Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Donald Trump

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 3 August 2017 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Talk:Donald Trump) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 60←Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 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)

New sub-pages list in Talk Page head?

Is there interest in having a list of the most likely sub-pages for people to add content to at the top of this page? Specifically:

Power~enwiki (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful idea; why not try it for a while and see if it reduces the amount of comments along the lines of "Trump said this today, that's totally unprecedented and will undoubtedly be considered significant in 100 years; we must include it HERE and RIGHT NOW!". I would not list the Comey dismissal page, but rather the Russian interference article, and perhaps the immigration policy page too. Timeline pages may also be useful (currently Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3). — JFG talk 09:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: Thanks for your first draft; I have amended the wording a little and also posted it in the edit notice so that all contributors get the message. Let's see how this develops… — JFG talk 12:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Really a good idea. Finally we can expect that those articles will have some more updated content. Lorstaking (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Great idea. I only hope it works -- can dream that some of the stuff now at this BLP will move over time. Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I would point out that just because there is another "space for it" does not mean it doesn't belong in his bio. In fact, if we are to start taking the axe out on content already in the article, its really his entertainment and business career that needs trimming. Other stuff is far more historically important and that can be shortened.Casprings (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, some events related to Trump's presidency may be significant enough for his overall biography, but it's generally too early to pick which ones. Documenting recent events in the relevant policy, timeline and presidency pages first is the correct approach. Then, some elements from there may be summarized here. To your other point, many sections of the bio have been shortened already; feel free to suggest what else should be trimmed. — JFG talk 05:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump Campaign—Russian meeting

This new page is important but needs development. It is here: Trump Campaign—Russian meeting Casprings (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"earned an economics degree from the Wharton School"

The article currently states that Trump "earned an economics degree from the Wharton School". Since the Wharton School is best known for its MBA program, I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to say that he "graduated from the Wharton School with a B.S. in economics" or that he "earned a B.S. in economics from the Wharton School". I bring it up because apparently there has been confusion about this in the past. See for instance the following sources:

I'm not out to right great wrongs, but it seems like we can head off this misconception without going too much out of our way. ~Awilley (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This statement in the lead is clarified in the infobox and body, but it shouldn't need clarification. I support your second example with the addition of the word "degree", as B.S. alone is a little too informal for my taste. "earned a B.S. degree in economics from the Wharton School". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. That's what Wharton calls it. [6] Objective3000 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel the bad jokes coming is we say Trump got a B.S. degree. — JFG talk 18:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If he had a degree in B.S., it would be a doctorate. So no ambiguity there. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The link Objective3000 gave calls it a "Bachelor of Science in Economics". Would that work for you @Mandruss:? (Changing it from "earned an economics degree from the Wharton School" to "graduated from the Wharton School with a Bachelor of Science in economics") ~Awilley (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Awilley: I'm not married to Wharton's choice of wording, we're allowed to paraphrase. The meaning is the same. My only objection was to being overly casual. Aside from that, I'm not strongly opposed to anything that eliminates the ambiguity. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Would it be more accurate to say he received a degree from the University of Pennsylvania? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Addressed by consensus 18. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, "earned" a degree is a bit of a stretch. It's like saying "earned a draft deferrnment..." SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Nah. Wharton isn't known for being a diploma mill, they do make you work for it. Credit where credit is due, like criticism and blame. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Presumptive nominee

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#RfC: Presumptive nominee Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#RfC: Presumptive nominee:

Was this posted in error? The RfC on that page was closed by the OP last week. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oops, the RfC discussion is at Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#RfC: Presumptive nominee. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Psychological make-up

