Talk:Donald Trump

"...from the standpoint of water..."
"This is a tough hurricane; one of the wettest we've ever seen, from the standpoint of water..." - 4:42pm Sept 18 2018 Twitter @realDonaldTrump, Video taped at the white house posted to Trump's Twitter account. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/407333-trump-praises-florence-response-one-of-the-wettest-storms-weve-ever https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article218640230.html https://www.facebook.com/TheGuardiansOfDemocracy/videos/trump-on-florence-one-of-the-wettest-weve-ever-seen-from-the-standpoint-of-water/267467230567295/ Can this quote be added? I'm not exactly sure what point is appropriate to end the quote, or exactly what the punctuation should be; but man it's a gem. Aries97 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If you hang out with a loser, you are a loser?
It should be correctly quoted: "I've always said, if you hang out with losers, you become a loser. And that's what's happened to you, Alex". -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_3

FAIR
This page is ridiculous. They cite FAIR as the source for racists comments by Trump. FAIR is a far left hate group that cannot be trusted for directions to a gas station. 98.199.212.25 03:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] FAIR is meticulously accurate, and Trump not only has not disputed the quotes, he himself told Playboy, "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true." — Robin Lionheart 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FAIR is a joke, not accurate in the least. They, like Media Matters serve only to attack by taking words out of context. They are only a mouthpiece for far-left wackadoos. 98.199.212.25 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your best example of an inaccurate quote by FAIR (assuming you have any at all)?
 * You can become an editor here too, anonymous namecaller. If you find an inaccurate quote on this wiki, then cite a reliable source and correct it. If more context would make a quote on this wiki mean something different, then cite a reliable source and provide it. — Robin Lionheart 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The quotes you published are perfect examples. Trump never said the quotes regarding blacks were "probably true." He was speaking of the book in general. There is no proof he actually said and FAIR is not considered reliable. The book, "The Way Things Aren't" by FAIR about Rush Limbaugh, was full of inaccuracies and half truths. For example they took Limbaugh to task for saying that there is more forest land today than when Columbus arrived. That was a quote taken out of context. That is just one example,; do the research. My point is that FAIR would not be considered a reliable source by anyone except on some wiki site because they traffic in far left politics, lies, and quotes taken out of context. You might as well be quoting Media Matters, who would not be considered a reliable source either. You are going to have to do much better than that if you want anyone to take you seriously. Do some research before you post instead of trying to look for something that matches your political beliefs and posting it, regardless of the source. 98.199.212.25 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so your best example is FAIR's book The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error citing Rush Limbaugh saying "We have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written." on his radio show on 1994-02-18 (when according to the US Forest Service, the opposite is true). What additional context do you think that quote needs? (You will also want to provide it on the Rush Limbaugh page where I've just added that quotation.) — Robin Lionheart 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I set out to do here, which is expose the fact that you used a poor source to further your political beliefs. Nobody but a far left wackodoo would even try to put FAIR as a source. I've proved my point. Don't worry little fella, nobody is going to delete your quote; but they will see why you put it here. You wanted to portray him as a racist, when the opposite is true; shown by his life and words. You should be ashamed. I am done here as I have accomplished my goal. Good luck to you. STUDY and LEARN. 98.199.212.25 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To prove your point, you had to back up your charges that FAIR is "not accurate in the least" and traffics in "lies" and "quotes taken out of context". Since you did not, your victory lap seems premature. However, you may have accomplished your goal, if your goal was to anonymously wage an unsubstantiated smear campaign. Should you ever have anything of substance to say challenging a quote here, do come back and share it. — Robin Lionheart 02:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our anonymous interlocutor is merely exhibiting the same sort of ad hominem genetic fallacy that is so widespread in contemporary polemics. My beef with popular "commentators" (left, right, and center) is that the prevalence of their disingenuous rhetoric has so poisoned public discourse that many otherwise sensible  people are misled into honestly believing that this sort of bogus argument actually proves anything. The celebrity commentators are smart enough to know it is nonsense, but cynically pretend to drink their own Kool-Aid because it convinces the gullible to gulp it down. ~ Ningauble 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our? Anonymous? Ip is solidus signature. While using nick anybody can be Romney vice. Donald ducke Anglosaxon (talk)

