Talk:Social policy of Donald Trump

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration policy of Donald Trump which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts without basis

There have been several reverts to the sourced edits I made without supplying any basis. I've added them back to the article since they are all properly sourced and relevant to the subject. I've kept one edit as-is as that editor has provided source to support the statement. Strongly recommend editor to talk before indulging in further reverts. CatapultTalks (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Surveillance of American Muslims

There are couple of problems with this section.

1. Title: Justification from one editor is that that Trump agreed to "database of muslims" based on a question from a reporter. However, database != surveillance. Also, on Nov 21, 2015 he dismissed those claims and said he doesn't support registry/database of Muslims in the US.
2. Relevance to the article: This isn't so much a "social policy". If anything this should be part of the "immigration policy" or "national security policy" article

CatapultTalks (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

This is both a civil liberties issue and and a security policy issue. The remarks belong in this article, the immigration one and the foreign and defense policy one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Neutrality^talk 19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How about the title? There are reliable sources quoting Trump as him being opposed to database of Muslims in the US. Why is that not relevant and why only his initial comment to decide the title? CatapultTalks (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Crackdown on Internet Pornography

Despite giving enough reliable resources & explanation, my edits for this section are continuously being reverted without any explanation. Let's break this down:

1. The Chron article talks about how Trump "would work to combat both legal pornography and illegal pornography, such as child pornography." - but all this in the context of the Enough is Enough pledge. Beyond this there doesn't seem to be an "pornography policy" for DJT. If you have other resources about his "porno policy" apart from this pledge, please point out.
2. Given that, the statement I added gives context about this pledge backed by reliable sources. "In July 2016, as a Presidential candidate ,Trump signed a pledge authored by Enough Is Enough, an American non-profit organization whose stated purpose is to make the Internet safer for families and children. The pledge asks Presidential nominees to uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforcing existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online"
3. The title, as i've said thru my edits before should be NPOV - it's about "Crackdown of Pornography" & "Internet Safety" - which is what the pledge is all about. There is no other content for this section apart from the fact that DJT signed this pledge, so the section title should be about the pledge, not about an author's POV.

CatapultTalks (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

All reliable sources that covered this pledge make note of the fact that he signed a pledge that contained text regarding how he would combat porn. It's completely not notable that a politician would pledge to uphold laws against the sexual abuse of minors. If you want to add text on that, please add it to the 'criminal justice' section of his 'Political Positions' article. If Trump were to sign a pledge that said he would attempt to stop same-sex marriage, but that he would also actively push for conversion therapy, and reliable sources would deem it noteworthy that he would lend his support for gay conversion therapy, then you, a self-proclaimed mind reader of Trump, don't get to decide what parts of the pledge he truly supported and what parts he didn't truly support. We wouldn't hide his pledge to support conversion therapy or muddle the issue by combining a section on conversion therapy with same-sex marriage or with whatever other non-notable issues were also in the pledge. If Trump later came out with a statement denouncing his previous support for conversion therapy, that would of course also be added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump did not sign two different pledges. It's the one pledge which talks about "preventing the sexual exploitation of children, better enforcing Internet obscenity laws, and recognizing that exposure to Internet porn is "deforming the sexual development of younger viewers.”" - this is as per pcworld a reliable source. Based on this I'm going to re-add the statement to this section. If we are talking about him signing a pledge, we need to add context on what the pledge is and what else is in it. You can't cherry-pick the contents of the pledge based on your POV. CatapultTalks (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If a candidate says he'll do a number of things in a pledge, we should only cover what's notable in the pledge. If there are many notable components of a pledge, we would absolutely separate those things if they are notable on their own. You wouldn't lump a politician's opposition to same-sex marriage with his support for conversion therapy even if part of the same pledge, would you? The non-notable things don't belong at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability isn't defined based on an individual's POV. It's defined as what's covered by reliable sources. Both the aspects have been covered by these sources, so we include both. CatapultTalks (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've partially reverted. I've kept the name of the group that sponsored the pledge, because that's useful for context and for the wikilink. But at least 2 editors (myself and Snooganssnoogans) have objected to the remainder of the content; CatapultTalks, you appear to be the only one to support it. So please don't continue reverting. Discuss it here if you like, and even start an RfC, but please don't try to shoehorn it in unilateral.