Consensus against inclusion of any psychological evaluation. — JFG talk 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Just as there is a section on Trump's overall physical health, it would be an addition to the article to have something on his psychological make-up - as well-sourced and verifiable as possible, of course. I don't believe it is a contentious statement to assert that he has a mindset and self-presentation not usually seen in politicians. The Mind of Donald Trump, written by an academic psychologist before the election, would seem one place to start. I might be bold enough to insert a sentence, but I am not going to risk creating a new section. Any thoughts? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty fraught for an encyclopedia article, and a timesump. Time will tell. In 4 years, there should be some consensus backed by factual evidence as to his mindset. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
If it’s an armchair analysis, it runs afoul of the Goldwater_rule. If he had sessions with Trump, it’s still iffy in a political BLP. After Trump is out of office and historians and psychologists have had time to digest his presidency; it would be appropriate. And, as SPECIFICO says, it’d be a timesump. Objective3000 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of the Goldwater rule; thank you for that. A crucial distinction, though, is that it refers to psychiatrists and the diagnosis of mental illness, while I am referring to psychologists' assessment of someone's overall temperament and personality. I'd see that as equivalent to describing someone as "tall, slightly overweight, with a limp in his left leg": observable facts (6'2"), or normal-speech fair interpretations (tall). From the article:
In creating this portrait, I will draw from well-validated concepts in the fields of personality, developmental, and social psychology. Ever since Sigmund Freud analyzed the life and art of Leonardo da Vinci, in 1910, scholars have applied psychological lenses to the lives of famous people. Many early efforts relied upon untested, nonscientific ideas. In recent years, however, psychologists have increasingly used the tools and concepts of psychological science to shed light on notable lives, as I did in a 2011 book on George W. Bush.
Trump has been in the public eye for decades, and his pronouncements and actions are there for anyone to draw conclusions from - including academic experts in various fields. As for my proposal being a timesump - true, but isn't that the case for any of our articles about the man? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SPECIFICO and Objective3000. Far more coverage by secondary sources would be needed to even have a WP:WEIGHT discussion about this for a sitting president. It would probably fail even then, simply due to the fact that it would be so heavy on educated speculation. I don't care how much some psychologists think they know, Goldwater still applies. I have seen this kind of discussion in a half-dozen BLPs, and I've yet to see content like this get into one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, but Goldwater really was nuts! SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it only means that most psychiatrists licensed under the APA may face a charge of an ethics violation if they provided such an opinion; it doesn't mean that some might not still do so (or that we would be required to view it as non-reliable if they did), nor does it mean that another expert (psychiatrist, another medical or behavioural expert, or psychologist) who is not bound by APA conduct standards (because of the nature of their accreditation or because they practice outside the U.S.) might not say something similar. That said, I tend to agree with your broader point that it is far too soon to be considering the feasibility of such a section, from the probable weight of the number of sources available at this point and their likely speculative/superficial coverage of the topic. Snow let's rap 04:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Point taken, we should stop trying to use the Goldwater rule to bolster opposition to this kind of content. I don't think we need it, much. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
True. Although if we’re ever tempted to include armchair psychological analyses of living politicians; I think it’s wise to keep in mind the strong opinion of the APA. Objective3000 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Just wtf. All leaders are egomaniac narcissists, many are borderline paranoid, some are totally mad. None of them is characterized this way in Wikipedia. Care to write an essay on the mental health of Pol Pot, anyone? — JFG talk 20:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Is this worthy of the list? Consensus seems pretty clear, even with relatively low participation, and chances are fair it will come up again. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm pretty sure it came up before. Go add an item if you feel like it. — JFG talk 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Done.[7] To all: If you can locate previous discussions that clearly support this consensus, please add those links to the item. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 18 July 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.

Immigration orders

The article contains duplicated information about the immigration orders in two places. One is under "First 100 days" in a subsection titled "Immigration orders". The other is under "Domestic policy" in a subsection titled "immigration," which also includes a couple of paragraphs on what he said about immigration during the campaign. Both sections are well developed and well referenced, but I don't think we need this in two places - especially in such a crowded biographical article. Any thoughts what we should do about this, and where such information should go? Personally I would leave the orders under "first 100 days" with a brief mention under "Domestic policy-immigration," but I can see arguments for doing it the other way - or keeping it in both places. Comments? (And please, don't anybody go WP:BOLD and start deleting stuff until we reach a consensus here.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Trump during election cycle

You are invited to comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Anachronistic Trump portrait. — JFG talk 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to comment at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Too many articles about Russia. — JFG talk 05:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of Leila Lopes

The article on Donald Trump has a sub-section titled "Miss Universe," which describes Trump's ownership of the Miss Universe pageants. A photograph of Leila Lopes as Miss Universe 2011 appears as part of the description. A solo photograph of Lopes is inappropriate in the article, because Lopes alone has nothing to do with Donald Trump. A photo of Trump AND a Miss Universe winner would be much more appropriate. A solo photo of Hillary Clinton would be inappropriate in Trump's article, and the same thing applies to the Miss Universe Pageant.