This quote has now been given a section of its own by Illegitimate Barrister, which will make it stand out even more. I disagree with the IP complaining above, who apparently believes the quote should be deleted. But if the book in question was indeed written by "a fired and totally disgruntled employee" (as seems to be the case), then the quote is of course very problematic. I changed the title of the section to "Disputed", and quoted Trump's defense (it is not clear from the Washington Examiner article whether Trump specifically denied the quote). For what it's worth, its final words ("It really is, I believe that.") make me think the quote is made up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, Trump denied ever saying it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quoting rival political candidates
has added a neutrality dispute header to the About section because it includes a quote by Rick Perry. This is not uncommon. Frex, we have a quote by Mitt Romney on the Barack Obama page, and vice versa. To the contrary, it'd be biased of us to not include notable quotations criticizing a political candidate. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the reason. All quotes, except one, are insulting or attacking Trump (even his IQ). Do you honestly think that section (as it is now) can be considered neutral and balanced? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that all? If you can find a notable, complimentary quote (by someone other than Trump himself), feel free to add it. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed quote
Although he definitely disputed the quote later, the interview where he said the allegations were "probably true" should not be treated as a denial just because he also insulted the person quoting him.--Mugasofer (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Rapists quote
Currently reads:
 * They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.

We 100% sure this is accurate? It seems like it could also be this:
 * They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime, their rapists.

The 'people that have lots of problems' quote is talking about a list of things they bring with them, not describing those people, as we can see in those earlier too points, so it seems odd that he would suddenly out of the blue say 'they're rapists!' as opposed so saying they are bringing their rapists, as in rapists are a portion rather than an entirety of the PTHLOP.

Obviously this is the sound bite that a lot of people are running with. The closed captions for a clip of this shown on The Passionate Eye even reads "they are rapists" (which is false because he clearly does not say 'are').

The problem is that ðɛɚ is how both their and they're can be pronounced, they are homophones, so shouldn't we present both cases as possible? Ranze (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The second option is not a particularly logical reading, for three reasons. First, it is a consistent series of "they're" statements which follows the rule of three (which Trump consistently uses). Second, "They're rapists" - is accusing "them" of being rapists, whereas "their rapists" would be accusing the "them" of "bringing" their rapists, which creates a rather awkward category of "people who bring rapists". Third, this also doesn't fit with the statement that follows, that "some, I assume, are good people"; if the last object referent is not "Mexicans" as a whole, but merely "their rapists", then Trump would be saying that he assumes some of the rapists are good people. That seems unlikely. BD2412 T 13:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't he just discussing people who illegally immigrated from Mexico? That could certainly include Mexicans who were denied (or did not apply for) legal immigration, but it could also include non-Mexicans too since it isn't just Mexicans who are able to be in Mexico. Ranze (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first line of the quote is: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best". The object of the sentence here is people sent by Mexico. The statement does not specify whether these people are entering the United States legally or illegally, but it's hard to see how "its people" refers to anything other than Mexicans. What non-Mexican's would be considered Mexico's people? BD2412 T 03:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Does Not Appear to be written from a Neutral Point of View
This page doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view. In my opinion this page needs to be retired until after the election as well as any other political figures so as to not to become the center of any of the individuals being quoted. If the quotes were inaccurate or incomplete, the results could be disastrous. --wizbang_fl 05:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point to some specific examples of issues that need fixing? BD2412 T 12:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @wizbang In my opinion, what you just said is a reason that pages about political candidates must not be retired in the lead-up to an election. Because that's when an up-to-date page where people can look up accurate quotes is most needed. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

image captions
The quote from Trump's most recent book:


 * I give people what they need and deserve to hear - exactly what they don't get from politicians - and that is The Truth.

is much preferable to


 * You've been hearing me say it's a rigged system, but now I don't say it anymore because I won. It's true. Now I don't care.

as the lead quote. (And it was actually chosen by Peter1c, not me.) I think everyone can understand this, but as DragonflySixtyseven is keeping up his trollish changes, I'm starting this discussion here. I reverted his other caption changes from today; pls discuss before changing them again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bolded text
Several text passages are bolded, I can't see why. Could someone give reason here, before I remove the formatting? John Harris 94.197.188.133 15:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quotes about his voter demographic
I was wondering if generally quotes that break down voter demographics for a candidate would be appropriate to include and specifically if this one would work.

CensoredScribe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you know that of the 14 states with the highest number of painkiller prescriptions per person, they all went for Trump?
 * Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher, January 20th 2017

"Grab 'em by the pussy."
Trump was not (and is not) commanding the general public to grab women "by the pussy". He said that women let STARS do it. In a braggadocious way, when talking to another "star" in private. (And we already dedicate an image to it.) Making this the lead quote turns the Trump article into a hit piece and Wikiquote into a joke, I think. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever said he was. We're just putting the quote in as it is.

