Trump on social media has attracted attention worldwide since he joined Twitter in March 2009. Trump has frequently used Twitter and other social media to comment on politicians and celebrities..." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Britain First videos

I agree that we need to cover this, and that this is the proper article for it. I agree that it is in the right section of the article. But I think what we have is about half-again too long, too detailed. I think it should be trimmed considerably. Anybody want to undertake that? Or should I try it myself, later today when I have more time? --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: When there's a too long section we can also shorten it by creating a separate page for it covering the details and leaving the core points in the current article. More things are appearing on the news outlets giving us more materials to add. Does anyone thinks otherwise? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we should look at trimming it. Just because something is long doesn't mean it has stand alone notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed it and reorganized it into more logical flow. Among other things,I removed the long name-dropping list of everyone who had condemned the retweet. There are still way, way too many references; I think we could remove about two thirds of them. I don't have time to do that tonight and I invite anyone else to work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the section is much better now. However consider that "Trump's tweeter attack" may acquire notability in some days. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that some of my changes were reverted by User:Rupert loup. He restored a mention of Ann Coulter in the first paragraph which I had removed as irrelevant name-dropping; I am OK with restoring that if people think it is important. He removed my addition of David Duke's reaction, which I think is important and should be retained. He restored material about the reaction of Fransen and Golding to the first paragraph, apparently not noticing that I hadn't removed it; I had just moved it to a separate new paragraph I had created about praise for Trump's actions, mentioning Duke, Fransen, and Golding. So now we have Fransen and Golding twice, redundantly, in the first paragraph and in the new section that used to also include Duke. Something should be done about that. He made some other additions - references, and an additional quote from Sanders defending Trump - that I am OK with. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, what role Duke played in the sharing of the tweets? It's just his reaction like the other many people that commented in the matter, no source state that he is involved in it. About Ann Coulter, the sources stated that she was the first in share the video and form that Trump had contact with Fransen's account. So she is pretty relevant to the article. About Fransen and Golding, I fixed my mistake. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He is not a source, he is a reaction. We have lots of reaction about who condemned Trump's tweet; per balance we ought to show some reaction about who praised it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN: You're right. I just added about the praise that he had, but I think there is no need to name them all unless they are really notable to be here. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He is the only American source cited - aside from Trump himself and his press secretary. Eliminating him leaves the impression that absolutely no-one in the United States spoke up in support of him. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Oh, I see you added a Guardian article characterizing the praise as coming from and empowering the anti-Muslim right. I still think it would be significant to mention Duke - by far the best known face of that group in the United States - but I will leave it up to others here whether to add him or leave it with the Guardian piece. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I agree with about 90% of Melanie's shortening (long laundry lists of MPs joining in the condemnation aren't necessary). The only part I disagree with is that the following sentence and cite, I think, dropped off:

"Trump's sharing of inflammatory content from an extremist group was without precedent among modern American presidents."

I think the historical context here is important - i.e., the fact that this is an unprecedented and very unusual thing is something that should be briefly noted. Neutrality^talk 22:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be OK with re-adding that and will do so. We still need to eliminate about half the references IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that, right now it's citation overkill. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to Ann Coulter is irrelevant and should be removed along with the WP:Daily Mail cite that supports it. zzz (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump and the Doomsday Clock

I moved a sentence recently added (then moved and later deleted) to the lead to this thread. Let's discuss it. It needs some improvement in wording, formatting of the refs, and placement in the article. It shouldn't be mentioned in the lead before it is content in the body of the article, but where?

First of all, not having read all the refs, we need to make sure that the reason for the time change at the Doomsday Clock was because of his social media usage. That's the only relevance here. I question this because the scientist's official statement gives different reasons. It appears to have been their response to Trump's climate change denials, nuclear proliferation and rising tensions between global superpowers.[10]

Strictly speaking, the statement below isn't only about the Doomsday Clock, so there may still be some relevance to using some variation of the content.

Here's the content:

• Many experts believe that Trump's use of social media may lead to a nuclear holocaust.

