Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 6 January 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political positions of Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was copied or moved into Political positions of Donald Trump with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

WP Neutral Point of View Policy (Social Issues, Abortion)

WP has a clear Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view policy. The abortion section must not be tinged with flagrantly biased language. Therefore, the prefix anti will not be used, as it carries with it severe negative connotations. Instead, in order to establish balance, the terms pro-life, and pro-choice will be used respectively. We will not be using the terms "anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-fetal rights, anti-choice", etc. as these are deliberately incendiary and biased terms. Please do not reintroduce biased language. Instead, discuss terms on the talk page. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is rather off-putting for a single editor to unilaterally explain, as from on high, what "will not" and "will" do. We use the terms used by the respected journalistic and academic sources. We don't use phraseology usually associated with particular political camps. That means that the right phrases to use are "anti-abortion groups" or "abortion-rights group..."

There is nothing wrong with "anti-"; to the contrary, it's frequently the most clear way to express something. Frankly, it is quite extraordinary to say that terms like "anti-abortion" is "deliberately incendiary and biased" yet "pro-life" is somehow not. Neutrality 02:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not neutral to use the terms that groups use to describe themselves, but to use the terms normally used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We can't use the term "abortion-rights" as this term is highly incendiary. To use this term would violate Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view policy. To use this term would imply that an abortion is a right. If we were to include this term, than we would need to also include the term "fetal rights" in order to provide balance. Moreover, we can't use the prefix "anti" in order to provide a negative spin on one political ideology. Instead, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are more commonly used. Using both of these terms would provide balance.

There are plenty of sources on both sides of the issue that use biased language. Just because a journalist holds pro-abortion views, and uses pro-abortion language in a source does not mean it is okay to exclusively use pro-abortion language in the WP article. There are plenty of other sources which use pro-life language. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You talk about "biased language" while using loaded -- and factually false -- shibboleths like "pro-abortion", so no, I don't think you have any kind of handle what is an actually neutral point of view. Reverted. --Calton | Talk 09:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd:: I've reverted your recent edit, here, which essentially tried to carry into effect your preferred wording despite the lack of consensus here on the exact same issue. As explained above, we follow try to use the most clear and direct language as used in the cited sources. Your edit basically fails to do that. If you'd like to set up a request for comment (RfC), then indicate so and we can try to set one up. Neutrality 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality,

You claim to be seeking "clear and direct language", however what you are actually doing is including language that holds an obvious and flagrant bias in favour of abortion. What I am seeking is balanced and neutral language. Can we simply agree that language must be fair and neutral in tone in accordance with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy? Once we have reached this agreement, then we can talk about specific terminology which is currently heavily and alarmingly lopsided. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ontario teacher - the article currently uses most descriptive and NPOV language. We should not adopt, as you suggest, heavily ideological labels ("pro-choice" and "pro-life") favored by opposing special-interest groups. And the range of reliable sources agrees with me. See this, from NPR's ombudsman in 2010. I quote:

I checked with NBC, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer and not one of them uses the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life."
"We call them pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights because it's the right to abortion that we're talking about," said Linda Mason, CBS senior vice president of news and in charge of standards. "What does pro-life mean? That leaves people scratching their heads."
... Both the New York Times and the Washington Post advise staff to avoid the terms "pro-choice," "pro-life" and "right-to-life" because those terms are coined by advocates in the abortion controversy and should be viewed as loaded terms, according to the newspapers' stylebooks.
"The political and emotional heat surrounding abortion gives rise to a range of polemical language," reads the Times stylebook. "For the sake of neutrality, avoid pro-life and pro-choice except in quotations from others."

--Neutrality 03:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality,

Firstly, the terms "pro-abortion rights " and "anti-abortion rights " are blatantly biased in favour of abortion. Obviously these terms imply that abortion is a right that you are either in favour of or opposed to.

The other extreme would be "pro-fetal rights" and "anti-fetal rights", which would either imply that fetuses have rights that you are either in favour or opposed to. We cannot include either POV language.