There a very apparent redundancy in the new edits. The second sentence reads: "In the pledge, ... Trump promised to 'give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age.'" The first sentence, as you edited it, reads: "The pledge states that he would fight internet porn and work to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online if elected president." These two sentences are obviously duplicative and overlapping. That's poor writing as well as a weight issue. I'm frankly not sure how anyone could see otherwise. Neutrality^talk 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your edit about combining the redundant portions of the paragraph. However, describing Enough Is Enough as an anti-pornography organization, seems to be cherry-picking per POV. It has worked for Child protection laws too as is evident from its wikipedia article - and that is a part of this pledge. Hence my request to amend the title & description of the NGO to indicate both - "(anti)-pornography" and "children online/internet protection" CatapultTalks (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The relevant portion of their mission is the former, though, and that's how they are described in the reliable sources. See, e.g., Marjorie Heins's book published by Rutgers University Press: "the Enough is Enough antipornogaphy campaign" (link) Josh Lambert's book published by NYU Press: "the help of Enough Is Enough, an antipornography group" (link); the New York Times: "communications director of Enough Is Enough, a national anti-pornography group" (link). Neutrality^talk 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you CatapultTalks (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump: I Would 'Strongly Consider' Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage

JFG has now twice removed[6] the fact that Trump has stated that he would "strongly consider" appointing judges to overturn Obergefell. The rationale for the removal is "Source doesn't support reverted text at all: it says that some conservatives would like to overturn Obergefell and are concerned that Trump considers it settled". Here's the title of the HuffPo source cited: "Trump: I Would 'Strongly Consider' Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage"[7]. If HuffPo isn't good enough (a different rationale), here's PolitiFact on the issue[8]: "Looking for a concise answer, Wallace asked Trump if he would "try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage." "I could strongly consider that, yes," Trump said. His position didn’t change during the litany of GOP primary debates, although he hasn’t strongly reiterated how he wanted to appoint judges who would reverse the decision... Clinton said Trump "wants to undo marriage equality." While he’s waffled slightly at times, Trump has said repeatedly that he supported "traditional marriage." He also has said he would consider appointing Supreme Court justices that would reverse the 2015 ruling allowing same-sex marriage." This is not some minor issue either, as a Supreme Court ruling is the only plausible way for same-sex marriage to be made illegal again in the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed this statement for two reasons:

1. It wasn't supported by the source cited next to it (as explained in my second edit summary) [9]
2. Trump's position on this issue has been clearly stated and repeated in several interviews that are more recent than the quoted one (the article cites four sources)
3. The judge he actually nominated to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, has shown no hints of questioning Obergefell – as a matter of fact, he clearly upheld the decision during his Senate hearing yesterday, stating that same-sex marriage is protected by the constitution, per the Equal Protection Clause: [10]

I may add that the HuffPo piece you are quoting was written from a partisan standpoint in the middle of an acrimonious campaign, and includes a strongly worded personal attack on Donald Trump, namely "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully"; this statement alone disqualifies the source for most reporting on Trump. You also quote Politifact, which goes back to a Trump statement from 2000 saying "I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman". Well, at that time, Hillary Clinton was saying the exact same thing, even calling it a "sacred union"[11]; so did Obama as recently as 2008 [12]. Society has evolved, and Trump has acknowledged this. More recently during the campaign, the strongest thing he was saying was "I wish the judges had left the decision to the States", which is different from "I wish this decision would be overturned". Reporters have conflated his views on abortion (where he may indeed want to appoint justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade) and his position on same-sex marriage, which he clarified as "settled" despite his personal inclination. Wikipedia cannot assign undue weight to hypotheticals based on campaign rhetoric on both sides; if we stick to facts, he has made his position abundantly clear, and he is acting accordingly. — JFG ^talk 05:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