Unless someone can show from the RS we have here, or from others, that Trump's use of social media is the reason, then we shouldn't include this. It's already covered in the Doomsday Clock article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, he does keep threatening nuclear war against “rocket man” on Twitter and calling him fat boy, etc. Trump may be the first president to threaten nuclear holocaust “fire and fury” on twitter, which seems notable. 2600:1017:B411:47F1:450F:22B:A2F7:AF6A (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

True enough. Do any of these sources, or others, make that connection? It wouldn't surprise me if some did, and then you might have something to build upon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Rescued comments on topic:

• "Donald Trump's tweets could lead to war between US and North Korea, diplomats fear"
• "Trump tweets could cause nuclear war, says former CIA Agent"
• "Clinton: 'Disturbing' that Trump talks about nuclear weapons, war with tweets"
• "Will Donald Trump's twitter war spark nuclear war?"
• Also, there was a kerfuffle as to whether Trump's tweets constituted a declaration of war and violated Twitter's policy against violent threats; Twitter decided in the negative. See here:

BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As a practical matter, we are in an editing environment here in which straightforward statements of disturbing facts are likely to go down the drain if they're not very carefully composed to preclude any sense of recentism, sensationalism, or undue weight. My sense is that there have indeed been reasoned discussions of the current administrations policies throughout Asia-Pacific and the ways in which they undermine longstanding US pursuit of its national interest and regional stability. Those references are a good start, and I think that to the extent we step away from daily newsmedia and into periodicals or other sources with a longer-term, wider perspective, the easier it will be to reach consensus on this and similar material. I will join BR in having a look for such sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Fox & Friends

[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248 I’ve Studied the Trump-Fox Feedback Loop for Months. It’s Crazier Than You Think. By MATTHEW GERTZ January 05, 2018] zzz (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• lol* Well, what I think from a journalistic perspective, it appears to me that based on Mat's op-eds and the topics he focuses on, he is determined to bring down Fox News. Why do you ask? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

lol why do I ask what? There's no question there. I'm pointing out a source that should be used in this article, if anyone can be bothered, since I haven't got round to it myself. zzz (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe+Mika

I see there's an extensive discussion of this incident, but is it really any more significant than dozens or scores of others? Maybe this is undue detail. I think we need some secondary sources that summarize what's long-term notable about Trump's use of social media. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

New commentary on Trump's use of social media

Useful overview of Trump's use of social media and its relationship to his presidency here. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested page merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing as no consensus. Reasonable merits of arguments on both sides, therefore no clear consensus Mike Hocks Hucker Talk 13:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Fake News Awards be merged into Donald Trump on social media. The subject matter may have the notability to be included on the latter's page, but lacks the clout to warrant an individual, separate article. Already, within a matter of hours, the relevance and attention to the subject matter has subsided. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support has he even given CNN the award yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the option to delete the Fake News Award article after the merge is complete. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete? We usually do a redirect after a merge. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's best to keep that redirect, as it would point straight to the content of this article when people search for it. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose While I realise wikipedia has a bad habit of making an article whenever Trump does anything whatsoever (Trump Orb and Covfefe spring to mind), this is a real ironic award from the President of the United States no less. It was also hosted by the Republican Party website, not social media making this merge inappropriate. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The awards were "hosted" on (relatively) traditional media. Not by Trump himself, but an anonymous team of lizards. Perhaps they weren't lizards, simply anonymous, but still an entire team representing the wider political party. This was a shindig for the ruling class, not one guy's Twitter account after midnight. After a matter of hours, attention to any subject matter subsides; can't hold that fact of human nature against this in particular. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a difference of opinion, as I view the team of lizards as only countering the notability or relevance of this subject matter. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The social media article probably isn't the right place to merge this article. I think this could be part of an article about Trump's relationship with the media, though that doesn't seem to exist at the moment. ^Falling_Gravity 01:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (ec) This isn’t directly relevant to Trump and social media. If we had an article about Trump’s relationship with the media then I could see it being applicable there. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Awards aren't really reated to social media apart from Trump's tweeting about them, which he does with everything anyway. Yes, I agree that they don't need their own article, but shoving everything into Donald Trump on social media isn't the way to fix things - the topic casts a wide enough circle as it is. - User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Input has been received. However, just because the Fake News Awards isn't strictly exclusive to this page's subject matter doesn't mean it should have its own individual article. What compromise can be reached? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions here were for creating and merging into a "Donald Trump's relationship with the media" article which seems reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is a significant event with multiple reliable sources. Per WP:GNG this indicates that notabiliy is met. I also believe there is too much information for theb article to be merged without making the host article too long or shortening the merged content too short. KU2018 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is long because it unfortunately includes out-of-scope content. It's been two days since the awards and there hasn't been a rat's ass about it mentioned anywhere, so I tend to disagree. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There are many things that the news has covered for several days with Trump but doesn't continue.Contentcreator (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Even though this is a BS award, it was made by the POTUS which makes an actual award, and relevant. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 19:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it is independently relevant, only relevant in regards to the POTUS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevant to the media which received and widely covered the awards. Also to sociology and political science authors who've pondered what it means. Can't forget the Republican Party, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is a flash-in-the-pan incident whose coverage will vanish within two or three days. (If I am wrong in this prediction, give me a Fakey of my own.) It is exactly the kind of thing that should have a section in the Social media article. Exception: if he gives them out again next year, making it a recurring event, we might consider expanding it back into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