An island surrounded by water
Could somebody please add this, said about Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria: "This is an island. Surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Apprentice episode on white trash

 * “What do you mean you're white trash?”
 * “No, you're not joking about that, what do you mean you're white trash?”
 * “Does that make you white trash, do you feel you're white trash?”
 * “That's a pretty stinking statement. Don't you think that's a pretty bad statement about yourself?”
 * “Do you go around calling yourself white trash? Do you think I want to hire someone who's white trash?”
 * “I don't like it as a joke. You know what, you're fired.”
 * ”I think that is just so stupid for you to say- you're fired. Go! Terrible.”
 * “You shouldn't use that expression anymore either”

Does anyone know which particular season/episode this was said in? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

--101.173.78.130 12:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)==Failed verification==
 * I blame our leaders. Here we have China, ripping this country off like nobody's ever seen before, and we have the president of China come, a few months ago, to Washington, and we give him a state dinner. Now when people are screwing you, you don't give 'em state dinners. [...] What we do, is we sit down in my office for a couple of hours. We either make a deal where you stop manipulating your currency or not. If we make a deal, you can have a state dinner if you want. If we don't make a deal, you take McDonald's, and you go home.
 * It's always so simple. What would you do? What could you do? So easy. I drop a 25% tax on China. And, you know, I said to somebody that it's really the messenger. The messenger is important. I could have one man say [effete voice] "We're going to tax you 25%", and I can say another, "Listen, you motherf---ers, we're going to tax you 25%." You've said the same thing. You've said the same exact thing when it's the messenger. [...] I'll tell you what's going to happen. When they believe the message— they don't believe it right now— when they believe the message, they're going to do one thing. They're going to give us anything they want.
 * Did you see recently where, a couple of days ago? Saudi Arabia said, "ah, let's raise the price. Let's cut production." Could you believe it? You're gonna be payin' five or six dollars a gallon on gasoline pretty soon. And they want to...they want to go in and raise the price of oil. Because we have nobody in Washington that sits back and says, "You're not gonna raise that f---ing price!" You understand me?
 * Trump's speech at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino targeted the U.S. relationship with China, OPEC countries, and Saudi Arabia, on.
 * Trump's speech at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino targeted the U.S. relationship with China, OPEC countries, and Saudi Arabia, on.

- Rupert loup (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel quote by the mayor of Jerusalem
"President Trump decided to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people, stand on the side of historical truth and do the right thing." Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. Can someone add the quote? Here is the source. --101.173.78.130 12:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Apprentice
The Apprentice (UK) has a sizable article. How about one for The Apprentice (US)?

Add the following quotes?

 * September 2016: "People don't know how great you are. People don't know how smart you are. These are the smart people. These are the smart people. These are really the smart people. And they never like to say it, but I say it. And I'm a smart person. These are the smart. We have the smartest people. We have the smartest people. And they know it. Some say it, but they hate to say it. But we have the smartest people." (Source)
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * May 2013: "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault" (Source)
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * September 2014: "Every time I speak of the haters and losers I do so with great love and affection. They cannot help the fact that they were born fucked up! (Source)
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * July 2018: "To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!" (Source)
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * November 2012: "Why is Obama playing basketball today? That is why our country is in trouble!" (Source)
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * January 2018: "We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!" (Source)
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

November 2015 comments re New Jersey
Nov 21 rally speech in Birgmingham:
 * I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.

Nov 22 interview with George Stephanopoulous:
 * It was on television. I saw it. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don't like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.

I added these quotes with sources but am wondering if anyone is able to locate video of both comments for those curious about contextual placement within the larger body of speech/interview or tone of voice, etc.

This appears to be a 6m30s excerpt of the Birmingham speech and I flipped through quickly but didn't notice the first quote, though I expect Trump spoke longer than that so it might not be in the clip or I might have just overlooked it since I didn't watch it straight through.

There is a 31 July 2016 interview between George and Donald which I found but haven't been able to find video of this 22 November 2015 interview. Anyone able to help locate minute/second in a video somewhere? Ranze (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

2005 Larry King interview
A Fox article mentioned:
 * Trump also used the arm-thrashing act when making fun of himself during an interview with Larry King in 2005

I found this 17 May 2005 interview. Does anyone know if Trump did any other interviews with King during that year?

