Talk:Social media use by Donald Trump/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Twitter split proposal

I propose that the section Donald Trump on social media#Twitter be split out to Donald Trump on Twitter. It is extremely long and takes up the majority of this article. Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging @Finnusertop, GHcool, JFG, Axisixa, and Nanophosis: (previous participants of a similar discussion) Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose pretty much the entire article is Donald Trump's Twitter activity. The remaining sections are a few paragraphs and don't add much to the article length-splitting them out of the article would not alter the length and create a very awkward stub, "Donald Trump's activity on social media (excluding Twitter)".
  The real reason this article is long is because Trump says a lot of crazy stuff on Twitter and we document it, it's that simple. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him and see how far you get. So it's a given that the article is long, but that's not a problem in my view because it's well organised and it's possible to find sections you care about. Blythwood (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. Trump's social media activity outside Twitter is not notable. — JFG ^talk 11:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps a way forward would be to rename this article to Donald Trump on Twitter, and insert a brief paragraph about his other social media activity. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 11:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a good solution to me. My original concern is that the Twitter activity overshadows the "other" social media activity. Perhaps this article was named this way to match with the Barack Obama on social media article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - As others have said, Trump's activity outside of Twitter is not worthy of attention, and I doubt any of it is actually written by him anyway. A better solution would be shortening the article, which is more of a melange of certain tweets that have gained notoriety than an summation of his Twitter activity - I doubt we need three paragraphs on Britain First; nobody remembers that. At the very least, Twitter shouln't be a top-level heading, it makes the article very difficult to read - it could be laid out more like this instead. - Axisixa T C 06:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you support JFG's proposal to rename the article to Donald Trump on Twitter? I would be okay with that solution, if we are to mainly focus on his Twitter activity. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense if the article still covers other social media platforms. But none of them are really that relevant anyway, outside of his old Youtube videos, so they could be removed or relegated to a minor mention/paragraph. - Axisixa T C 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Approve deletionists are responsible of this situation. The proposal makes total sense. --Deansfa (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the most important topic here is Trump's use of Twitter. It might make sense to bundle the Facebook/etc. information with content on his appearances on Fox News, etc. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "On the Chinese internet"

The section "On the Chinese internet" 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). -- Perey (talk) 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. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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: A, B, C, D). 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:

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.
Social media use by Donald Trump § On the Chinese internet 09:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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. -- Perey (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

From the Desk of Donald J. Trump

Lapabc: "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. 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. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

References

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. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Dude, give me a chance to reply, I don't live on Wikipedia. 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. Lapabc (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

In another cases

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)

This has been fixed by User:M.boli. Thanks! 70.51.66.54 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Impeachment March (35683618225).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"Donald Trump and Twitter" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Donald Trump and Twitter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Donald Trump and Twitter until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Subjective wording

Under the section about Trump's own social media network it says "Trump quietly incorporated..." etc. The word word"quietly" adds a narrative quality to the article and just makes it less objective. I can't edit this page for some reason. Can someone please remove this word from the sentence? 68.118.98.100 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you checked the source to see if it really backs up the content? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The source is clearly reliable and backs up the sentence, but the wording is too subjective and doesn't mesh with Wikipedia's standards. 68.118.98.100 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Update

Trump has recently been unbanned from Twitter. Can Wikipedia please update the article? 100.16.152.25 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

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,[6][7][8][9]" Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Statement should read: "For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial statements,[6][7][8][9]" Wid777 (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you got any policy based reasons for your suggestion? If you haven't, then nothing will be changed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:01, 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 Wikipedia 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)

My understanding is that you're requesting to remove the words "and false" from the phrase "he often posted controversial and false statements". But as you can see (from the link), there is a whole separate article dedicated to Trump's false statements. That article currently has over 400 sources, including (as just one of those sources) the Washington Post's fact-check database that tallied 30,000 lies during his presidency. It is well-documented that Trump says false things (in general), and his lies are cataloged individually.

It is Wikipedia's job to separate truth from falsehood, and politicians should not be immune to fact-checks. Certain politicians cultivate large followings who will say that the Earth is flat if their leader tells them to say it. This kind of widespread "dissent" shouldn't prevent Wikipedia from saying that the Earth is round. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of Twitter followers

Right now, the 1st paragraph of the lede says: "When Twitter banned Trump from the platform in January 2021 during the final days of his term, his handle @realDonaldTrump had over 88.9 million followers." Trump was just unbanned, and when I checked his handle on Twitter just now, he has 72.3 million followers.

I'm guessing the drop over the last 2 years is because many accounts were bots and those handles no longer exist on the platform. The undesirability of bots was a big theme in Elon Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. Twitter may have deleted them, or else their operators got bored of them.

It seems that, if we state the old number of followers, we should also mention the new number. But does the number need to be interpreted? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, interesting — I just checked again, and now it says 86 million followers. Twitter may be restoring the data in pieces. (Or faking the data. Who knows.) Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Is "nondisclosure agreement" the right term related to the Jan 2023 search warrant for Twitter?

The article currently says:

"In January 2023, special counsel Jack Smith obtained a search warrant for records of Trump's Twitter account activity in relation to the federal prosecution of Trump's role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Twitter objected to a nondisclosure agreement that was issued that prevented them from informing Trump about the search warrant, and did not comply by the given deadline. As such, a judge fined the company $350,000."

Lots of news reports refer to this as a "nondisclosure agreement," but I can't figure out what this term means. An agreement is between two parties. Twitter objected to the nondisclosure restriction. So who agreed with whom? If the judge agreed to the government's request and issued a court order, that would normally just be called an "order," not an "agreement." Indeed NBC refers to it as a "nondisclosure order." Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree this isn't really an "agreement" in the traditional sense. The NYT calls it a "provision" and I edited to reflect that.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

jounral = journal 2603:8000:D300:3650:7CCD:C3ED:BF89:9279 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Bestagon ⬡ 19:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)