He didn't give them out, his party did. Not physically, but moreso than anyone else. This isn't like Russia, where any IP address apparently originating there can be safely tied to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. America is nuanced, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

He proposed them, he announced them, he called attention to them - but it's true that they were actually posted on the RNC website. Good point. However, I suspect that everyone (including Reliable Sources) will continue to say that he gave them out. The whole "fake news" meme is his trademark. --MelanieN (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support As others have said a flash in the pan vanity rant that will not be repeated, this is an annual event that will b e held in one year.Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose merger to Donald Trump on social media" as per comments of User:Axisixa - Govindaharihari (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support merger to Donald Trump of social media. It loses its relevance overtime and will just continue to float around as another shenanigan, where as, Donald Trump's views on social media will remain relevant overtime. Contentcreator (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Everything involving Trump gets a lot of coverage but we need to determine whether this passes WP:10YT or if it's a WP:NOTNEWS issue. This reminds me of the Trump orb - an internet joke that didn't have long term notability. We should revisit this discussion if there are other rounds of "awards".LM2000 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Changed to weak oppose, see below.) The fake news awards aren't really about social media. Yes, Trump tweeted about it. Yes, some of the "awards" were given for tweets, but this is something that various officials organised, happened in front of Fox News cameras (see below) and is aimed at news organisations which pre-date social media by decades and which exist independently of social media. If there was an article called something like Donald Trump's relationship with news organizations I can see an argument for that merge. But there isn't. The awards meet WP:GNG, which doesn't stop us from merging if there is a sensible merge, but I see no need to hurry to merge them with anything. Yaris678 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

RE "happened in front of Fox News cameras": Do you have a link for that? As far as I can find, and according to Fox News itself,[11] the way the awards were "presented" was that Trump tweeted a link to the RNC page where they were listed. Period. That was one reason why the awards were described as "underwhelming". Also, I have seen no coverage suggesting that "various officials", or anyone other than Trump and the White House, organized the list; have you? --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

But, this wasn't an awards gala; it was Trump tweeting to an initially broken link that was later repaired, only after the very minor buzz subsided. Perhaps there should be an article about Trump's relationship with the media, however.. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. Looks like I was wrong about Fox News Cameras. I knew it wasn't a Gala, but I had thought that Trump had said something in front of cameras. It looks like it really only ever existed on the GOP website.

I have changed my view to weak oppose. The GOP website is not social media, although this could be dismissed as a technicality because the links between social media and the wider web are so strong. I am sticking with my wider point that this is chiefly about Trump and news organisations, not about social media.

Regarding "various officials", yes, the officials in the White House, that's who I am talking about. You might prefer another term for people that work in the White House, but the point is that it wasn't just Trump tweeting something disconnected from everything else. He may have had a large hand in what appeared on the GOP website, but I doubt he typed it all in himself. Again, this is a minor point in comparison to that fact that this is about Trump and news organisations.