How about reading more than one source when four are cited for a three-component sentence? Also, leaving the decision to the States is in fact overturning the decision and condemning half the country to a ban on same-sex marriage. As for your last sentence, we are now back to familiar place in how editing used to go in Trump's 'political positions' article or his main article where Trump supporters assigned some of Trump's statements as his genuine belief and said so in Wikivoice while they whitewashed all the statements they believed that he didn't truly believe. You as an editor do not have the power to decree what Trump's true position is when Trump makes statements all over the map: we present his stated political positions as presented by the man himself and reported by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, neither do you as an editor have the right to declare that Trump's "true position" is his answer to the Chris Wallace question in one single campaign interview, and ignore the numerous other instances where he stated something different. Indeed we must stick to facts and actions: did Trump say anything against gay marriage since he was elected? No. Did he appoint anybody who has pledged to reverse Obergefell? No. Is the subject currently a hotly debated issue? No. Some commentators have even said that only Trump was able to let traditionalist factions of the Republican Party come to terms with the reality of society's evolution on the subject. Case settled. Call me back when Trump actually does something against gay rights. — JFG ^talk 08:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am obviously not saying that it's his one and true position. I wrote the lede and as you can see, there are three different elements to his position on same-sex marriage, just like reliable sources report his position. Also, we don't remove statements that Trump made during his campaign or only focus on what actions he takes as President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I believe the lead wording as amended correctly reflects what sources said, with his personal support for traditional marriage followed by his statement that he considers same-sex marraige legislation as settled. Details are in the LGBT section below. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The phrasing you just inserted is contradictory. Can we find consensus among ourselves or should we open an RfC? — JFG ^talk 11:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing is not contradictory, it is the individual in question who has vague and contradictory policies. That doesn't give editors the freedom to decree what is his one genuine position is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, we already agree that editors can't decree his "one genuine position", that's a good start! My shortened phrasing was:

He personally supports "traditional marriage", but he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.

Yours is:

He personally supports "traditional marriage". He personally opposes same-sex marriage and has said that he would consider appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges but also that he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.

There are two contradictions in there:

1. We say roughly the same thing in two ways: "He personally supports traditional marriage" and "He personally opposes same-sex marriage"; we should pick one, and I believe we should pick the one that reflects the source material, i.e. "He personally supports traditional marriage".
2. "[He] said that he would consider appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges" and "he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a settled issue." Here we can't have it both ways: either he considers it settled or he wants to overturn it. To resolve this, I was proposing to refer to his most recent statements, i.e. the 60 Minutes interview post-election of November 2016. However I see your point that you want to include his answer to Chris Wallace from January 2016 before the Iowa caucus; I think we can accommodate this but the apparent contradiction must then be explained. For example, we could say this:

Trump personally supports "traditional marriage" and once said that he disliked the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. However he later stated that he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about using " supports "traditional marriage"" vs "opposes same-sex marriage", but the latter is clearer language. He's also come out in no uncertain terms to say that he opposes same-sex marriage: "I'm opposed to gay marriage."[13] I also think it's unwise to go with Trump's last stated position on any issue as his current one, especially when there is no firm rejection of his previously stated positions and given that he takes multiple vague and contradictory positions on every issue. It's not clear at all what he means by saying same-sex marriage is a settled issue. Does he mean that the SC is unlikely to overturn such a recent decision (a common perspective)? Does he mean that picking an anti-gay marriage judge as a Scalia replacement is not enough to overturn the decision (a common perspective)? Does he mean that it's low priority for him? Would he no longer "strongly consider" selecting SC judges who would overturn the decision? All of this is unclear. That's why we present all his relevant remarks on the issue. Saying that Trump "once" said that he "disliked" Obergefell is also ridiculous - he's talking about using his powers of selecting judges to overturn the decision! We could use the language that several RS use, which say that Trump's comments that he considers same-sex marriage a "settled" issue "appear to contradict"[http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-says-he-s-fine-gay-marriage-60-minutes-interview-n683606} earlier remarks that he would pick judges to overturn the decision. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's another proposal:

Trump personally supports "traditional marriage", but said after the election that he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. This appeared to contradict some of his campaign statements, where he considered appointing justices who may overturn this decision.

Can we agree on that for now? — JFG ^talk 05:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

How about: "Trump personally opposes same-sex marriage, but said after the election that he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. This appeared to contradict some of his campaign statements, where he said he would "strongly consider" appointing justices to overturn this decision." ? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Sorry for the late reply. I suggest keeping one of my suggestions and one of yours, thus:

Trump personally supports "traditional marriage", but said after the election that he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. This appeared to contradict some of his campaign statements, where he said he would "strongly consider" appointing justices who may overturn this decision.

All peppered with the appropriate citations, of course. OK? — JFG ^talk 16:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with this except I would say ** "strongly consider" appointing justices to overturn this decision.** Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be a misnomer to say "to overturn" instead of "who may overturn"; the president cannot tell a justice what to do, although he may select a judge who leans towards a particular position, based on their record. I will insert the text, let's call it a day. — JFG ^talk 07:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you don't get to decide what Trump really meant. Trump never said he was going to appoint someone "who may overturn", he is asked about trying to appoint judges "to overturn", and said that he would consider that. "Who may overturn" is just your attempt to soften his position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I made it as clear as I could that I disagreed with this. Lame to imply that some kind of consensus was reached here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Well, that was indeed in response to rapid-fire questions by the interviewer, so it's open to interpretation either way. Regardless of what Trump really meant (who knows ?), it's improper to imply that the President can tell a Justice what to do. How to word this properly? I think "who may" is correct, we could also use "who would be inclined to" or "who may decide to". A simple "to" doesn't work because that becomes the President's action, not the Justice's action. Regarding the "supports traditional marriage" part, you had agreed to this wording and I don't know who/when wrote "opposes same-sex marriage" instead. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"it's improper to imply that the President can tell a Justice what to do" - so what? If Trump has a position to do something improper, we report it. Anyway, there's nothing here about the President doing anything improper, such as forcing a Justice to do XYZ - that's again just your interpretation. Most people would understand this as picking a Justice who would be extremely likely or certain to be for overturning Obergefell. I expressed my disapproval of "supports traditional marriage" a few months ago but agreed to let it slide for the sake of compromise. I no longer do, after some thought. It's a stupid euphemism intended to obfuscate. It does not belong on Wikipedia, and don't think it's worth to compromise the content here just to make things move a little faster. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to change your mind; I haven't changed mine, and we have facts beyond campaign rhetoric by now: Gorsuch testified that he wouldn't touch Obergefell and Trump hasn't made any public statement on this issue since he took office (if he did, please show me). The last we have from him is the 60 minutes interview of November, in which he clearly states that his personal opinion is irrelevant and the case is settled. I do not see any reason to promote statements from early campaign season that have not resulted in actual policy determinations. If we can't agree on a wording, we'll probably have to open an RfC to gather more input. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Always hard to pick an exact quote from Trump's rambling speech, but here's what he said: "I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things, but they have a long way to go."[14] – note the "maybe" and the "long way to go" (obviously he's dodging the question trying to please everybody but hey, that's all we have to work with). — JFG ^talk 15:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we use the Wallace-Trump Q&A where Wallace specifically asks him about overturning Obergefell, and Trump gives a specific answer to that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The quote I gave comes from that exact Wallace-Trump Q&A. — JFG ^talk 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm talking about the part where Wallace asks Trump to clarify (i.e. know what he's talking about) that rambling mess: - Wallace clarified: “Are you saying that if you become President you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” Said Trump: “I would strongly consider that, yes.” - Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, we can spend weeks parsing words from an 18-month-old interview and make Trump look scary or weasely or unsteady or all of the above. Facts since the election are coherent with his stance as expressed in November 2016: same-sex marriage is "settled", get over it. — JFG ^talk 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Here, we have it again: You are apparently the Trump Whisperer apparently, the one capable of determining what Trump truly means and what he doesn't. Let Trump speak for himself. There is absolutely nothing since either the Nov 2016 statement or the Wallace-Trump interaction that has tested whether he would go through wit picking judges that would roll back same-sex marriage. Gorsuch's, his one pick so far, just last month sided with a conservative minority in the court to restrict the rights of same-sex couples. While calling Obergefell settled law in confirmation hearings, he also noted that "there is ongoing litigation about its impact and its application right now", without offering thoughts on that ongoing litigation. So it's ludicrous to imply that the Trump administration has not acted on what Candidate Trump said: it has not been tested. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am no more able to determine Trump's "true meaning" than you are. We happen to read things differently, that's all. Together we should be able to write something neutral. — JFG ^talk 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on this RfC on Donald Trump regarding LGBT rights

Please comment here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on RfC regarding lede sentence on Donald Trump

Please comment on this RfC regarding the wording of the lede sentence here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Order of LGBT issues

I moved a new entry in the LGBT issues section 6.2 here since the rest of the section is chronological order, I also expanded to the full quote in the source for completeness and to avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING the negative on a WP:BLP page. I was reverted by Snooganssnoogans here, so per WP:BRD I am opening a discussion here to see which is appropriate. I contend we should keep the existing order that we use for all other sections and list the full quote since beliefs of his family are also relevant to him. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

My preference is to start subsections with summary-type text, if it is available, but to otherwise maintain text in chronological order. I don't have strong feelings on it. I also don't have strong feelings on whether to mention Ivanka and the other kids, though it feels as weird as name-dropping Pence's, Bannon's, Priebus's etc. position on the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can combine the two. Rewrite the part a little bit to fit better at a summery of the section. How does this sound something like

"As a political candidate, Trump largely avoided issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, even while many in his family — including daughter Ivanka Trump — have been vocal supporters of LBGT people. But since taking office, the Trump administration has rolled back a number of protections, including those for transgender schoolchildren. "

I do not think we need an "according to" at the start, and if we remove the "in July 2017" dating part to make it not look like it should be ordered with the rest of the dated items. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Okay I have implemented that wording. PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hello PackMecEng and Snooganssnoogans. The wording you recently agreed upon is not very informative as to what Trump did exactly. If we say "Trump administration rolled back a number of LGBT protections", we need to clarify which protections. Looks like the changes he pushed are specifically of concern to transgender individuals, not the wider LGBTQ community; I would recommend updating the prose accordingly. For example: "The Trump administration opposed the participation of transgender individuals in military service and cancelled the bathroom-access policy promoted by the Obama administration." That's all I see; correct me if I'm wrong. Are there any other LGBT protections that have been targeted? — JFG ^talk 06:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello JFG, Trump withdrew federal guidelines directing schools to let transgender students use facilities that correspond with their gender identity, nullified Obama administration initiative to ensure federal contractors didn't discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, eliminated Census questions pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity, eliminated questions in proposed versions of two federal healthcare surveys addressing needs of the elderly and the disabled, proposed ban of transgender military service members on Twitter, and his Justice Department just intervened (without being asked) in a private employment lawsuit on July 26, arguing that the ban on sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. Not counting his cabinet appointments who have anti-gay histories, and implicit intention to be hostile toward LGBT civil rights, I would find those specifically to be a "number of" protections being rolled back and/or reversed. How would you like incorporate them? Teammm ^talk
_email 23:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Health care policy?

Does health care policy go in this article, or is there some other article that covers that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Health_care is where it has been ending up these days. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised it hasn't found its way into one of the fork articles. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could start a new article for that, actually; the Presidency article is bloated. — JFG ^talk 20:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: New section on Women's Rights / Sexual Abuse

Should this article include a section documenting the Presidential record on Women's Rights and/or Sexual Abuse? The only current entries are with regards to Abortion, Family Leave, and Women in the Military.

Seeking contributions on this issue. — algocu (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No - seems WP:OFFTOPIC as the article is by specific and actual policy statements and actions from President Donald Trump where there is some WP:WEIGHT. He has been noted for his policies on Abortion and LGBT, and minor mentions of him being against domestic violence. (cite The Independent re his speech for Womens History Month) But he does not seem to have done anything more of note -- simply has no significant positions on many things like equal pay for example.(cite Time.com) Without specific items in proposal, it just looks like an request for a vague title or something that does not exist. Too vague, confusing, and just too open to inviting misuse. Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Some present content seems OFFTOPIC also. Specifically "He favors capital punishment, as well as the use of waterboarding". I'm not sure whether punishment comes under the general topic, 'Social policy', but I'm pretty sure 'waterboarding' DOESN"T. I agree with Markbassett that there is a danger of misuse if drawing too much attention to policy 'silences'. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Do you have sources on those issues you'd like to use? I believe this article should be about Trump's stated/enacted policies as opposed to his personal behavior, and the topics you mention would be magnets for criticism of his personal life. Thundermaker (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Proposing to merge Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration here. Unnecessary policy spin-off. wumbolo ^^^ 16:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: this the cannabis article is too lengthy (while sticking to directly Trump-related data) to be merged into the target article. Also this article is part of a set series of "cannabis policy by presidency" articles so has a set place in the category tree. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: I'd like to see the standalone article kept. This article is long enough, and I think the cannabis policy by presidential administration articles are helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Undue weight of this particular issue compared to many others. Trump has not taken a strong stance either way about cannabis. Besides, the assertion that "this article is part of a set series" is misleading, because those articles on prior presidencies were just created today by Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney. They are merge candidates as well. — JFG ^talk 06:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I didn't create them out of some sneaky motive to save this article, WPCannabis is having a month-long editathon and these have been on my to-do list for a while. I think "undue weight" is off here too; it's not a fault of this article if people aren't writing full-length articles on his Immigration policy, Opiate policy, etc. That's not a reason to diminish coverage that people have put the effort into documenting. And frankly, if you merge it it would be undue coverage because this page's content would take up an inordinate amount of the target article. Same with Cannabis policy of the Jimmy Carter administration, it's a decent-sized article with fully-cited content, and moving it wholesale to Presidency of Jimmy Carter would imbalance that article (I've already made a small extracted section there), and to chop out a ton of explicitly-cited material to make it fit into a smaller section would be just removing information solely for the sake of a merge, which is totally counter-productive to expanding Wikipedia coverage. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: I did not mean to imply any "sneaky motive" on your part. I was not aware of the edit-a-thon, so that I saw these new articles as perhaps excessive zeal in covering minor topics. However I do agree that your motivation to write good articles on a topic dear to your heart should not be discounted just because other editors have failed to write robust articles on other presidential policies. Having this "cannabis policy of X" series may just look strange to readers seeing presidential navboxes that do not include "fiscal policy of X" or "healthcare policy of X". It has looked strange in Template:Donald Trump series and will look possibly stranger with prior presidents, unless the cannabis policy was particularly notable in a presidency. — JFG ^talk 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I can see where you're coming from, but does Wikipedia have any policy like WP:NOTMYPROBLEM? If it's not Notable to a given article/template, I can see not including it, but a dearth of articles on Topic A is not a valid reason to delete or merge articles on Topic B. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we have such a policy, it's called WP:Other stuff exists, affectionately known as WP:OTHERCRAP. — JFG ^talk 18:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, and do the opposite We still need Donald Trump and abortion, Firearm policy of the Trump administration, etc. We need more spinoffs, not less. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  10:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Title IX by the Department of HHS does not make any attempt to define 'gender'.

Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit on the grounds that they did not see why reading the actual source material for the action https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/needy-families/title-ix-education-amendments/index.html Could give a more impartial view of the purpose and method of the action than an obviously charged NY Times Op-Ed. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

The NY Times article first statement is included here: "WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law."

This position is contradicted by the source material wherein the word 'gender' is not found even once used. The purpose of the action and the method of the action is to define 'sex', not 'gender'.

The problem lies in the fact that the terms 'gender' and 'sex' have been used interchangeably for many years. The point of the legislation is to lock one term down scientifically 'sex' while leaving the other 'gender' open to be whatever the individual wishes it to be. The authors of the NY Times article intentionally conflate the two terms because doing so lets them claim erroneously that if the term 'gender' were fixed to be either male or female, then terms like 'transgender' would no longer be legally possible. This is far from the intent of the action and is therefore demonstrably erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenguinMan98 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in digging through press releases and reports by this administration and we as Wikipedia editors should not be interpreting these primary sources. Your claim that the NY Times source is an op-ed is false. You have furthermore violated the 1RR rule on this page and should immediately self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me I'm new here. My undo was undone by another user. I respectfully object to your position on the grounds that the NYTimes article is not an original source and an original source exists that contradicts the conclusions of the article. Because the article comes to a conclusion not supported by the source material, it violates the 'No Original Research' rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenguinMan98 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've learned enough about the purpose and methods of Wikipedia to retract this thread. Thank you for your time. PenguinMan98 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Does this video have any relevance here?

This video called 'President Trump Meets with Survivors of Religious Persecution' was posted to Youtube on July 17, 2019 and itself has attracted some press coverage [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Victor Grigas (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Presidency : LGBT anti-discrimination laws

The statement: "However, in March 2017, the Trump administration rolled back key components of the Obama administration's workplace protections for LGBT people.[181]" is blatantly false, as are many of the news articles which featured and spread this inflammatory falsehood.

The so-called 'protections' which were stricken from federal regulations had already been invalidated by the courts in 2016, prior to Trump's presidency. The action, by Trump, of removing them from federal regulations was a recordkeeping task intended at removing defunct language. Specifically, you can look at the case (Case # 7:16-cv-00054-O) tried before Judge Reed O'Connor of Texas who struck down the anti-discrimination mandate saying "The rule defines sex bias to include 'discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy.'" - LCNMPatriot (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, then the text should be amended and clarified specifically. Steepleman (t) 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trump stained his name by making it synonymous with transphobia.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:988D:BDC1:BA3D:B58C (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

BS

In the 1980s he was supposed to do the ban on gay unions and said so publicly. He was 20 years ahead of Obama, Hillary, Biden, and all the Democrats. You failed to mention his Barbara Walters interview in the late 1980s that I watched! He was very clear about this. 2601:703:4201:28B0:C18:E69B:B601:FA7D (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)