I previously deleted this photograph, but my edit was reverted. What the hell does Leila Lopes have to do with Donald Trump? The answer: NOTHING. A photograph is supposed to relate to the article in which it appears.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What reason did the reverting editor give for reverting? It's always helpful to come with diffs.- MrX 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I removed it once and was reverted. I think it adds little informational value about the article's subject and is largely decorative. Time to settle it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed it. It adds nothing to a reader's understanding of President Trump. Images are not article decorations.- MrX 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
By this logic, we could remove 90% of pictures. Of course pictures are decorative! Trump's involvement with the Miss Universe franchise is a significant part of his biography, so it's DUE in this… biography article. Now, you raise a legitimate question: "How to best illustrate Miss Universe as it relates with Trump?" We have basically four choices:
  1. A group picture of Miss Universe contestants in the time period when Trump owned the pageant
  2. A solo picture of a Miss Universe winner in the time period when Trump owned the pageant
  3. A picture of a Miss Universe winner together wth Trump
  4. The Miss Universe logo
Option #4 is a non-starter: it would look like advertising and there may be copyright fair use issues. The current image is an instance of option #2; there was another one previously, File:Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza en Nicaragua 11.jpg which I had chosen because her "Miss Universe" sash was clearly visible; somebody else then picked Lopes. Anthony22 suggests option #3. However we don't need a picture of the Taj Mahal with Trump's face on it, a picture of Mar-a-Lago with Trump inviting guests in, or a picture of Trump advertising Trump Steaks. so I don't see why the Miss Universe illustration should include Trump's face. We are not writing the hagiography of Mao Ze Dong: despite speculation that Trump suffers a cult of personality, his portrait is not mandated to be everywhere. In a nutshell, I suggest to keep option #2, the portrait of a Miss Universe winner. Could be Lopes or Mendoza or yet another, that's a subjective æsthetical choice. — JFG talk 05:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You missed the most obvious option, which is don't have an image. Support no image at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course pictures are decorative! Per MOS:PERTINENCE, images should not be primarily decorative, and this one is. Anybody can imagine what a Miss Universe looks like; you just picture a beautiful young woman with impeccable, glamorous hair and makeup, dressed to the nines and wearing a sash. So the image adds nothing informative to the reader, aside from showing what that particular Miss Universe looked like during the pageant. If the same reasoning applies to other images in the article, feel free to propose removal of some of them, separately—or boldly remove them and see what happens. (I feel that, these days, an article regrettably needs a minimum number of images to draw the reader to the text. I'm willing to accept some number of primarily-decorative images if that's necessary to meet that minimum number. per WP:IAR. But we're well above the minimum in this article and could afford to lose a few.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Consider that without this image, we have zero illustration of the level-3 section called "Side ventures" which are a notable enough part of Trump's bio as to deserve a sentence in the lede. I would argue that Trump's involvement with Miss Universe is the most notable of his side ventures, and therefore illustrating said side ventures with a picture of a Miss Universe sash is perfectly relevant. About the "do not decorate excessively" aspect, I would note that we are now faced with about three screenfuls of straight prose in the middle of the article: adding a picture here is not excessive. — JFG talk 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to remove a nondescript building entrance at 40 Wall Street: we have enough buildings in this article already, that's a case of "excessive decoration". Perhaps I can trade this for the restoration of Miss Universe? — JFG talk 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a good trade on all kinds of levels. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A few days with no replies. @Anthony22, MrX, Mandruss, Scjessey, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and MelanieN: Any further input on this? I plead to restore this picture or another Miss Universe. — JFG talk 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Since my argument is not primarily about number of images, the trade proposal seems to miss the point. The fact remains that the image is primarily decorative. My objection stands, but it's not what I would call a strong one; I'm not going to RfC with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Restoring it makes sense to me. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it adds anything to the article, but I don't care enough to raise a full-throated objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I still oppose the photo. It has very little to do with Trump and conveys no encyclopedic information to readers. Its value is purely decorative, contrary to MOS:PERTINENCE. As far as I can tell, there is no consensus for including it. I have no objection to removing the building entrance photo.- MrX 13:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel a group photo would be better than just a single winner. Altogether I don't really feel the necessity of a photo there. In terms of his "side projects", some sort of image representing the Foundation or University would be better as they are things he founded, but then again it also is fine without any art. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

2001:8003:6F4C:200:744B:EBDA:A462:1088 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
donald trump loves CHINA

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.WikiVirusC(talk) 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Under “Protests,” the article states:

“Some argued that Clinton's popular vote victory meant Trump was not the democratically elected president and should be considered illegitimate.”

Although it is certainly true, what of it? It is also true that some claimed President Obama’s presidency was illegitimate due to his alleged foreign birth. Neither accusation deserves to be legitimized in the biographical articles per se as both are equally untrue regarding legitimacy. President Trump could not have lost an election that never took place. There is no election in the United States for president in which the victor is determined by who carries the most votes nationwide any more than there is one in which the winner is decided by which candidate the electorate finds to be the most photogenic. Considering this fact, here is, I think, the most important point. If there were a presidential election decided by the most votes nationwide, then the campaigns would have been entirely different with the two major candidates spending more time and resources in states which they had little to no realistic chance of winning under the current electoral system. Thus, the assumption that had there been a nationwide popular vote contest that the result would have been the same regarding the popular vote is totally unwarranted as are accusations that “millions of illegal voters” cast ballots in the absence of proof.