Yaris678 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support too trivial to mention anywhere else zzz (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Just because it is an award by POTUS and it may re-appear annually.121.99.108.78 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Highly notable, historic first, meets notability requirements. It clearly does not belong in a "social media" article considering the awards are published on the GOP website, not on FB or Twitter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Though we don't agree on everything, I always do appreciate hearing your opinion, Atsme. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - no brainer. It's old news already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Notable story. Especially if this is going to be an annual award, as indicated by the U.S. President. --Bruzaholm (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Better would be merge into an article about relationship with the News, as others have mentioned. Maybe merge into Fake news. Half-life of views is less thsn a day so it will soon get back to background levels unless there is another meltdown. StrayBolt (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There's this meltdown. Somewhat related. Unless fake. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Awards always have an article of their own. There may be new "FNA" editions, so keep this separate article. User:Ravenanation (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Not notable. I have only heard about this twice. Once a day before, and once a day after due to the ERROR 404 that occurred. Wikipedia shouldn't be a news source. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 21:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of the news-to-me sort of news (as in stories one hasn't heard yet). Clicking the random button three times, we're suddenly in the loop about Pima flavidorsella's life in Mozambique, Giorgio Siani's first goal for Tuttocuoio and the addition to the list of High Commissioners of New Zealand to Kiribati of one Don Higgins. All good things to know, forever. These awards, too, they just happen to be recent for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge – Well sourced article, although bordering on trivia. Would overburden the "social media" article. — JFG ^talk 11:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because it can't exactly go into social media (as it was published in a non-social media website), but I don't think this will be of much independent relevance in the next months, unless Trump decides to do these annually. My suggestion is keeping the article for now and maybe revisit this discussion after some time has passed. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -- independently notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: If we do not merge with this article, we should create a new article about Trump's relationship with the media and merge with that. Since the awards, there has not been a single mention of them anywhere, indicating that calling it a "flash in the pan" is an over-statement. It's really not notable. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I can see Donald Trump on social media expanding further, therefore I don't think there is room to cover Fake News Awards sufficiently. Either leave where it is or create new article about Donald Trump media relationship as suggested previously TheHomeofBaku (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a merge request Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm not arguing about the close, but this was an editor's second edit. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Was it okay to close the discussion when I did? Mike Hocks Hucker Talk 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Former Sec. of State Rex Tillerson found out he was fired from a Trump tweet

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/tillerson-found-out-he-was-fired-from-trump-tweet-2018-3

Is this worth a mention? AdA&D ★ 15:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This may be true, but the Administration is pushing some alternative narratives, and until RS reporting reconciles the two versions, we really can't put it in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Some more sources: BBC, The Verge, NYT, CNN, WaPo. AdA&D ★ 15:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There will be no reconciliation between the stated narrative of the Administration and the RS reporting, so both need to be included. The firing by Tweet and the Administration line as well. Given that the second in the State Dept. was fired for supporting the Tweet claim, there will be no reconciliation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this is not the first time staff have allegedly learnt of Trump Administration decisions via Twitter. Perhaps this could be placed in a paragraph alongside similar incidents? User:Axisixa [t] [c] 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Kanye West

[12] Trump and Kanye West. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of covfefe

Finally! We have Trump saying "covfefe" out loud. [13] I would add it if I knew how to write IPA. wumbolo ^^^ 16:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Court Rules That Government Officials Who Tweet to the Public Can't Block Users Who They Disagree With

• https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html
• http://time.com/5288946/trump-blocking-twitter-judge-ruling/
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/23/donald-trump-cant-block-people-twitter-judge-rules/
• http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/media/judge-rules-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/index.html
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-24/donald-trump-blocking-twitter-users-violates-right-to-free-spee/9794294
• https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17385256/trump-twitter-lawsuit-block-users-loser
• Statement by EFF https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-first-amendment-court-rules-government-officials-who-tweet-public-cant-block

John Cummings (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevancy of June 2018 tweet to page introduction?