Secondly, the flagrantly partisan POV statement "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark" has been removed as it is quite clearly a pro-abortion statement. A pro-life statement would read "Roe revokes a unborn baby's right to life before he or she is viable, which medical experts content is around the 20-week mark". So, rather than include either POV statement, we should include neither. A wikilink would suffice for those who are unfamiliar with Roe v. Wade. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You've presented no actual arguments — just labels with your own conclusions. And you've failed entirely to respond to the NPR survey on the style-guides used by major media outlets, all of which run against your idiosyncratic view. If you want to pursue the issue, then start a request for comment. But stop popping up every two weeks to try to shove your views in the article in contravention of the consensus here. Neutrality 19:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality,

Please read the changes I've made prior to reverting. I removed all POV language on two key issues and added a neutrality dispute tag.

I've presented a clear and concise argument for the removal of POV language on each of the two issues.

1) Firstly, the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" are Loaded language in favour of abortion.

Your NPR list only includes left-wing American media outlets like The New York Times, and NBC. Mysteriously absent are any of the conservative American media outlets: Fox News, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Dallas Morning News, and the Wall Street Journal. Therefore, this list cannot reasonably be used as it does not include a balance of political perspectives.

2) Secondly, the POV statement "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark" is blatantly biased. Can you honestly argue that this statement is not biased? I challenge you to at the very least remove this partisan and wholly unnecessary statement.

3) Also, if you are reverting part of the changes, do not remove the neutrality dispute tag. As this issue is obviously still under dispute. This is the first step prior to a request for comment page. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming silly.

(1) No, sorry, making a conclusion ("this is loaded" or "this is in favor of X") is not an argument. It's a conclusion.

(2) The article does not use the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" (and never has). It's used the terms "antiabortion (groups)" and "abortion-rights (groups)." Please don't make misrepresentions on the state of the article.

(3) I've provided evidence that leading journalism outlets (like the Associated Press) use the language this article uses. You are entitled to believe that respected media outlets are "left wing" conspiracy. But you are not entitled to disregard the range of published, mainstream sources. You've never brought forth any evidence whatsoever on usage or style elsewhere.

(4) And, since you brought up the Wall Street Journal, you'll note that they use the same exact language (Verizon Wireless Bars Abortion-Rights Group's Texting, Antiabortion Group Lays Out Central Goals for 2016"; "Antiabortion Group Behind Planned Parenthood Videos Faces Challenges"). The WSJ specifically "advises that abortion rights is the preferred term, instead of the edgy pro-life and pro-choice, which should be used only in quotations. ... Antiabortion (as in antiabortion advocate and antiabortion campaigner) is considered a neutral term in the stylebook" (source). And so does the Dallas Morning News ("Abortion rights advocates submit petition against Texas' proposed rules on fetal remains"; "An anti-abortion Catholic supports Obama -- here's why").

(5) You've articulated no basis whatsoever to remove "civil liberties" from the section header. The effect of the change is to classify all the subsections of that section — including "First Amendment and defamation law"; "Rights of the accused"; and "Privacy, encryption, and electronic surveillance"— as "social issues" and not "civil liberties." There is no reason for that.

MelanieN, Calton, do you care to weigh in here? I'm rather frustrated with this since we have about a 4-1 consensus. One editor should not be able to game the system in this. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, if you want to start an RfC, I invite you to do so, but you can't pop up every three weeks, revert to your preferred version, and then filibuster. Neutrality 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:Neutrality. I was actually intending earlier to comment here, but got sidetracked by a sockpuppet situation. I haven't followed this whole argument, but I had noticed that the user Ontario Teacher BFA BEd has been making drastic, POV changes to the article, several times. In fact I went to their user page to verify that they are aware of the Discretionary Sanctions in place for both Trump-related articles and abortion-related articles; since they have received both warnings, apparently they have been editing close to the line in these areas for months. Your analysis above is very convincing, particularly your point that their suggested "non-biased newspapers" like the WSJ use exactly the same language. One thing we would never use here (although this user has repeatedly used it) is "pro-abortion". Nobody is pro-abortion; they are pro-choice (their preferred terminology) or pro-abortion rights (our preferred language). The other side is anti-abortion (our preferred terminology) or pro-life (their preferred terminology). Meanwhile, Ontario Teacher is the only one who finds anything controversial in the original language. As an example, they said above "To use this term would imply that an abortion is a right." As a matter of fact, according to the Supreme Court there IS a legal right for a woman to get an abortion. That is not POV or opinion; that is simply fact. This user's attempt to add a "disputed" tag to the section, when they are the only one disputing it, appears to be blatant wikilawyering in an attempt to escalate this to RfC. There is no need for an RfC here. It is clear to me, and to any neutral party arriving at this article, that the language of the section has long since passed the neutrality test. (Except that it's possible the sentence about viability at 20 weeks might need some work.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, pretty much everything important's been said. though I will say that Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was at least a bit more subtle -- a bit -- in the POV pushing. But hell, one of the changes didn't even make grammatical sense: In the same interview, Trump stated his opposition to abortion: "I will protect it, and the biggest way you can protect is through the Supreme Court." He will oppose abortion by protecting it?

