Talk:America First (policy)

Antisemitism

I think it's quite enough to say "The slogan has been criticised by some for carrying comparisons to the America First Committee, an isolationist organization that lobbied the United States against entry into World War II.[8][9]". If we add criticism about antisemitic or Nazi-sympathizer connotations, that's going way overboard in my opinion, especially if it's unbalanced by defenses against those accusations. Readers can go look at footnotes 8 and 9 if they want further info. Additionally, the hatnote points to America First which can provide the reader with tons more information (including that "America First" was a slogan of Woodrow Wilson even before the First World War, having nothing to do with antsemitism AFAIK).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.

Stevo D (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The connotations with the America First Committee are pretty well-documented in a number of reliable sources, including those from outside of the U.S. and the Anglosphere. If you want to add a defense of these allegations, by all means do so. It's also relevant due to the (alleged) antisemitic nature of Trump's campaign, which is why the connotations are with the isolationist group as opposed to Woodrow Wilson – this connection has not been made in reliable sources for obvious reasons. Liborbital (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no serious belief on either side that Trump's campaign or presidency is *anti-semitic*--This is WP:FRINGE. Stevo D (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To Trump or not to Trump

@Stevo D: The article, before you edited it, wasn't strictly about Trumps policy, but had a wider scope. Please expound on your reasons for restricting it (and removing sourced content while doing that). Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who created the article, and If you look at the very first edit, you'll notice that it only pertains to Trump's policy, hence why the term (policy) is in parentheses following 'America First' in the title.

My reasoning is stated as below.

Thank you, Stevo D (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

America First (policy) is about the Trump Administration policy (at least, seeing as I created the article, that's what I made it about initially), not the America First Committee, of which the relevance of this slogan is covered under that article.

I don't see what the relevance of having a big AFC logo in this article, or having the opening paragraph be about the AFC, when the AFC never passed nor had any policy condoned by the federal government during the lifetime of the organisation.

This article is about the Trump policy (as if the article's title doesn't make that clear enough), the only time 'America First' was ever made a policy of the government is during the Trump administration, and I don't see the relevance to including AFC's history as an organisation (except to where it relates directly to Trump's foreign policy initiative) + AFC logo + Category: Opposition to WWII in an article that is about a Trump administration policy.

In short, the only thing that AFC and Trump's policy have in common are a slogan; Otherwise, one was a pacifist group opposed to WWII in a historical context far removed from Trump's current policy, which is about American nationalism and isolation in terms of economics and immigration as well, something that was never supposed by the AFC.

The heavy-handed way in which the AFC is featured in this article almost seems like it is trying to tie Donald Trump's policy to the AFC, to which I've already pointed out, are ideologically dissimilar, had different goals and and a different ethos, and only share a slogan in common.

In my view, all the information that I've removed in previous edits is better suited for the actual page for the America First Committee, not this page, which is about a particular policy of the Trump Administration. Stevo D (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your proposed version of this article completely ignores the subject's history and is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. The history of America First as a political policy belongs in this article. --Tataral (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be WP:RECENTISM if the article was about the phrase 'America First' which this article is not. It's about the particular policy that was unveiled on 20 January 2017, and if you can prove the relevance of having an entire history of the America First Committee on a page about a specific domestic/foreign policy of the Presidential Administration of Donald Trump, then the content could stay.

In the meantime, it's a non-sequitur that is already covered on the more relevant page America First Committee. Stevo D (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I responded to you, and yet you made a change to the page without consulting the talk page first; In other words, you're not trying to seek consensus. Please don't make any more changes to the main page until we've reached consensus on the talk page.

Stevo D (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Tataral. A key part of the slogan's notability--perhaps the chief reasons why it is notable--is the historical context and the continued controversy over the use of the phrase. That's been the focus of most of the sources, both in terms of reporting and commentary and academic discussions. To ignore or downplay that would indeed be WP:RECENTISM. Neutrality^talk 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The context is discussed, but it doesn't need a massive logo of the AFC committee or the majority of the main paragraph dedicated to the AFC. It's notable because it is a key Trump policy, not because it has any reference to the AFC.

Also, did you follow me here from the Washington Post talk page just to add a contrarian opinion or what? Stevo D (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A key part of the slogan's notability This article is about the Trump policy, not the slogan. It even says (policy) in parentheses at the top of the page! Stevo D (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone else even checking the talk page here before editing, or am I just talking to myself? Stevo D (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for a long time. Look, in response to your question as to whether you're "just talking to yourself" - at least 4-5 other editors have explained, either in edit summaries or at talk, why they object to your edits. I don't think we need to repeat ourselves. Moreover, there is no unified "Trump policy" under this slogan, at least not yet. We are in the early days of his presidency and Trump's pronouncements on foreign policy and "American First" have been extremely vague. See links. Neutrality^talk 15:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Aside from you and Tataral, who are these '4-5 other editors'? Volunteer Marek isn't involved in the editing of this page (having never been here before except to revert me, which he's done on another page he isn't involved with), and Kleuske just wanted talk page consensus before large amounts of content were removed.