Why does the introduction feature Trump tweeting about his right to pardon himself? While it is certainly interesting and relevant to the page I don't believe there is sufficient reason to feature it there. Perhaps moving it down to one of the sub-sections? --130.123.231.56 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, that's WP:UNDUE, we are WP:NOT#NEWS, and this content was added by a block evader. Removed. — JFG ^talk 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

Why is this article just a litany of criticism and a quote farm of controversial tweets? Shouldn't we rather have a sober analysis of the style and impact of Trump's relentless tweeting? I would suggest to either re-balance coverage with tweets conveying a positive message, or drastically trim the article to just a few examples of (in)famous tweets. — JFG ^talk 06:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to trimming (or more paraphrasing and less direct quotation), but the significant majority of sources focus on the many and varied clusters of controversial tweets. We surely should include discussion in this article on "the style and impact" of the tweets — and in fact, we already do in this article — but that cannot be cleanly divorced from the actual substance of the tweets.

As to the criticism -- well, that's also an important part of the overall story, reflected by many sources over a long period of time. I'm not adverse to considering different ways of formulating or organizing such content, but it ought not to be understated. Neutrality^talk 07:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Twitter split proposed

I propose that the section Donald Trump on social media#Twitter be split out to Donald Trump on Twitter per WP:SPINOUT. wumbolo ^^^ 16:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The section here just needs to be trimmed from WP:EXAMPLEFARM material. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of the president's tweets. Explain how Trump conducts himself on Twitter in general terms without enumerating each and every controversial tweet. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Finnusertop. --GHcool (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. See also #NPOV concerns below. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. Good reasoning by Finnusertop, an argument could be made that though that this page could be reduced and merged with another page. Something to consider. 130.123.231.56 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even as a whole, Trump's off-Twitter activity is not notable enough to deserve its own article. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 04:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - No need. The article isn't overwhelmingly long, nor would there be enough content to justify splitting. Nanophosis (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

How can an Opinion be False?

In the lead paragraph, it is written that he posts false opinions. - AH (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That is peculiar indeed! We could perhaps replace controversial or false opinions and statements with controversial opinions or false statements. Or drop opinions altogether, because they are a kind of statement, so that would be controversial or false statements. Any… opinions? — JFG ^talk 12:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

controversial or false statements flows much better and makes more logical sense. Opinions can't be false, but statements can. Nanophosis (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinions can be false if they are not their opinion. But I think the common definition is a statement which a speaker believes to be true based on their limited information that is generally considered untrue. But others have opinions on this, including Plato. Here is a recent paper on "false opinions". I think it depends on which "alternative facts" you use. Pseudodox: a false opinion or doctrine. StrayBolt (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

new controversial tweet to perhaps add

Trump has tweeted this: [14] yesterday which caused lots of media coverage and a late breaking news story on various media outlets on TV. Many commentators view this tweet as a 'tirade'. I feel as if it is noteworthy to mention on here. Thoughts? Prayers? [15] [16] [17], etc.Tinton5 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but... I don't think the community does. This article is currently 78kb (kilobytes), and WP:ARTICLESIZE recommends that at 60kb articles "Probably should be divided" into two (or more) articles, and at 100kb, which we are halfway to from 60, articles "Almost certainly should be divided". Granted this is a general guideline only, it's good guideline that is invoked often enough.

So I guess one question would be, if you want to add this, what are you going to remove? (IMO this article ought to be a category with many individual articles, but I don't see this happening, e.g. Covfefe, formerly a separate article was merged into this article etc.)

Or another way to look at it is, nobody cares and it's meaningless. It was widely reported in the papers, but no person of any standing paid any attention to the substance of it, I'm pretty sure. No serious columnists are going to write about "Our new tougher Iran policy" or whatever, the Pentagon is not going to make new contingency plans, and so on. Everyone understands that nothing will come of it, and so it has neither more nor less importance than your Uncle Dwight yelling at the TV.