I'll also note that User:Bishonen has topic-banned Ontario Teacher for one year from "all pages connected with abortion, broadly construed", since it appears to be their pet issue. --Calton | Talk 14:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! That was well deserved and was exactly what the Discretionary Sanctions were designed for: protecting contentious articles from POV disruption. I am still going to work on the wording of the last sentence. I don't think it is well supported by the source in its present state. I will bring any proposed revision here for discussion before adding it.--MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the sentence: " Short of overturning Roe, Trump has pledged to sign legislation from Congress banning abortion at the 20-week mark (Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark)." I don't find support in the reference for the parenthetical stuff, which seems to be trying to explain how proponents square their proposal with Roe - but it isn't in the source, and they actually seem to tie it to their "pain-capable fetus" theory. Also the "Short of overturning Roe" introductory phrase seems out of place; while he has said he will appoint pro-life justices, I don't think he has ever called directly for overturning Roe. I think both should be deleted, leaving "Trump has also pledged to sign legislation from Congress banning abortion at the 20-week mark." @Neutrality and Calton: Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank sounds good to me. Thanks. Neutrality 16:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

1) Content: I am relieved that we are finally in consensus to remove the outrageously biased and unnecessary POV phrase "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark". I urge another user to remove this phrase as we have agreed it is biased and not supported by the sources.

2) Conduct: This has been the main phrase that I have been trying to REMOVE. As you can see, I am not adding POV language, but the exact opposite is true. I am REMOVING POV language without adding the other side's POV language. Therefore, the accusation that I have been adding POV language is completely unfounded, when in reality I have been removing it. Please withdraw your accusations as I have been the one REMOVING POV language. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Israel-related content

The consensus in #Israeli-related awards, #Sarna and ADL, and #Personal standing in Israel / Israeli public opinion is to exclude the text for being WP:OFFTOPIC. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (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.

A disagreement has arisen as to what content should be included under the "Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict" section. Please indicate your thoughts on whether each of the three passages below should be included or excluded. Because the sections relate to each other, editors may wish to express conditional support/opposition (i.e., include section A only if section B is also included; otherwise exclude). Neutrality 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am courtesy-tagging @Snooganssnoogans: and @Avaya1:, who have commented on this issue earlier on this talk page. Neutrality 23:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Israeli-related awards

Shall the following text be included or excluded?

In 1983 he received the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, with the dedication mentioning his "humanitarian support for Israel".

...Trump received the Algemeiner Liberty Award in honor of his contributions to Israel–U.S. relations; at the ceremony, Trump stated:...

References

1. Stewart Ain, Trump’s Jewish Giving Rubs Against Tenor Of His Campaign, The Jewish Week (March 30, 2016).
2. Brian Schaefer, Where does Donald Trump stand on Israel?, Haaretz (May 24, 2016).
3. Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, Melissa Rivers Headline Algemeiner Gala (February 4, 2015).
4. Algemeiner Honors Joan Rivers, Donald Trump, Yuli Edelstein at Second Annual 'Jewish 100' Gala, Algemeiner Journal (February 5, 2015).