I respectfully request a support/oppose vote as to my motion to strike the aforementioned passage as biased due to the charge having no basis in reality and therefore not worthy of mentioning in the article.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are four WP articles discussing the claims that Obama was not a legitimate President. Five if you count the article on Corsi's book. But, I’m ambivalent about this mention in the bio. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but in President Obama’s main biographical article? If so, then I don’t think there should be in his case either.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with you, HistoryBuff - even though the source supports it. (The reference cited says, "Some are questioning the legitimacy of Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton by noting that although he took the Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote.") For one thing, "some" is a weasel word. For another thing, "illegitimacy" has never been a strong theme of the protesters, and there has been no serious movement to overturn the election. So I would say, delete it. Its contribution to this biography article is more negative than positive. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be particularly useful in the bio. Probably not elsewhere either. Objective3000 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Add history with Saturday Night Live to Section 3.3 “Acting and public image”.

Saturday Night Live

Donald Trump’s tenure as a public figure has been parodied and documented on the NBC television show Saturday Night Live (SNL). Trump’s history with the NBC television show Saturday Night Live dates back to 1988[1]. He has hosted the show twice, made a cameo appearance, and been portrayed in skits by several actors on the show.

Hosting

Donald Trump has hosted Saturday Night Live on two occasions[2]. On April 3, 2004 Trump hosted SNL Season 29 Episode 16 with musical guest Toots and The Maytals. On November 7, 2015 Trump hosted SNL Season 41 Episode 4 with musical guest Sia. Trump is one of 17 presidential candidates who have appeared on Saturday Night Live, and the only American President to have hosted the show[3].

Portrayals

Trump has been played as a character in Saturday Night Live skits by actors Phil Hartman, Darrell Hammond and Alec Baldwin. The Donald Trump character has been included in 47 skits since 1988.[4][5][6]

Phil Hartman portrayed Donald Trump 4 times on the show, including the original portrayal in 1988 in a sketch entitled "A Trump Christmas "[7]. Darrell Hammond portrayed Donald Trump 21 times on the show[8]. Alec Baldwin portrayed Donald Trump 22 times on the show, including portrayal of Trump during his presidency[9] User129862 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ Itzkoff, Dave. Trump and ‘S.N.L.’: A Look Back at a Complicated Relationship. The New York Times. 9 February 2017. Web. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/arts/television/donald-trump-saturday-night-live-alec-baldwin.html> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  2. ^ SNL. Donald Trump - Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/donald-trump-56891> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  3. ^ Serico, Chris. Star-spangled laughter: 17 presidential candidates who appeared on 'SNL'. TODAY. 6 November 2015. Web. <http://www.today.com/popculture/star-spangled-laughter-17-presidential-candidates-who-appeared-snl-t54106> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  4. ^ SNL. Darrell Hammond Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/darrell-hammond-14921/impersonation/donald-trump-70441> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  5. ^ SNL. Darrell Phil Hartman Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/phil-hartman-15351/impersonation/donald-trump-96441> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  6. ^ SNL. Alec Baldwin Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/alec-baldwin-57921/impersonation/donald-trump-285097> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  7. ^ SNL. Darrell Phil Hartman Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/phil-hartman-15351/impersonation/donald-trump-96441> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  8. ^ SNL. Darrell Hammond Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/darrell-hammond-14921/impersonation/donald-trump-70441> Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  9. ^ SNL. Alec Baldwin Donald Trump Sketches. nbc.com. 26 July 2017. Web. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/alec-baldwin-57921/impersonation/donald-trump-285097> Retrieved 26 July 2017.

Handshakes

See new article at Donald Trump's handshakes. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Why? Sleyece (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm — JFG talk 15:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I love it!- MrX 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile:Thanks for notifying here on this talk page about this. In the future, you may want to notify in addition to, or instead, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump. I also note that Trump himself has commented upon this phenomenon [9] [10] [11]. So yeah, Onceinawhile, thank you for the initiative for the new article creation, but in the future if you could please post a new notification also to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump, as well. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will add a notice regarding the deletion discussion there. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Meh. Rather have a section of Trump anagrams. Objective3000 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Know any good ones? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
"Damn turd pol"? Define "good". Remove if blpvio. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_65&oldid=793636358"