It's 16 minutes long so I plan to review it to see if there was any of this alleged arm-thrashing but am wondering if anyone remembers if/when it happened. Ranze (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Norway
I have found several paraphrasings regarding something he allegedly said, but no specific quotes: Anyone know what the original purported phrasing was? So many people paraphrase it's hard to know what to look for but I would like to quot it. 70.51.192.235 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * NYT " In a meeting with lawmakers, President Trump said the United States needed more immigrants from places like Norway and fewer from Haiti "
 * NYT "When Mr. Trump heard that Haitians were among those who would .... the United States should admit more people from places like Norway."
 * CNBC "The move came after President Trump reportedly called Haiti a "s--thole" and asked why we don't have more immigrants from Norway."
 * Vox "President Trump reportedly referred to Haiti and countries in Africa as ... called for more immigrants from places like Norway at an Oval Office"
 * WashPo " Dawsey is reporting that Trump made a similar comment about wanting more immigrants from places like Norway"

Intercept: Glen Greenwald's 'The FBI’s Investigation of Trump as a “National Security Threat” is Itself a Serious Danger.
GreenMeansGo Please note, it seems the article has more than 3300 words. Am posting 311 words... quoting Mr. Greenwald. Thank you.

Om777om (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your original formulation was nearly 400 words comprising about a seventh of the of the piece. We may sometimes use larger quotations from larger works, such as books, especially when the work is in the public domain, not that we necessarily should, even if we can. But we cannot use large swaths of copyrighted text that accounts for a substantial portion of a whole work. This standard is non-negotiable under both current law and local policy.  G M G  talk  20:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GreenMeansGo: The actual quoted text on my second try, posted shortly after sending you that note, excluding the title and link was 311 - but whatever. It's good to know. Thank you for sharing the information & all the good things you do. Om777om (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent potential quotes from WhiteHouse.gov should be added.
Examples:

"In the 20th century, America saved freedom, transformed science, redefined the middle class, and, when you get down to it, there’s nothing anywhere in the world that can compete with America. (Applause.)  Now we must step boldly and bravely into the next chapter of this great American adventure, and we must create a new standard of living for the 21st century.  An amazing quality of life for all of our citizens is within reach.

We can make our communities safer, our families stronger, our culture richer, our faith deeper, and our middle class bigger and more prosperous than ever before. (Applause.)

But we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution, and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good. (Applause.)

Together, we can break decades of political stalemate. We can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions, and unlock the extraordinary promise of America’s future. The decision is ours to make.

We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction.

Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness. (Applause.)" - Remarks by President Trump in [2019 State of the Union Address]

"Throughout our history, we have proudly welcomed newcomers to our shores. Out of many people, from many places, we have forged one people and one nation under God, and we’re very proud of it.  (Applause.)  We share the same home, we share the same destiny, and we pledge allegiance to the same, great American flag.  (Applause.)

Our policies have turbo-charged our economy. Now, we must implement an immigration system that will allow our citizens to prosper for generations to come." - Remarks by President Trump on Modernizing Our Immigration System for a Stronger America

"Americans’ belief in God has forged the character of our country and made our nation a light unto the world. We are respected again as a nation, I will tell you that.  And I’m not only talking about from a religious standpoint.  Our country is respected again." - Remarks by President Trump at the Faith and Freedom Coalition “Road to Majority” 2019 Conference; Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C.

Quite ridiculous you could not add them on the page. Please do in order to comply with any relevant WikiMedia policies. --2603:9000:A507:FCB6:A19A:2362:5C45:2B3F 14:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are more without bolding:

"It is more important than ever before to come together as Americans. We cannot allow those seeking to sow confusion, discord, and rancor to be successful." - President Donald J. Trump Is Standing Up To Russia’s Malign Activities

"This afternoon, I want to express our incredible appreciation to all of you: the moms serving our nation in uniform, the mothers of our great heroes, and the moms with spouses who serve in the armed forces.

Your unwavering dedication and support strengthens our entire nation. Today, we honor you. We celebrate you. We salute you and everything that you do — so many things, so many great things — for our country.

To the active-duty moms here today: We thank you for your courage, and we applaud your noble service. You have two of the most important jobs in the world: bravely defending America from our enemies and helping to raise the next generation of American patriots. You have spent Mother’s Days — (applause) — and, you know — come on, let’s go. (Applause.) Let’s go.