Survey

• Exclude, unless Sarna and ADL material are also included. The awards and public expressions of support may indicate his political approach and positions, but these shouldn't be noted without noting that expert observers (e.g., Sarna) and prominent organizations (e.g., ADL) find some inconsistency. To do otherwise misleads the reader by showing only one part of the story. Neutrality 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include - they are identified as notable by the candidate ("I've received the Tree of Life Award and many of the greatest awards given by Israel") and secondary sources. As for the above comment. The point is to list the known facts. I don't understand how this links to a desire to add cherry-picked journalist's opinions or content related to non-Israeli related Jewish charities like the ADL (the ADL stuff has nothing to do with Israel). Just stick to listing the known and reported facts here that are relevant to Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - as WP:OFFTOPIC. This might deserve a mention on his bio page Donald Trump, but it's not the topic of this article - it's both long ago and not a political position. Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, unless Sarna and ADL material are also included, for the reasons expressed by Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - I don't see that an award received 33 years ago has much relevance to Trump's political positions.- MrX 13:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, per comments by Neutrality, Markbassett and Snoogansnoogans. (editor is volunteer for Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude agree with Mark Basset. This is not a political position and is therefore entirely offtopic. SPACKlick (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude I honestly don't see the relevance. In his bio, perhaps, but that is a matter to be decided there. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude but ensure that it's on Donald Trump, not his political positions page. _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as offtopic. Trying to read tea leaves is definitely original research and as such is not allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral Although they feel a bit off-topic on a page cataloguing his political positions, I don't feel strongly about excluding these awards. They add some context and supporting evidence of the stated political position on Israel. AlexEng 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - with Sarna comments. The actions leading to the wards, and the subsequent policy pronouncements illustrate an essential character of policy positions as neither longitudinal nor normatively consistent. These are facts whose exclusion is more POV than their inclusion. Brought here by Legobot to comment as disinterested observer. 14.137.65.224 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarna and ADL

Shall the following text be included or excluded?

Trump's donations and expressed support for Jewish and Israeli causes was viewed by many observers as inconsistent with his subsequent rhetoric during the 2016 campaign. Professor Jonathan Sarna, an expert on American Jewish history at Brandeis University and National Museum of American Jewish History, stated that: “It is precisely because of his Jewish friendship, donations and his record that many have been mystified by the tenor of Mr. Trump’s campaign and seeming insensitivity to minorities and refugees. … There seems to be something of a disconnect between his impressive donations and the values that he now espouses." In March 2016, the Anti-Defamation League announced that it was redirected the $56,000 that Trump had contributed to the organization over the years, "specifically into anti-bias education programs that address exactly the kind of stereotyping and scapegoating that have been injected into this political season."

References

1. ^ Stewart Ain, Trump’s Jewish Giving Rubs Against Tenor Of His Campaign, The Jewish Week (March 30, 2016).

Survey

• Include. (And especially include if we note awards.) This is significant and lends necessary context. Sarna is a leading scholar, and this is properly attributed in text to him. The ADL's reaction is also significant. Neutrality 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. It is cherry-picked op-ed content. The purpose of the section here is to gather the known facts, not to cherry pick journalistic opinions - especially those written during an election campaign. The most irrelevant part of this is adding parts about Jewish charities (like ADL) which have zero relation to Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about the ADL. The ADL is extensively involved in Israeli-related advocacy and has been for decades; see ADL and Israel: 65 Years of Advocacy (2013). As to "cherry-picking": if you have alternate suggestions, propose them here. You can't get much more authoritative or mainstream than Sarna. Neutrality 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - this is WP:OFFTOPIC. It's not about "Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or any of his political positions at all -- it's highlighting a small action of a charity on vague remarks, which also seems WP:UNDUE of not even significant enough to mention. Got many stories that have much more coverage and depth in press and publications than this one. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as having nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. TFD (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include - I think this does a good job of explaining the lack of clarity around Trump's position on Jewish and Israeli causes. I would like to see some additional sourcing, and I think there needs to be some additional material about the appointment of Steve Bannon and the ADL's reaction.- MrX 13:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as written -- long quote could be paraphrased in a few words. Also, as a Misplaced Pages reader, my POV-alert-o-meter moves into the red when I see a rather minor quote being puffed into importance with attributions of extensive expertise in wiki-text. The last sentence is likewise way too specific (amount) to be encyclopedic (overview of issues from the dawn of time) with an overlong quote with only the most tenuous connection to the subject (the Ain article in Jewish Week). recentism, etc. SashiRolls (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as offtopic. Trying to read tea leaves is definitely original research and as such is not allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude This certainly does not belong in an article about his political positions. The ADL's opinion on Trump's 2016 campaign rhetoric would only be valuable in a more narrowly targeted article. Here it seems out of place. AlexEng 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal standing in Israel / Israeli public opinion

Shall the following text be included or excluded?

An October 2016 survey of Israelis showed that they strongly favored Clinton over Trump, 42% to 24%. A March 2016 survey of Israelis conduct by Walla! found that Trump was the favored U.S. presidential candidate of some 25% of Israelis, ahead of his Republican rivals but behind Clinton, who received 38%.