On the other hand, 1) we don't know as the Iranians don't initiate some defensive measures, 2) the State Department maybe will have to perform some actions based on this -- damage control and kabuki posturing or whatever-- and 3) some non-zero number of people will be interested in learning about this even many decades from now. So... Herostratus (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Typos in Certain Tweets

Shouldn't there be examples of the typos in some of his tweets? Here a few noteworthy ones: "Covfefe," "Smocking Gun," "Stormy Danials," "Adam Schitt," "Liddle Bob Corker," "Melanie Trump," "Special Council," "White House Councel," "Global Waming," "played no roll," "Scott Free," "to tapp my phones," "unpresidented," "great honer," "heel (he used it as a verb)," not to mention confusing "they're," "their" and "there." This isn't a pro-Trump/anti-Trump issue. American spelling, at least within America, is not up for debate.Joe Bethersonton (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The choice of content that ends up in a Wikipedia article is predicated on its notability. If you can find a few media sources that mention it, then there is theoretically no reason why it can't be included. However, this article is getting quite long, and a few of the finer details have already been trimmed, so it may not be suitable anyway. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 05:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and sorry for my tardy reply. Sounds good, thanks.Joe Bethersonton (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hamburder listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hamburder. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Taken out of context?

Trump's remarks on Khan were not Khan taken out of context. They were quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The bias in the article is shocking

The farm murders in South Africa are very real, and are being covered up by the far-left. Trump's remarks are warranted, and shouldn't even be controversial. My uncle's neighbor, and his family of 6 were brutally murdered 6 months ago on a farm. My uncle received a court order for "interfering with the investigation" after he posted his condolences on Facebook. There are no public records of the murder. There are hundreds of other, confirmed cases, that cannot be found in any government record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvilledp (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As the article states, nobody is denying the farm murders. What is instead being mentioned is Trump's claims that the attacks are conducted with a racist motive, which reliable sources deny. If you wish that the article states otherwise, find a source that says so.- Axisixa T C 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump, at no point, mentioned race, or called the SA government racist. He quoted Tucker Carlson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvilledp (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

In Trump's tweet, while he didn't directly say that the murders were racially biased, he juxtaposes this with Carlson's quote (mentioning race), which implies that. As the United States embassy rebuked that specific idea (as mentioned in the article), which is a common right-wing talking point, it is safe to say that others agree. Maybe my wording relating to "Trump's claims" is still somewhat inaccurate, but this is irrelevant to your initial claim, which implies that the article is biased. Again, nobody is denying the attacks' existence. What is in the article that you think needs changing? - Axisixa T C 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came"

This morning's tweet directed at the four congresswomen has been met with widespread condemnation for being xenophobic. I believe it may be worthy for inclusion. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed it has made several headlines. Tinton5 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Donald Trump on social media#Comments on congresswomen of color – Anne drew 14:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Social Media Summit

Should this article mention it?[18][19][20][21] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Does this video have any relevance to recent events?

This video was posted to Youtube on July 17, 2019 and itself has attracted some press coverage [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Victor Grigas (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Very stable genius

Very stable genius and Very Stable Genius redirect to this article, but at present there's no mention of the phrase. Do we think adding some discussion of that particular tweet, in order to ensure that a reader who searches for the phrase is provided with some useful information, would be appropriate? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

covfefe

Pinging: @TheDean: Top 3 Bombshells of the 950 Page Google Leak: "Google raced to remove the Arabic word Covfefe from virtual existence in the hours and days following Donald Trump’s infamous tweet."--93.211.223.164 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is, to say the least, not a reliable source. It's sensationalized clickbait from somebody's blog. And if it is supposed to get us to believe that Trump deliberately used an obscure Arabic word (rather than a simple misclick in the middle of the word "coverage"), and then never explained afterward that that was what he had done... well, we all have limits to our credulousness. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. This might also be helpful here. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Very stable genius" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Very stable genius. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Useful here? Factba.se

• https://factba.se

via Why President Donald Trump's Twitter typos matter on YouTube CNN Nov 3, 2019

X1\ (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"Covefe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Covefe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Covefe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump's Twitter account accessed due to very weak password

Not sure where to include this, the articles refer to them as hackers, not sure if this is correct since all they did to access it was try a leaked password from 2012

• https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/09/youre-fired-dutch-hackers-broke-into-trumps-twitter-account-in-2016/

John Cummings (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Reporting the TeamTrump twitter account was suspended...