You have spent Mother’s Days on ships out at sea, on bases in faraway lands, and staring down foreign threats in very, very dangerous areas. And you’ve done it all out of love for family, for country, and for duty. Our nation is forever in your debt. Thank you very much. Great job. Incredible job. (Applause.)" - Remarks by President Trump at the Celebration of Military Mothers and Spouses Event

Feel free to suggest more, unless you order. --2603:9000:A507:FCB6:A19A:2362:5C45:2B3F 15:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A couple good quotes from the 45th President of the United States of America

 * America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.
 * Donald Trump, Address at the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly


 * The truth is plain to see - if you want freedom, take pride in your country; if you want democracy, hold onto your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbours, and honour the differences that make each country special and unique.
 * Donald Trump, Address at the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly

Can someone add these to the page?
 * ✅ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Move social media quotes to their own article
I think that his quotes in social media should be moved to their own article, since this article is already too bloated. GreenMeansGo and Robin Lionheart what do you think? Rupert Loup 21:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that's why you've been separating them out. I agree that there's more than enough content to justify its own article.
 * Pity that a separate article means two places to check for users wanting to look up things Trump said about a certain topic, like global warming for example, but at least the two pages won't take as long to load. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. About "look up things Trump said about a certain topic, like global warming": articles on those topics can also be created if needed, like for example "". Rupert Loup 06:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WQ:IMAGES
In accordance with WQ:IMAGES, I have removed 3 of the 5 images at the top of the page. They can be re-inserted in more appropriate places by an interested editor: ~ riley  ( talk  ) 22:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have additionally removed 28 of the 30 in the #Quotes about Trunp section:

~ riley  ( talk  ) 22:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fix Link to "George Floyd protests"
I believe that should be changed to  to Link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests in the June 12, 2020 quote.


 * The same text prior makes me think a bot came along and messed this up. WakandaQT (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
is adding quotes that are fine in and of themselves, but with sources that are often biased cited merely for their journalistic titles which are political attacks and almost invariably insulting of Trump, often not even directly connected to the quotations themselves as in this instance or here. This user's descriptions also tend to be POV-pushing and sometimes with no support in the cited sources: for example here he says that the protester who was shoved by the police was "handled brutally" when this is not established and is merely an opinion, one which he is attempting to pass off as Wikiquote's view of what happened. This is classic POV-pushing. See Neutral point of view. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 When somebody says something that is obviously not true, it is in the interest of the public that this is pointed out.
 * 2 Most mass media are critical to Trump. It is often difficult to find reliable, sensible sources that are neutral or positive to some of his more "special" claims.
 * 3 Presenting a quote from Trump is by itself a one-sided POV. Presenting a refutation is a good solution for how to regain balance and neutrality.
 * 4 When facts are seen as a "political attack", something is wrong.
 * 5 What does "Wikiquote's view" mean?? Does Wikiquote have a particular "view" on politics?
 * 6 When the whole world can see a video where a person is handled brutally, it is odd to downplay this as "merely an opinion".
 * 7 It is very touching that DanielTom seems to want to downplay some "special" Trump quotes, but when the reality is like it is, DanielTom might want to learn to accept this.
 * Joreberg (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy that could be of help in this discussion: W:WP:IMPARTIAL. Also try to stay WQ:CIVIL and don't make commentaries on other users but on the content itself. Rupert Loup 13:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is definitely POV and irrelevant. Rupert Loup 18:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral, clear facts are in my view not "POV". The facts were extremely relevant: Trump claimed to be number 1 on Facebook, while the facts proved that he was not.  Joreberg (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsourced content is original research and the comparison with Obama is POV and irrelevant. Rupert Loup 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rupert Loup. The note that you added convey some of the same information as the note that I added but that was deleted.  Your note includes a reference to a source that tells more.  Good work.


