Jump to content

Talk:Social media use by Donald Trump

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KU2018 (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 19 January 2018 (→Merger proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Britain First videos

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

    @MelanieN: When there's a too long section we can also shorten it by creating a separate page for it covering the details and leaving the core points in the current article. More things are appearing on the news outlets giving us more materials to add. Does anyone thinks otherwise? --Mhhossein talk 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should look at trimming it. Just because something is long doesn't mean it has stand alone notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    @MelanieN:, what role Duke played in the sharing of the tweets? It's just his reaction like the other many people that commented in the matter, no source state that he is involved in it. About Ann Coulter, the sources stated that she was the first in share the video and form that Trump had contact with Fransen's account. So she is pretty relevant to the article. About Fransen and Golding, I fixed my mistake. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not a source, he is a reaction. We have lots of reaction about who condemned Trump's tweet; per balance we ought to show some reaction about who praised it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MelanieN: You're right. I just added about the praise that he had, but I think there is no need to name them all unless they are really notable to be here. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He is the only American source cited - aside from Trump himself and his press secretary. Eliminating him leaves the impression that absolutely no-one in the United States spoke up in support of him. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Oh, I see you added a Guardian article characterizing the praise as coming from and empowering the anti-Muslim right. I still think it would be significant to mention Duke - by far the best known face of that group in the United States - but I will leave it up to others here whether to add him or leave it with the Guardian piece. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with about 90% of Melanie's shortening (long laundry lists of MPs joining in the condemnation aren't necessary). The only part I disagree with is that the following sentence and cite, I think, dropped off:
    "Trump's sharing of inflammatory content from an extremist group was without precedent among modern American presidents."[1]
    1. ^ Peter Baker & Eileen Sullivan, Trump Shares Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Videos, and Britain’s Leader Condemns Them Archived November 29, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, New York Times (November 29, 2017): "No modern American president has promoted inflammatory content of this sort from an extremist organization. Mr. Trump’s two most recent predecessors, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, both made a point of avoiding public messages that were likely to be seen as anti-Muslim and could exacerbate racial and religious animosities, arguing that the war against terrorism was not a war against Islam."
    I think the historical context here is important - i.e., the fact that this is an unprecedented and very unusual thing is something that should be briefly noted. Neutralitytalk 22:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be OK with re-adding that and will do so. We still need to eliminate about half the references IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, right now it's citation overkill. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the reference to Ann Coulter is irrelevant and should be removed along with the WP:Daily Mail cite that supports it. zzz (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Highlight title?

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

    @RoyGoldsmith: It probably should be in bold. But in that case, the wikilinks need to be removed per MOS:BOLDAVOID. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Finnusertop: How about this? "The presence of Donald Trump on social media has attracted attention worldwide since he joined Twitter in March 2009. Trump has frequently used Twitter and other social media to comment on politicians and celebrities..." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trump and the Doomsday Clock

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

    First of all, not having read all the refs, we need to make sure that the reason for the time change at the Doomsday Clock was because of his social media usage. That's the only relevance here. I question this because the scientist's official statement gives different reasons. It appears to have been their response to Trump's climate change denials, nuclear proliferation and rising tensions between global superpowers.[1]

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

    Here's the content:

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

    Well, he does keep threatening nuclear war against “rocket man” on Twitter and calling him fat boy, etc. Trump may be the first president to threaten nuclear holocaust “fire and fury” on twitter, which seems notable. 2600:1017:B411:47F1:450F:22B:A2F7:AF6A (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough. Do any of these sources, or others, make that connection? It wouldn't surprise me if some did, and then you might have something to build upon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rescued comments on topic:

    • "Donald Trump's tweets could lead to war between US and North Korea, diplomats fear" [8]
    • "Trump tweets could cause nuclear war, says former CIA Agent" [9]
    • "Clinton: 'Disturbing' that Trump talks about nuclear weapons, war with tweets" [10]
    • "Will Donald Trump's twitter war spark nuclear war?" [11]
    • Also, there was a kerfuffle as to whether Trump's tweets constituted a declaration of war and violated Twitter's policy against violent threats; Twitter decided in the negative. See here:[12] [13]

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

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

    References

    1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/26/the-doomsday-clock-just-moved-again-its-now-two-and-a-half-minutes-to-midnight/?utm_term=.f4bd6a7b1d88
    2. ^ https://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/Final%202017%20Clock%20Statement.pdf
    3. ^ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-krauss-doomsday-clock-20170813-story.html
    4. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/noam-chomsky-donald-trump-doomsday-clock-midnight-close-nuclear-war-north-korea-a8014626.html
    5. ^ https://thebulletin.org/first-july-4-trump-era-declaration10877
    6. ^ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzzawz/we-asked-a-doomsday-clock-scientist-about-trumps-fire-and-fury-threat
    7. ^ https://gizmodo.com/president-trump-moves-doomsday-clock-to-half-past-oh-my-1797654226
    8. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nuclear-war-twitter-president-654883
    9. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nuclear-war-twitter-president-654883
    10. ^ http://thehill.com/homenews/news/355519-clinton-disturbing-trump-talks-about-nuclear-weapons-war-with-tweets
    11. ^ http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/will-donald-trumps-twitter-war-spark-nuclear-war-22667
    12. ^ https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-09-26/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-trumps-tweet-north-korea
    13. ^ https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/26/16367510/twitter-trump-threats-not-policy-violations

    Merger proposal

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

    Delete? We usually do a redirect after a merge. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's best to keep that redirect, as it would point straight to the content of this article when people search for it. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The awards were "hosted" on (relatively) traditional media. Not by Trump himself, but an anonymous team of lizards. Perhaps they weren't lizards, simply anonymous, but still an entire team representing the wider political party. This was a shindig for the ruling class, not one guy's Twitter account after midnight. After a matter of hours, attention to any subject matter subsides; can't hold that fact of human nature against this in particular. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The social media article probably isn't the right place to merge this article. I think this could be part of an article about Trump's relationship with the media, though that doesn't seem to exist at the moment. FallingGravity 01:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (ec) This isn’t directly relevant to Trump and social media. If we had an article about Trump’s relationship with the media then I could see it being applicable there. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The Awards aren't really reated to social media apart from Trump's tweeting about them, which he does with everything anyway. Yes, I agree that they don't need their own article, but shoving everything into Donald Trump on social media isn't the way to fix things - the topic casts a wide enough circle as it is. - User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Input has been received. However, just because the Fake News Awards isn't strictly exclusive to this page's subject matter doesn't mean it should have its own individual article. What compromise can be reached? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestions here were for creating and merging into a "Donald Trump's relationship with the media" article which seems reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose This is a significant event with multiple reliable sources. Per WP:GNG this indicates that notabiliy is met. I also believe there is too much information for theb article to be merged without making the host article too long or shortening the merged content too short. KU2018 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump&oldid=821278246"