A google news alert brought me Trump campaign says Twitter suspended its official campaign account, from the Washington Times. So, does this belong in this article? If it does, where would it go, and how should it be worded? Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Also New York Post Twitter locks Trump campaign’s account over video related to The Post’s Hunter Biden bombshell... Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

New Twitter?

Is perhaps https://twitter.com/45_POTUS_Trump a new sockpuppet account of Trumps? GavinTroyJohnTom (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, any reliable source to back that up?--JBchrch (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

gab.com

Is this his official gab.com account: https://gab.com/realDonaldTrump ? If it is then this article should link to it. Gab (social network) "is an English-language alt-tech social networking service". (In the days before mega-corporation/mainstream websites there were no "alt-tech" websites but just "websites".) --User123o987name (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump "quote"

Is the current "quoted" tweet necessary, and if so, is that the most representative tweet? I get that looking for new tweets may be a tad difficult now, but still. Juxlos (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tweet on article beginning

The tweet on the article's beginning is currently not visible. Please fix by linking to an archive of the tweet. Thanks! --93.44.108.28 (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The {{tweet}} template currently does not have this function. I've requested it be added.--Auric talk 12:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Myspace?

Trump also supposedly has a Myspace account: https://myspace.com/donald_trump_offical. Not sure it's real. --Auric talk 12:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by 145.53.114.244

What has happened to Wikipedia. When exactly did Wikipedia pages become as loaded as certain far left news articles? I am deeply saddened by this turnover. Wikipedia used to be the figurehead of the internet, the manifestation of the fantastic dream that the internet would serve to promote free speech and the spread of knowledge. Can you recover, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.114.244 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia still is. We however don't promote stuff not covered by reliable sources. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 15:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for how to improve the article's neutrality? RoxySaunders (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In answer to your question "When exactly did Wikipedia pages become as loaded as certain far left news articles", the answer is around November. It was pretty good before then. Now it is filled with information from only one side, with no coverage of opposing viewpoints at all. For this reason it has become useless for me as a resource on subjects like this one. It's become polluted like our air by factories churning out smog and smoke. Really sad. It's a shame, it was really valuable. Kenreader (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kenreader: When describing controversial subjects, Wikipedia aims to provide balanced, impartial coverage of all notable viewpoints. Understand that this does not mean "equal" balance, but a weighted balance proportional to each viewpoint's appearance in reliable sources.

If you have any ideas for how to improve this particular article, this is the page to discuss them. If you have any specific proposals on how to improve Wikipedia as a whole, try the Wikipedia:Village pump. If you want to spread the word that Wikipedia is biased partisan garbage, maybe start a blog? RoxySaunders (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tweets published on @POTUS

Hi X-Editor, thank you for your edit on the usage of @POTUS over the last day. However, you used Newsweek as a source, which is generally not reliable according to WP:RSPSRC. I was able to find a Washington Post article to back up the first sentence of your edit, but unfortunately no reliable source for the second (In these tweets, he complained about Twitter's ban and accused the social media platform, without evidence, of colluding in a conspiracy with the Democratic Party and "the Radical Left" to get him banned, while repeating the rhetoric that first got him banned from his main Twitter account). While I am not disputing that this may be true, I was wondering if you could help me find a WP:RSPSRC-compliant source to back this claim up?--JBchrch (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find an article from US News, which is considered reliable, that clarifies the situation surrounding his circumventions [22]. I would suggest changing the paragraph to this:

Trump tried to circumvent this ban by briefly making a series of tweets on the @POTUS Twitter account, but the posts were deleted within minutes of them being tweeted.[23] Trump also tried to circumvent the ban by posting a statement on the @TeamTrump campaign Twitter account in which he complained about Twitter's ban and accused the social media platform, without evidence, of colluding in a conspiracy with the Democratic Party and "the Radical Left" to get him banned, while repeating the rhetoric that first got him banned from his main Twitter account.[24] This account was also banned after the statement from Trump was posted.[25]

X-Editor (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I slightly expanded the paragraph to reference the suspension of the official campaign handle with a reference to NPR.--DarTar (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable newsweek source and replaced it with the reliable US News source. I also fixed the paragraph to say that Trump's without evidence claim was made on his campaign account and not the POTUS account. X-Editor (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Does Twitter really "request" the removal of Tweets?