Also, you keep saying you have 'explained' it, but yet you haven't explained it at all, which is why we're here in the first place.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this article is about a Trump policy, not what you and another editor want it to be about, which is better suited for another page.

Stevo D (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There seems to be genuine confusion about the intended scope of the article. Couldn't this be resolved by simply renaming this to America First (Trump policy)? Note that America First is already a disambiguation page. — JFG ^talk 01:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the comparisons between the 2016 policy slogan and the 1940 anti-war lobby, I doubt that any readers under the age of 80 would spontaneously make the connection. It looks particularly dishonest to illustrate the 2016 article with the 1940 logo. — JFG ^talk 01:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no question about it: this very page includes a section explaining that the policy, the slogan and the idea exited long before these election.My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, the same slogan was used in 1940; this doesn't mean that the 2016 policy is related. First of all, there is no current war to refrain from joining, second almost 80 years have gone by and the foreign policy doctrine of the United States has considerably evolved, just as the international environment has changed. I recommend, like Stevo D proposed, that this article should be focused on the 2016/2017 events, while noting the 1940 story and linking to its own dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 12:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my point. This article is about the Trump policy, and yet for some motive or another, people keep on trying to bring up the America First Committee in conjunction with this Trump policy, despite:

A.) Never being an official aim, policy or whitepaper prior to the Trump Administration;

B.) The only link between President Trump and the America First Committee is the slogan 'America First'

Otherwise, the goals, aims and contexts are completely different to the point of almost being risible. Trump took no inspiration from the AFC, no serious has suggested as much, and it doesn't seem appropriate to have half the page dedicated to the AFC when this page is clearly not about them.

Stevo D (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I am looking, for example, at the book "America First!: Its History, Culture, and Politics" by Bill Kauffman. The book was published in 1995, long before this elections. It describes the subject in historical context. So should this page. Yes, it might be split to two pages: about the general subject America First (policy) as described in books (this page), and America First (Donald Trump). However, based on the description in sources, this is essentially the same subject. Trump suggested nothing really new. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This opinion constitutes Original Research and is not allowed. Stevo D (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to describe the subject as it was described in this book. This is not WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

What would a book published in 1995 about a pacifist organisation during WWII have to do with a 2017 Trump foreign policy outlook, except that they share a slogan in common? Because I don't see a damn thing in common but the name.

Stevo D (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(a) The book is not about pacifist organization, but about "America first!" as a slogan, politics and ideology (same should be here). (b) This page is about certain subject, not wording. (c) If you think that a separate page America First (Donald Trump) should be created, you can make such page, but I am sure it will be merged to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, so please cite the book (not mentioned in the article yet) and go write an article about the history of various isolationist political movements in the USA. This particular article was apparently created to document Trump's policy, and that should remain the primary focus. I have earlier suggested to rename it "America First (Trump policy)" for clarity. — JFG ^talk 02:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

same should be here

Keyword, *should*. What this article *should* be according to you, and what this article actually is (i.e, about a Donald Trump policy) are two completely incongruent things.

Stevo D (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been a few days. Anyone going to commentate further? Stevo D (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything that's said has been said above; there is no need to endlessly repeat ourselves. As 4-5 other people have pointed out, one of the core reasons why this particular slogan is notable/significant is its historical use. The article can, should, and does reflect that. If you want to add content about Trump's foreign policy, then we have Foreign policy of Donald Trump. The two articles don't have the same scope. One is about the slogan and its use, the other about Trump's activities. Neutrality^talk 15:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As 4-5 other people have pointed out,

Will you stop inflating the numbers? It's 2 vs 3, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not a settled issue, as this article is about Trump's policy, not the slogan, and thus would be better suited for the page on the America First Committee.

I was the one who created the article in the first place, I intended it to be about Trump and his particular foreign policy, and I will attempt to move it to America First (Trump Policy) as per JFG and their suggestion, given there are no objections.

Stevo D (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, five users—Liborbital, Kleuske, Tataral, My very best wishes, myself—have either expressly opposed or raised questions about attempts to artificially narrow the scope of the article (in other words, to remove historical context).

As to your suggested move, I would certainly object to it; a move to that title would require a requested move discussion as an controversial and potentially controversial move. The reason it's objectionable is simple: moving to that title would (1) seem to write off the historical significance of the slogan; and (2) would make this article wholly duplicative of Foreign policy of Donald Trump. Neutrality^talk 02:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

1.) The historical significance of the slogan is better covered in an article about the actual slogan (if it doesn't exist, create it) or the America First Committee, not this particular Trump policy. The historical significance of the slogan is generally not what is important in this article; Trump's policy is.

2.) Kleuske only wanted debate on the issue, he never added his own input one way or another; There is no one named Liborbital involved in these discussions from what I can tell looking at the revisions and talk page, so just leaves 3 vs 2.

3.) The move isn't controversial, because this article isn't about America First, either as a rhetorical slogan or as a policy advocated in the 1930s--this is about apples and oranges, or should we begin the article on Gandhi with a long, detailed, thorough explanation of what it means to be titled 'Mahatma'? Seems about as relevant (and that's the problem here--no one has proven yet as to the relevance of this inclusion in the article of all this superfluous information, they've just argued that the article should include the superfluous information by default).