References

1. CNN, Oren Liebermann. "Poll: Israelis strongly favor Clinton over Trump". CNN. Retrieved 2016-10-29. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
2. Gregg Carlstrom, Why Israel Loves Donald Trump... and why that’s awkward for Israel, Politico Magazine (March 20, 2016).

Survey

• Exclude, unless we include the Israel-related awards, in which case we should include. Generally, I don't think public opinion polls are directly related to political positions. However, neither are the awards. If we include the latter, we have to do the former, or else we give a (misleading) impression to the reader: that Trump is universally beloved in Israel, which is not true. Neutrality 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - they are two out-dated polls of uncertain methodology. Especially as we now have the data from voting in Israel. But the main point is that they seem to have no relevance to the subject of the article (Trump's own view towards Israel). Avaya1 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - WP:OFFTOPIC as neither "Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict" nor "Political positions of Donald Trump". On a side remark, I'd also mention that polls and whether to show online had a fair bit of controversy in WP at his bio page and given the election results think they are currently a bit discredited. Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, unless we include the Israel-related awards, in which case we should include, for the reasons expressed by Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - We saw how accurate polls were in this election. Enough said.- MrX 13:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude Does not seem relevant. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as offtopic. Trying to read tea leaves is definitely original research and as such is not allowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude As above, irrelevant to his political positions. Even if the other two items are included, this should not be in the article. AlexEng 19:40, 2 December 2016 (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.

split

split this article ASAP! Way too long.--NotablePeopleFan (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed pbp 15:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a split, but I think certainly we should make a plan first for how exactly we should do it. Neutrality 19:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I can go along with a split into three parts. Maybe create "Economic policy of DT" (which would include trade), "Domestic policy of DT" (which would include labor, immigration, healthcare, social issues, law and order, science, environment) and "Foreign Policy of DT". I'm completely opposed to splitting this article into half a dozen or more separate articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. Certainly no more than three parts. Neutrality 19:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree; 3-4 parts should suffice. Someone might want to write an overview paragraph here first where we can easily debate them, for each section we plan to break out.Farcaster (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the three articles suggested by Snooganssnoogans. I also think we should use the splitting to review contents and purge them of outdated and insignificant campaign-related cruft. Then we can start filling in actual actions on policy and compare them with electoral talk… A daunting task indeed; better get it done before the inauguration. — JFG 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose we just split the articles into the three suggested above, writing up a bit of a lede for each one, then start editing the articles down after the split. It would be unrealistic to try replace the text in this article with a shortened version right after the split. There will be a huge overlap in content at first, but that's OK. JasperTECH (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the Economic policy of Donald Trump article. I have only brought in text verbatim from the main article so far. I included the trade section there as suggested above.Farcaster (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump's opinion on Pakistan

The current article mentions that Trump previously called Pakistan as one of the most, if not the most dangerous countries in the world. But again he swayed around and himself mentions talking to Pakistan's PM and saying "fantastic", "terrific" and "intelligent" to refer to them. That as far as Foreign policy is concerned shows that Trump accepts Pakistan as an Ally not a threat. 103.27.171.54 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not try to guess what Trump means, or to interpret between Trump (last year) and Trump (this year). We should stick to what he actually says. In fact in his recent phone call to the prime minister of Pakistan he ruffled some international feathers by being very accommodating and encouraging. That, and not "ally or threat", should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find where Pakistan was even mentioned in the article. I have expanded an "India and Pakistan" section. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot figure out Trump's positions by reading what he said since what he says is inconsistent. We should leave interpretation to experts. Your section does not actually explain much. Will Trump penalize Pakistan for its alleged ties to insurgents in Afghanistan and possible cooperation with China? Will he support Pakistan or India or neither in the Kashmir dispute? Will he see Pakistan as a U.S. ally in the region? None of what he has said clarifies any of this and it may be that he has not decided. TFD (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is ambiguous, or even contradictory - and it is - that unfortunately is an accurate depiction of the current state of our knowledge. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And there you have it, you are attempting to write an article that is actually futuristic, until he has actual power to do anything you are just reporting commentary and trivia, completely worthless really. its also hard/impossible to accept anything out of new york or Washington press as a neutral source for anything regarding Trump, the strong bias from those sources is clear. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually if the NY or Washington Press did say what Trump's positions were, then it would be fine to use them. It is editors who are supposed to avoid future forecasts or neutrality. The problem is that some editors want to interpret Trump's positions, rather than leave it to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles