This
edit request to
First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request to
First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "International response" correct the spelling of "Breibart" to "Breitbart." 173.79.156.207 ( talk) 21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the end date for the first 100 days. Greglespecial ( talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
Two external resources:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/10/501597652/fact-check-donald-trumps-first-100-days-action-plan
Neurogeek ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
{{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
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)
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)
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)
This is being updated. Oceanflynn ( talk) 05:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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)
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)
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
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."
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)
Here are some videos from the press conference today:
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This phrase in the article appears very UNDUE and POV:
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Additional related articles:
{{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Via YouTube
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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)