Revision as of 06:23, 18 June 2022 editWid777 (talk | contribs)14 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit |
Revision as of 06:44, 18 June 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Social media use by Donald Trump/Archive 2) (botNext edit → |
Line 47: |
Line 47: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== From the Desk of Donald J. Trump == |
|
|
|
|
|
]: "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" had been a section of the Save America website (donaldjtrump.com), but the phrase "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" no longer appears on that website, as far as I can tell. Do you have a source for this statement? '''"Multiple news outlets reported in early June that it was permanently shut down after less than a month, however posts resumed by mid-June as site operations continued."''' Today I see a "News" section of the Save America website, which contains many items, many of which are labeled "Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America." There are a couple news items from January 27 and 28 of this year (i.e. shortly after he left office), and the first one labeled "Statement by..." is dated February 16.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Trump |first1=Donald |title=Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America |url=https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/statement-by-donald-j-trump-45th-president-of-the-united-states-of-america |access-date=23 October 2021 |publisher=Save America (donaldjtrump.com) |date=16 February 2021}}</ref> I don't know if these are relevant, since the media reports said that "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" was a section of the website launched on May 4 and shut down in early June. I don't see any media reports saying that it came back in mid-June, nor do I see the "From the Desk..." branding anywhere now in October. (In case it matters, Save America has "Statement by..." posts dated May 3 and May 5, but nothing dated May 4.) Can you please clarify what you mean by saying that it came back? If you mean that he's still using the Save America website, let's say that. - ] (]) 20:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
: Because no source was provided, I reverted the change from the article. If anyone can confirm that Save America ever restored its "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" website feature post-June 2021, please provide a source. - ] (]) 14:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Dude, give me a chance to reply, I don't ''live'' on Misplaced Pages. Seriously, the basis for my careful re-wording of that sentence and provision of an additional citation is as follows. In another WP talk page, an anonymous partisan complained about anti-Trump bias in WP, saying "From the Desk of Donald J Trump" was declared to be defunct by WP when in fact it was still live. It continued with other things that were less coherent and not amenable to follow up. I quickly opened a new tab, did a search, and found the person had a point. This is the site that came up right at the top: https://thedeskofdonaldtrump.com/ The site is the source -- it's live and it's distinct from Save America that you mention. Or so it seems. On the basis of this I had reworded the sentence you took issue with. Interestingly, I frequently have several different browsers open and at that time I was in Edge, whose default search is Bing, and this site was a top hit. But in preparing a response to you today I happen to be in Chrome whose default is Google and the same search terms fail to turn it up at least in the first 90 hits before I gave up. Last week, before editing, I glanced at the site's "About" section which seemed superficially okay. Upon close examination of this site, one will find that it lacks the word "From" and that the About page has links to Save America. So while these posts are legitimately from Trump, the site itself appears to be a third party effort. A lack of new reports about a "return" of the site would not have concerned me per se because, hey, we all know the media is biased, right? Anyway, had I searched through Google to begin with, I would not have been spoofed and just seen pages and pages of hits from around June 2-4 about the demise of the site. So, bottom line, your revert is correct and the original sentence saying "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" is defunct should stand. ] (]) 16:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of "On the Chinese internet" == |
|
|
|
|
|
The section "]" doesn't appear to belong here: it isn't about Donald Trump's use of Chinese (or any) social media, but rather about how Trump was discussed in Chinese social media and the various (nick)names used for him. It ought to be removed, but removed to where? There's no "Chinese/international opinions on Donald Trump" article that I'm aware of. Deleted outright? Maybe, but it passes my gut-feeling test of notability and has a decent citation (though it relies too much on it, citing it five times in one paragraph). -- ] (]) 05:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: It's common for articles to have a "reactions" section, and the reactions of people in non-US countries toward the US president are probably relevant. An idea... Under the heading "Twitter," I see subheadings: "Public opinion," "Effects on litigation," "Effects on the stock market," and "Reactions and analysis." It might be worthwhile to pull these out of the heading "Twitter" (even though their discussion may be limited to tweets) and put them under a new top-level heading called "Reactions," in which case we could also include the section for reactions specifically in China. - ] (]) 16:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{tq|It's common for articles to have a "reactions" section}}—indeed, but those are (or should be!) for reactions to the subject of the article. In this case, it should be for reactions to Donald Trump's use of social media. And there are indeed plenty of mentions of such reactions in the article already (samples: ], ], ], ]). But that's not what's in ''this'' section; or at least, the only part of this section that I would say fits is this paragraph: |
|
|
::{{tqb|According to the South China Morning Post, reactions to Trump's permanent Twitter suspension on the Chinese internet were mixed. Many were shocked that U.S. social media platforms "had the audacity to silence the country's president." Some supported Trump's suspension, while others were sympathetic towards Trump due to also being banned off of social media platforms.|source=]|ts=09:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)|nodash=y}} |
|
|
:: All the rest of it, the stuff about what names were used for Trump on Chinese social media and how he was discussed, could be called reactions to ''the man himself'', but not to his social media use. -- ] (]) 09:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Needs trimming == |
|
== Needs trimming == |
If splitting a section is out of question, then the article should be trimmed and less detailed. Right now, including HTML sourcing, the article is over 350 KB, whose slower loading impacts the editing convenience. Furthermore, some info may be trivial and unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The article says "In another cases, the DOJ argued they were official policy statements ...". It should be either singular ("In another case"), or plural (In other cases). Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
A lot of this article requires editing for conjecture. Second paragraph, first sentence "For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial and false statements," Misplaced Pages should not determine validity of statements made by political figures in public office but only state that said claims are disagreed upon and controversial. I find this excerpt and others like it in this article against the integrity of Misplaced Pages.
Statement should read:
"For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial statements," Wid777 (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Frankly a lot of these citations point to not a specific issue on an external website. Furthermore, there are many disputing claims in public knowledge to the opinions held within these cited websites. I do not think Misplaced Pages should determine validity of statements made by public officials when there is a large amount of dissent present. Material should only have citations to specific matters. Wid777 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)