I changed the wording from "request" to "demand" in the section that talks about the temporary suspension of Mr Trump's Twitter account, because the fact is, when Twitter forces a user to delete certain tweets in order to have their account reinstated, it is inaccurate to describe such a thing as a "request". It is not "pov" (point of view, or mere opinion) to describe the fact that he had to remove the tweets to get his account reinstated as coercion. It is more accurate than saying "request", which, if you look it up in the dictionary, means "asking politely". Contrast that with "order" or "demand", which involves an element of coercion. -- Mr Gillespie Canberra User (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Stock market reaction to Trump ban

This should be here. Here is one source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what I started to add, but it doesn't really say Trump being banned is the reason.

==Stock market reaction to bans==
On January 11, 2021, stocks of Alphabet Inc., Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Twitter fell significantly, David Keller of StockCharts.com credited fear of increased regulation for the selloff.
— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vchimpanzee, I found an AP release as well as an FT article, however I to think that stock prices are not really WP:NOT for an article on Donald Trump's usage of social media.--JBchrch (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that it's clear the headlines are misleading, I would agree.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Is Sockpuppeting the correct term?

Hello, UK reader here. I'm reading this sentence: "Allies of Trump who posted on his behalf, including........" and noticed that the hyperlink in "who posted on his behalf" is linked to a wikipedia article on sockpuppets. Is this correct? I thought from other media articles that the people who posted for the (former) US President after he was banned did so of their own accord and not using false accounts. It struck me as the wrong link. The external articles I read on Gary Coby said he renamed his Twitter account himself and no false accounts were created. Is that sockpuppeting? Doesn't affect me either way but just something for thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.0.201 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Verified symbol

Do we really need a verified symbol for the tweet he posted when other articles with tweets do not have the symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.10.148 (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

In the "Satire and archives" section, please delete the first paragraph, which currently reads 'In May 2017, Trump misspelled the word "coverage" as "covfefe," which quickly turned into a meme on the Internet.' This event is covered in more detail in the "Other controversial tweets" section of this article as well as the separate Covfefe article, which both correctly state that the "coverage" interpretation is merely speculative. It might be relevant to describe here how the covfefe tweet has been the subject of satire, but there is no such material here at this time. Therefore this statement is out of place and incorrect, and the best result will come from simply removing it. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

In the "Satire and archives" section, please change

In January 2019, Trump served hamburgers from McDonald's to the Clemson Tigers champion football team due to the White House's catering staff going on strike.

to

In January 2019, Trump served hamburgers from McDonald's to the Clemson Tigers champion football team due to the White House's catering staff being furloughed during a government shutdown.

The text "government shutdown" should be cross-linked to the 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown article.

This change is already supported by the existing reference, which does not say anything about a "strike."

Thanks. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I slightly reworded it to be more specific than "a government shutdown" but it was basically what you wrote. Volteer1 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks! 67.188.1.213 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

I believe that the wording of the first line of "Other social media platforms > Facebook" regarding the ad pricing is unclear. It presently reads "Trump was charged less per ad than Clinton was, Wired claimed," but since the next clause contains potentially contradicting information, I believe a more clear presentation may be "Wired claimed that Trump was charged less per ad then Clinton was," and recommend some variation of a change for clarity.

I am not familiar enough with the citation best-practices on this wiki, so am uncertain whether this is a substantive issue or whether the existing text is correctly worded.--182.158.155.102 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

45office.com

I found a brief article in a newspaper I was looking at a few minutes ago, and I added some information to this article. The web site is surely notable enough to have its own article but I'm not ready to take the time that would be required to create an article that would stay. Although the site is clearly notable. Some might object to Miller's lofty predictions but I thought it was worth mentioning. I declined to include the lack of information of Trump's ban, or his bragging about how well he handled COVID-19, but for a full article on the site those probably should be mentioned even if they make the article sound biased.

Miller said in the source used that Trump would return in several months, while the article before I changed it said the site would launch in two or three months. Obviously that was not the case and I just used the correct statement by Miller and a different source which linked to the one I removed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft is under way.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)