Stevo D (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, who is Liborbital and what is his relevance to this article? I've seen him comment nowhere. Stevo D (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

First - Liborbital is a user who commented earlier on this talk page (first section), expressly agreeing that the historical connotations of the slogan are "pretty well-documented in a number of reliable sources" and that the connection has been made vis-a-vis Trump.

Second - a controversial move doesn't stop being controversial because you disagree with it.

Third - That the historical significance of the slogan is "generally not what is important" or is "superfluous" is your opinion. You are entitled to hold it. But the reliable sources make the connection very clearly, and the historical significance is what fuels controversy and prompted comment.

Fourth - Making edits that you "expect to be overturned" for "symbolism" as you did here is, frankly, POINTy. Even accepting your "3-2" number (which is understated, by the way) you've acknowledged that the preponderance of editors who have commented disagree with you. If you want to pursue the matter future, start an request for comment (with specific questions: i.e., Version 1 or Version 2; include or exclude specific paragraph, etc.) or requested move. Neutrality^talk 15:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Stevo D: Re your recent edit: there reason there's been "no talk page discussion" in awhile is that there was a discussion above, and there was absolutely no consensus to omit historical background. The fact that editors have decided not to repeat themselves endlessly does not mean that your preferred version must prevail.

If you want to press the matter or think that your view would prevail with wider comment, I recommend that you start an RfC, giving option A and option B and letting editors weigh in. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stevo D, your proposed text has been discussed and rejected by everyone, and there is consensus for the other version. Further edits against consensus by yourself will be reverted. Furthermore, the text you propose is totally unencyclopedic and seems like something Donald Trump would write on his own website, and not an encyclopedic text about America First as a policy (including its history). --Tataral (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Tataral. Stevo D, the recent spurt of edits you've made don't comport with the rough consensus here. Please stop trying to shorhorn "your version" in over the unanimous or near-unanimous opposition of others. As I said on March 26: If you want to go to RfC with option A and option B, "If you want to press the matter or think that your view would prevail with wider comment, I recommend that you start an RfC, giving option A and option B and letting editors weigh in." But don't edit-war. Neutrality^talk 12:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The only reason to include it on this page would be to explain how they are entirely unrelated. America First was an anti-war movement - I don't know why the media has decided to describe it as an anti-semitic movement - the media has some constraints that are different real scholarship, like producing endless clickbait. We're supposed to mostly focus on scholarship - this requires judgment. Reporting neutral policy developments is appropriately sourced to news organizations, these are matters of fact (Example: Donald Trump signed Executive order x on date x. Execute order n said such and such) - but a histiographical theory that hasn't been published anywhere? That requires expert analysis supported by citations and evidence - without that it isn't expert anaylsis, it's just hysterical accusations and pontificating. The fact that the media has published it doesn't change that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

KKK, really?

Just noticed: do we really have to name-drop David Duke and the KKK in there? — JFG ^talk 02:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't, as it is completely irrelevant and only an attempt to politically slander. I've removed it from the article. Stevo D (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do, because reliable sources mention them as one of the most significant groups/people to use the term in the postwar period. And in fact, Duke is a Trump supporter and the rhetoric used by Trump is identical to the one used by Duke, so there is a direct link, as many RS (and Duke himself) have noted too. --Tataral (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This is polemical hyperbole, and not a comment in good faith--Trump and Duke's ideology are nothing alike, and your/partisan media's doesn't make it so.

Stevo D (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, your comment is totally in good faith Stevo D, and besides the sieg heiling they're totes, totally nothing alike, and you're totally not a brainwashed shill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.158.69.142 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Stevo, I'd say that the only discernible difference between the ideologies of Donald Trump and David Duke is that Trump considers Jews to count as white. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Mediation request

Given the recently re-ignited edit war on contents, and persistence of diverse views about the article scope, I have opened a mediation request to help reach clarification and an acceptable solution for all involved. — JFG ^talk 22:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comes from NYT interview

Trump's first use of the phrase apparently came from a suggestion by David E. Sanger during a NYT interview in March 2016, which Trump quickly took up as his own. [1][2]--Pharos (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs more context

This Wikipedia page presents the America First policy as presented by Trump's team without sufficient context and without noting whether the policy is actually consistent with Trump's rhetoric during the campaign and his actions as President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Outdated? Trump as non-interventionist

All the sources regarding Trumps not being a non-interventionist are from 2017 and earlier. As there was a total u-turn later in his presidency (e.g., Afghanistan) I think we need more recent sources to make this claim as it puts undue significance on earlier stages of his tenure. John wikiIf you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 10:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Neoconservative Bias with opening image

As popular as it might be, I don't think that using that cartoon from Dr. Seuss is a very fair depiction of America First. Given wikipedia's anti-bias rules, it should be removed/replaced with another image that more accurately represents America First.

Also, neocons are the ones who are most against AF. 160.253.0.56 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)