Talk:First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency/Archive 1

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016[edit]

The "Adolf Hitler's rise to power" and "Night of the Long Knives" links featured in the "See Also" section make unwarranted insinuations by any objective standard. 98.253.58.124 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by another - This vandalism was actually reverted at 07:49 - whilst you were making this request - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The Democrats squawking about "Trump is Hitler!" are as retardedly annoying (if not more so) as the Republicans who kept likening Obama to the "Antichrist" for the past 8 years (silly Republicans, the Antichrist is only supposed to reign for 7!) CitationKneaded (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Link to Donald Trump[edit]

Since this article is about the President of the United States Donald Trump himself, I was surprised to not find a link to his article on this page. If this is an oversight, I hope it will be corrected quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.44.8 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is one in "This article is part of a series about Donald Trump", but it´s not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked the first non-bolded one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is being considered for deletion"[edit]

Resolved

Why? I don't see First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency "being considered for deletion". This smells like blatant bias. I, for one, have found myself looking at this article in particular recently as a "central hub" from which to seek out news stories concerning the policies of the newly-elected President Trump.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a better place to discuss the proposed deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_100_days_of_Donald_Trump's_presidency Dupdidu (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this section as resolved since the AfD discussion has closed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017[edit]

Include a better reference to Trump's 100 day promise in the "Pledges" section. Either (a) use a link that contains the full content of the letter (such as: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trumps-first-100-day-agenda-may-be-stymied-by-his-own-party.html), (b) include the actual contents of the letter, or (c) find a better source. Most of the references are opininion pieces; the original source is a better reference. Jakensine (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Oceanflynn (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 Januaey 2017[edit]

Can someone please add a section concerning the President's lobbying ban? It was a big campaign pledge that he fulfilled, and I feel has been forgotten/overshadowed by the "Muslim ban." 169.231.51.207 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017[edit]

In the section "International response" correct the spelling of "Breibart" to "Breitbart." 173.79.156.207 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This has been addressed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump the Time-Traveler?[edit]

So in a couple places under the "Changes to Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" section, I'm seeing the words "February 4" - surely this cannot be, as that is (of the time of this writing) tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :)

Last sentence of first paragraph[edit]

The last sentence of the first paragraph ("The concept of measuring the success of a Presidential administration by its accomplishments at the height of its political power—during the first 100 days—was a 'journalistic invention'.") should either be removed or better explained. It doesn't really fit with the rest of the paragraph or the article.128.239.213.128 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Oceanflynn (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017[edit]

Add the end date for the first 100 days. Greglespecial (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanflynn (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor posted this bare URL to the article, so moving here: http://www.breitbart.com/news/donald-trumps-plan-for-his-first-100-days/ ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two external resources:

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/10/501597652/fact-check-donald-trumps-first-100-days-action-plan

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1

Neurogeek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Course?[edit]

This [1] article from CNN, released on 21 November, states that during his first 100 days, Trump will withdraw from negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, cancel environmental restrictions put in place by President Barack Obama, ask his national security team to buttress against infrastructure attacks, have the Labor Department investigate federal worker visas and impose broad new bans on lobbying by government employees. There is no mention of any wall along the border with Mexico, repealing the Affordable Care Act in its entirety or partially, or the banning of Muslims from entering the United States. Maybe the list and article should be updated in light of this new information? Ckasanova (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign visits[edit]

Thoughts on adding meetings with world leaders as a new section.

Trump is due to meet with Prime Minister May during the first 100 days: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/theresa-may-visit-donald-trump-spring-says-no-10/ --Hosgeorges! 19:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

First Day[edit]

Do pledges on topics Trump said he would address on first day (e.g. annullment of Iran Deal) belong as well? | MK17b | (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proactively avoiding edit deletions[edit]

Thanks to fellow volunteer Wikipedia editors for your contributions. As a volunteer editor, I try to avoid having content deleted and I rarely delete the contributions of other editors. It takes time from the real world, to read references thoroughly and to produce inline edits with inline citations and summaries. In order to avoid deletions on a page where edits might become contentious, I intend to follow Wikipedia guidelines as closely as possible in each of my edits: WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view), WP:NOR (No original research), WP:V (Verifiability), UNDUE (Undue weight) (Words to watch) [WP:PEA]] No puffery or peacock words like great, renowned, brilliant, amazing), WP:LABEL (contentious labels (like racist, etc.)

Since this topic is important to most Americans, even though I am not American, I will try to include news sources that were used by all Americans voters according to Pew Research done on January 26, 2016.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience", Pew Research, January 26, 2016, retrieved January 23, 2017
  2. ^ "Q/A: How Pew Research analyzed America's polarized media consumption habits", Pew Research, October 21, 2014, retrieved January 23, 2017 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  3. ^ "Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their Main Source for Election News. Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters" Pew Research", Journalism, January 18, 2017, retrieved January 23, 2017 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

I am hoping we can use Consensus wisely when issues are hotly debated.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration[edit]

This section is very twitter-heavy right now (of course, one could argue, so is The Donald). Perhaps we could change it to something more like a brief recap of the lead to the Inauguration-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Controversies du jour[edit]

I think topics like inauguration crowd size, specious claims of millions of fraudulent votes etc. should be included in a section on this page. | MK17b | (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White House Briefing Room[edit]

This is being updated. Oceanflynn (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles[edit]

Editors working on these categories, articles are also finding strong reference material related to this article.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC) categories:[reply]

Should we title policy decisions by date?[edit]

The list of policies is currently in chronological order, would it be better to group each policy by the day the were established instead of starting each policy with "On January 23...", "On January 24...", etc... Ambo100 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting fraud and investigation[edit]

Are we limiting the policy section to exectuive orders? If not, we should include something about his statements on voter fraud. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and overlap[edit]

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 13:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Women's March[edit]

Currently, the article mentions the 2017 Women's March. Should Trump's (and his administration's) reactions be discussed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would fit better in the 2017 Women's March article.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economist quote[edit]

I don't understand why singling out a quote about an EO from one source is relevant in this article. The various reactions, commentary about the order have been detailed in the EO main article and its sub-articles. So, I'm going to revert this one again - unless there is a better explanation of why this is relevant in this article. CatapultTalks (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this article CatapultTalks (talk). I agree with Volunteer Marek (talk) that this succinct, well-phrased sentence that encapsulates the response to the EO by the [ most highly trusted reliable source, is indeed relevant. The scope of First 100, unlike the Timeline, leaves room for details (such as analyses and response from the media), as was discussed in the recent AfD. Through time, as was mentioned in the AfD, content will be edited out. If we don't have room for a response from the The Economist, who do we cite?Oceanflynn (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist described the order as "drafted in secret, enacted in haste and unlikely to fulfil its declared aim of sparing America from terrorism" with "Republican allies" lamenting that a "fine, popular policy was marred by its execution."[1]

References

  1. ^ America’s president: An insurgent in the White House: As Donald Trump rages against the world he inherited as president, America’s allies are worried—and rightly so, The Economist, February 4, 2017, retrieved February 4, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Unreliable sources[edit]

In response to the Identifying reliable sources template placed by Volunteer Marek (talk) on February 4:

Volunteer Marek deleted all the Breitbart references and related content today, which is fine.

I would like to see this template removed and would appreciate your feedback on the remaining citations. I think they all pass the reliable resources test. What do you think fellow editors? JFG talk, Bangabandhu (talk), CitationKneaded (talk, Another Believer Talk

Thanks.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek (talk) You are the only editor who has expressed concern about the need for reliable sources in this article. This article has a [reliable citation for practically every sentence and in some cases, the excess number of citations has been noted. As there have been no comments on this talk page since I posted the call to remove the maintenance template, on an article with multiple contributors, and no one else has voiced their concerns about the reliability of sources on this page, I will remove this template several hours from now. The use of sources in this article compares well with other articles in this series. Thanks for your ongoing hard work User:Volunteer Marek.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pew Research list of trust levels of news sources[edit]

I found this article and list helpful in terms of Wikipedia protocols reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

More trusted than not trusted: The Economist, BBC, NPR, PBS, The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, USA Today, Google News, The Blaze, New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, The Guardian, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Politico, Yahoo News, Fox News,

Equally trusted and not trusted: Mother Jones, Slate, Breitbart, Huffington Post, Colbert Report, Think Progress, Daily Show, Drudge Report,

More distrusted than trusted: Daily Kos, Sean Hannity Show, Al Jazeera America (2013-6), The Ed Schultz Show (-2014), The Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, BuzzFeed

I feel it important to point out that just because a survey ranked them as trusted (primarily by people that share the source's bias) that does not mean the source is unbiased, or actually trustworthy from an objective standpoint. This was, basically, a survey of the audience's subjective feelings towards the sources, not a compilation of how reliable those sources were on delivering objective facts. One need only to Google compilations of the myriad times the mainstream "trusted" sources have flat-out lied to their viewers.CitationKneaded (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources template[edit]

In response to the Primary sources template placed by Volunteer Marek (talk) on February 4:

I have cited White House documents and Wikisource entries in relation to Executive Orders, Memorandum and Press briefings. While these are primary sources, they have been "reputably published," and therefore, "may be used in Wikipedia." "Deciding whether primary...sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3] Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

— No original research

I would like to see this template removed and would appreciate your feedback on the use of these primary sources. There are other secondary and tertiary resources available, so they can be replaced if there is consensus that they are not appropriate in this instance. Thanks, JFG talk, Bangabandhu (talk), CitationKneaded (talk, Another Believer (Talk)

I look forward to your comments.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek (talk) You were the only editor concerned about primary sources being used in this article and in the Timeline. As there have been no comments on this talk page since I posted the call to remove the maintenance template, on an article with multiple contributors, and no one else has voiced their concerns about primary sources on this page, I will remove this template several hours from now. I have noticed the use of primary sources - particularly those published by the White House (and republished with CC on Wikisource), in a number of articles related to the First 100 days (including Timeline) where you noted your concern but did not place a maintenance template. Primary sources to provide exact titles of EO and Memoranda, dates, etc. These primary sources are not diaries, etc that require original research analysis.
If you have remaining concerns about specific content and citations, could you post it here on the talk page first so we can address each item individually as an editing team (82 editors to date), while maintaining the integrity of the article. Thanks for your ongoing volunteer work. Happy editing.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow editors, I will start by removing this template. Please list the edits that still have sources that some editors consider to be either missing or unreliable. Happy editing.Oceanflynn (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Videos[edit]

Here are some videos from the press conference today:

  • Trump Calls Russia 'Fake News'.
  • Trump Talks About Information Leaks
  • Trump Says He 'Inherited a Mess'.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infomation Box[edit]

I find it odd that a page a visible as this has no standard information box, does someone wish to post a draft here? Joshua Marooney (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Spending Freeze?"[edit]

I just changed a section that was titled "Spending freeze and media blackout at several government agencies" to "Hiring freeze and media blackout at several government agencies" because I thought whoever wrote that section made a mistake, but then realized that there was already another section about the hiring freeze.

There was nothing in the "Spending freeze and media blackout at several government agencies" section that dealt with the "Spending Freeze" at all, no sources were provided, and I had not heard of any such "Spending Freeze". Should this segment be changed to just "Media blackout"?Floates (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Last night in Sweden"[edit]

I have merged this story to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020, which is linked for further info in the Re-election campaign section. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article bias[edit]

This phrase in the article appears very UNDUE and POV:

"...and drew significant kudos from the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and other White Supremacist organizations."

This phrase gives the false impression that these fringe groups formed the most prominent positive reaction to Bannon's appointment, when in fact, Bannon is popular with many mainstream conservatives. It drastically overemphasizes these groups and is thus POV. It makes it sound that Bannon is a blatant white supremacist and that he only receives support from those groups. It should be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It makes it sound that Bannon is a blatant white supremacist and that he only receives support from those groups" This is in fact the case. Bannon IS a blatant white supremacist and he DOES only receive support from these groups. If you disagree, you may be a white supremacist yourself. Trump himself is signficantly to the right of Adolf Hitler. Heil Trump!63.143.196.183 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was the main thrust of the story, according to most newspapers and other reliable sources. Do you have any sources backing your view? Bannon's appointment was actually heavily criticized by most sane republicans as well, given that Bannon once described himself as the "Leni Reifenstahl of the Tea Party." We should probably add that Republicans and democrats heavily criticized he appointment as seemingly designed to appease White Supremacists and Neo-nazis. Sometimes "fringe" reactions are the story, when you have a "fringe" candidate to begin with. 209.140.44.164 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with 1990'sguy. The IP who keeps adding this in obviously has an agenda. 169.231.44.116 (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concerns by adding a large number of sources in which members of both parties point that Bannon is best known for his connections to anti-semitism. Again, do any of you have any sources for your views? This isn't about our opinions or who agrees with whom. This is about what the reliable sources say. Show me the sources, and I'll be happy to make changes. 209.140.44.164 (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are unbiased sources. 169.231.44.116 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are not unbiased sources, but the newspapers which quote from them certainly are, and it is most certainly notable that members of congress have labelled a white house appointee an anti-semite. Please don't be obtuse. 209.140.44.164 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're politicians from the opposing party. That's about as reliable as citing a Republican who says Obama is a Muslim. 169.231.44.116 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't understand what a source is, do you? I am truly astonished. Reliability refers to the newspapers reporting on the Democratic and Republican reaction. Reliability doesn't refer to the people who the journalists talked to. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? I am not "citing" Pelosi or Reid; I am citing the newspapers who said "Democrats and Republicans criticized the announcement, calling Bannon an anti-semite, white nationalist, neo-nazi, etc." Each day the pool of editors grows dumber and dumber. Did I explain that slowly enough to fit into your tiny little mind?209.140.44.164 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? That literally makes no sense. That's just a lot of spin with no logic. Clearly you're in the minority here, with at least two other editors agreeing with me. 169.231.154.9 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it "literally" makes no sense, does it? As opposed to it "figuratively" making no sense? Please read WP: COMPETENCE. If the concept of a Reliable Source is too difficult for you to understand, perhaps another hobby is for you. Maybe your humble capacities would be better suited for something less intellectually challenging, like counting blades of grass?63.143.196.183 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS 169 House members have called on Trump to rescind the appointment of the Neo-Nazi Stephen Bannon. For you to say this isn't notable just shows how ignorant you are. Don't use the word "logic" when you are evidently incapable of using it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/11/16/more-than-house-members-urge-trump-rescind-bannon-appointment/57MFSBYKGNI0RcP0nVwIWL/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.196.183 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil and avoid personal attacks, as you did against me and another IP. This discussion has said enough about your objectivity and whether your information should be added here. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's it like being a fascist?63.143.201.155 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Bannon is a raging anti-semite according to "sources"? How come almost all of the people he hired for breitbart are jews? How are people who don't understand partisan sources allowed to edit these things? Incredible. This is partisan editing at its finest. Bannon is controversial, according to most pro-Hillary sources yes, and to several classic conservatives who supported Jeb or what have you. This is called partisanship. They want him to be associated with neo-nazism because it makes him look worse than a fringe provocateur. You should of course cite both sides and remain neutral. Or just leave this website. Actually the person above (not you 1990guy, the other one), just leave this website please. 85.194.2.41 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False 'false terrorism claim' claim[edit]

The 2020 campaign/#LastNightInSweden section erroneously claims Trump claimed that there was a terrorist attack 'last night in Sweden'. Trump never said any such thing. He said 'look what happened last night in Sweden'. The claims of an allegedly claimed terrorist attack were made by partisan sources jumping to conclusion and outspoken anti-Trump politician Carl Bildt from Sweden. Bildt writing a tweet which also implied the president had smoked some type of hallucinogen. Any bipartisan source will conclude Trump was probably referencing a spike in violent crimes, which he had been informed about by Fox News (yes. The president is briefed by Fox News...). And which he erroneously had concluded had caused the gunfight referenced in the piece the previous night (the real incident occurred several months prior I believe. The piece itself was delayed for months as evident by the reference to 'last year' being 2015).

Further, the incident was removed as a separate topic on march 1st, just after a story went viral about widespread riots in Sweden which included police firing live bullets over a crowd. This story had brought some justification to the Trump incident, and occurred on February 20th-21st. Though I agree with the merger, it is suspiciously timed. And together with the above false false terrorism claim claim, might hint at an editorial bias.

None the less, I think Trump has caused so many of these incidents that they warrant their own 'controversies' topic on the main page.85.194.2.41 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The campaign rally was the earliest such event by any incumbent U.S. President in history"[edit]

This is downright stupid. There's no a factual claim that Donald Trump actually held an election campaign rally just weeks into his presidency—it's a partisan blog post saying that a recent Trump rally is "the latest sign that he’s already planning for a second term".

We shouldn't misrepresent sources, much less put the source misrepresentation into Wikipedia's editorial voice. Please post your approval for promptly removing this sentence. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So between this and the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020 article, there are basically two sources on this claim. One is an online-only article posted on Fortune.com, the other a partisan blog post on Atlantic.com.
The Fortune article does say that the Florida rally was paid for by Trump's re-election campaign, but other than that, all these two articles really do is attempt to differentiate Trump's style of "permanent campaign" from that of his predecessors. The sources don't really bear out the dry factual claims. And neither of the sources actually says that the campaign rally was the earliest such event by any incumbent U.S. President in history. Rather, that is a highly debatable paraphrase of the article's description of how Trump's "permanent campaign" is different. And even if both articles explicitly made the historical claim, it would still be unacceptable flimsy sourcing for such a claim. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump "falsely claimed that the previous day Sweden had suffered a terrorist attack"[edit]

Is there anyone that does not find this claim dubious? Have editors here been reading reliable sources that are relevant to this article subject? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than dubious, it is flatly not true, as anyone who has listened to the speech or read the transcript and has a basic understanding of English will know. I'd simply remove it but we do have the complication that the claim is supported by a reliable source which makes the same mistake that quite a number of people have made how should we proceed? While we do place a lot of weight on reliable sources, when they are obviously wrong we shouldn't mindlessly parrot incorrect sources. Is there any reason we shouldn't simply remove this claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat new ground for me. I don't think it is common in an RS for something that is arguably a factual misstatement to go without subsequent correction or at least clarification. I can't think of any specific incidents but I think that in the past, I've usually attempted to resolve a situation like this by simply looking for a source that is higher on the "reputation for accuracy" totem pole—I think The New York Times is a bit of a silver bullet on this front.
Yet at the same time I'm not sure I see support for that in the policy pages. The introductory remarks in WP:WEIGHT seem to command us to simply treat this as a conflict between reliable sources:
  • "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
  • "Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize."
The remarks go on to say we should "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" but I think that language contemplates a situation where there are two genuinely competing views in some field of inquiry or discussion. Does it also tell us we should tally up Google News hits and try to determine how prominently the arguably false statement has been published without retraction? Meanwhile there are some potentially helpful comments under WP:IRS#News organizations but I'm not seeing any obvious conclusions to be drawn. Headaches abound. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just cite the actual video footage which has a clear absence of claims of terrorist attacks. Should rank higher than any secondary source. You don't have to cite a generally credible source making unfounded claims if there's a more credible source (white house/actual footage) disproving it, right? Otherwise you'd go into argumentative essay format all the time.85.194.2.41 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for improving this section? The story was covered extensively.
During the event Trump defended his actions as President and criticized the media.[1] He also claimed that the migrant crisis had made countries like France, Germany, and Belgium unsafe. He added Sweden to the list and referred to an event that had happened "last night in Sweden".[2] According to The New York Times, while Trump "did not directly state, that a terrorist attack had taken place in Sweden", "the context of his remarks... suggested that he thought it might have."[3][4] Some speculated[3] that Trump might have been referring to Tucker Carlson's February 17 interview on Fox News' with Ami Horowitz.[5] Aftonbladet published a satirical blog post detailing mundane events occurring on February 17 in Sweden.[4] Carl Bildt, Sweden's former Prime Minister, tweeted "Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound"[6] The Swedish Embassy in Washington, DC requested clarification from the U.S. State Department.[3][7] On February 19, Trump explained on Twitter that his statement was based on a February 17 televised Fox News show about immigration in Sweden.[7]

Additional related articles:

References

  1. ^ Graham, David A. "Trump Kicks Off His 2020 Reelection Campaign on Saturday". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
  2. ^ Sewell Chan (February 19, 2017), ‘Last Night in Sweden’? Trump’s Remark Baffles a Nation, The New York Times, retrieved February 19, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Topping, Alexandra. "'Sweden, who would believe this?': Trump cites non-existent terror attack". The Guardian. Retrieved February 19, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  4. ^ a b Ekman, Jonas. "In English: This happened in Sweden Friday night, Mr President". Aftonbladet. Retrieved February 19, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  5. ^ Tucker Carlson Interviews Ami Horowitz, Director of Sweden and Refugee Documentary, Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox News, February 17, 2017 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Via YouTube
  6. ^ nine.com.au staff (February 20, 2017), Donald Trump clarifies his Sweden remark, nine.com.au, retrieved February 20, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ a b Jennifer Calfas (February 19, 2017), Sweden offers to teach Trump about its immigration policies, The Hill, retrieved February 23, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Keeping his word[edit]

Even Trump's detractors admit that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do with the executive orders he's been signing.[1] I think this is worthy of mention somewhere in this article, if only for the reason that an elected official sticking to their mandate is so rare. Any thoughts on where in the article we should put this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 03:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/donald-trump-this-is-happening/
Thanks User:CitationKneaded. Does this work for you... "On November 10, 2016, In Gettysburg, Trump had promised in his first 100 days, to end "The Offshoring Act"..."? Adding it item by item under the related sections as soon as an actionable EO, Memorandum etc has been published? The actionables on some promises may be open-ended, as an EO in itself may not be enough to fulfill a pledge. Others like the Supreme Court appointment are already mentioned in the section as having kept the promise.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought this was noteworthy, b/c, well, it is rather unusual to see a newly-elected office-holder (and in such a high position) make such an immediate effort to keep so many of their campaign promises. CitationKneaded (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you User:CitationKneaded that the measurable ways he has kept his pledges, should be included. Some of the content I added in response to your earlier request was removed. Perhaps it could be reworded with a source whose reliability is not questioned. (I really like your username. It is the page summary notation I use most often—Wikipedia readers knead access to the strongest sources we can find.)Oceanflynn (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CitationKneaded and Oceanflynn: I support a brief mention of this notable fact in the lead section, and some more details in a dedicated section which could be called "Fulfillment of campaign promises". However, I am generally not working on this particular article; you can find an uncluttered list of Trump actions at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump to pick examples from. — JFG talk 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_100_days_of_Donald_Trump%27s_presidency/Archive_1&oldid=895282944"