Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

For the X, see Y

Though there is already a disambiguation at the top of this article, I propose that we add another one that directs to the Presidency of Donald Trump article. While this goes against the style normally employed on articles, I believe that due to the high number of viewers this article has this change should be made. Most people not familiar with Wikipedia may not know how to access the disambiguation link, or will be frustrated scrolling down this article to find a direct link to the Trump Presidency page. My suggestion would be

For the Presidency of Donald Trump, see Presidency of Donald Trump.

. Thoughts? SamHolt6 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we could perhaps find a way of working it into the prose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Currently the first link to the Presidency of Donald Trump article is at the start of the fourth paragraph of the lede. It has also been shortened to presidency, which may confuse some readers. Just wanted to point this out for the sake of accessibility, I will leave any changes to a more experienced editor. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the link text to "his presidency" per WP:EGG. The most predictable target of "presidency" is Presidency. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Many people expect the specifics of Trump's presidency to be on here; for article length reasons that's impossible. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2017

in the UK the second or third book of a book of the bible is pronounced two john or three john & since trump's mother is a scotland native he mustve picked this usage up from her Hawkuuu (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"He must've" is not a reliable source though, so there's not really anything to change in the article. Most sources regard this (this being the 2 Corinthians story from primary season btw) as a gaffe. ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Activepol=?

Should it be activepol=yes for this? I understand there is a lot at the top already but doesn't this still apply? Or is it just unnecessary? WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary: there are ample warnings already, many of them stronger than the activepol boilerplate. — JFG ^talk 15:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

You are invited to participate in Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity#RfC: Russian interference in Background section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Partial Cease-Fire

Trump and Putin had a special meeting at the G20 summit, where they negotiated a partial cease-fire in special zones in Syria. I don't know all the details, but it's my understanding that the zones are intended to simplify and expand relief efforts. Is there a consensus on how to address this information? (this topic is also suggested here)- Sleyece 17:44:22, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration is the page to discuss it while it is in progress. Until the news cycle is done it shouldn't be included here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that the G20 2017 has ended, will users revisit this topic? - Sleyece (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it is notable enough to make this biography. This article is meant to represent the key elements of Donald Trump's entire life, and this is a pretty small thing in the grand scheme of things. If the cease-fire endures, and it becomes something "historic" later on, then yeah. But for now, it should be in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, and maybe Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it looks like the cease fire is in a small area which wasn’t in a major fire zone anyhow. And, we have no idea if it will hold at this point. It belongs in Syrian_Civil_War_ceasefires, which only has one sentence on it now. Objective3000 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Objective3000, it seems you are correct. The cease fire is already mentioned in the appropriate article. Sleyece (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Surprise victory?

I was surprised last November but according to what sources was that a surprise victory? Based on what was that a surprise? We cannot write that it was a surprise only because some people were surprised. I would like to se at least one note. Is there any official definition of surprises when it comes to elections? Calle Widmann 14:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3] Objective3000 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

People have such short memory. Trump himself did not believe he could win [4], [5] So It's fair to say even Trump was surprised by the victory. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Literally thousands of sources worldwide have noted this election as a giant unexpected political upset. Even on election evening, by all media estimates, Clinton was considered the 92% likely winner up to minutes before Trump victory was declared, then hell froze over… you could see it the incredulous-to-flabbergasted looks on every pundit's face. — JFG ^talk 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Thank you! Calle Widmann (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)