 * Joreberg I don't think presenting a quote by itself is a one-sided POV. I don't think there's really any POV whatsoever in merely presenting what someone said, so long as there's consensus they actually said it. Where POV comes into that is where there is disagreement over whether someone said something, or perhaps what portion / context in which to present it. Is this really the place to INTERPRET quotes at length, or merely to archive them? WakandaQT (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * just found some quotes i would like to add from: Thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/ but they are from the The Federalist (website) which may be blacklisted here? This is what enwiki says in the intro: During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information or pseudoscience that was contrary to the recommendations of public health experts and authorities.[5] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 election, The Federalist made false claims of large-scale fraud
 * Thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing about quotes from well-known sites like Federalist is if they did something like wrongly transcribe something a candidate said on video (whether mistake or intention) then it would be very easy to call them out on that, so I'm sure we would see it corrected. Accusations like false info I think have more to do with which sources they choose to interview for stories than whether or not they correctly write down what the source said. I would be more concerned about papers who publish purported claims not supported with video evidence (or at least audio recording of phone interview) such as "anonymous source A says Trump said X standing in a cemetary". WakandaQT (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with many of your points. For example:
 * 2. Most mass media are critical to Trump...
 * (an examplefrom the Washington Post: Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis claimed without evidence in a statement Sunday that the recounts had "revealed serious issues regarding the legality of ballots cast." (bolding is mine)
 * The question is, should we use commentary on pages of wikiquote, or let our readers draw their own conclusions. After all Trump has been complaining, rightly or not, that the media is not treating him fairly, and we do not want to be accused of this as well, do we?. Your thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Trump says something that is highly dubious, or even demonstrably untrue, we would be deceiving our readers if we propagated such statements without any warning or debunking. And if we stop including notable controversial quotes, we would be deceiving our readers in a different way by giving a misleading impression of what he says.  After some consideration, I have therefore arrived at the opinion that Wikiquotes is maybe not the place to do extensive fact checking or debunking.  Rather, when Trump claims something without providing evidence and there is reason to suspect that something is dubious, it is relevant to include the note "without evidence", giving readers a hint that they might themselves want to investigate the context, truthfulness etc. on their own.  Joreberg (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Wikiquotes is maybe not the place to do extensive fact checking or debunking." This has been your purpose, but indeed it is not Wikiquote's purpose. It is not Wikiquote's mission to be a fact checker. You add quotes with the sole purpose of calling Trump a "liar" etc. through the citations. And you add "without evidence" very selectively. Rest assured that Wikiquote's readers know to "investigate the context, truthfulness etc. on their own" without your biased "hints", they are not children. Of course if we start adding "without evidence" to some quotations, soon we will have to add it to most (or even all) quotations on other pages (as people typically do not present evidence when they say something witty or memorable), otherwise it would seem we are endorsing or vouching for the truth of all the statements (political or otherwise) without that label on Wikiquote. This should give you an idea of the problem you are creating. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Winning is easy, losing is never easy
What about this? https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/524248-trump-during-visit-with-campaign-staff-winning-is-easy-losing-is

Remove POV notice from article
I have removed this notice from the article:  which someone inserted in July 2020 (I think?). I see no current discussion of this issue here? Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this matter. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Try Ctrl+F then search for NPOV. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you please elaborate? I see you have removed some language which I agree with, but what else is NPOV in your opinion?
 * Also you said this in your edit summary: restore npov as issues raised on the talk page have not been resolved. The notice only says talkpage, and busy editors cannot be expected to read every section of the talkpage to understand what the issues are. So what exactly are you referring to? Has the discussion already been archived? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Talk:Donald_Trump. One of the issues is that the citations being used by partisan hacks recently are not neutral. I think the NPOV warning is both appropriate and needed, but if others disagree I will not restore it again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for helping this newbie catch up with the NPOV discussion, I am glad to see there are only 4 editors (so far) involved in the debate, one of whom is User:Rupert loup who to my profound regret seems to have left WQ for good. As far as removing the NPOV template, I think it is obvious there is no current consensus to do so.


 * How effective this the NPOV notice is, since it does not direct the reader to a particular section on the talkpage, is another matter. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think any article about any notable controversial figure will ever reach a state where absolutely nobody is disputing how the page is presented. To qualify you'd either need no discussions whatsoever occuring about POV on the talk page, or if any did happen: that anyone who ever made an objection withdraws it. Does that happen often? WakandaQT (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If I am reading this right I believe the issue is that User: DanielTom believes that User:Joreberg, and perhaps other contributors as well, are inserting their own (liberal?) bias into this article, by their choice of sources  and by their commentary describing the quote itself. User:Joreberg claims, I think, that his contributions represent all mainstream sources available.


 * I wonder if the participants here will opine at Talk:OpIndia, where, I think, a similar (but opposite) situation is taking place. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article has some pov issues, and this is not really surprising considering this is a contentious controversial topic. But it is not clear how they can be resolved. Are there any ideas on how this can be resolved? --ო (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A new quote provides the following commentary: "pressuring Secretary of State Brian Kemp to come up with enough votes to over Joe Biden's victory in the state" Views please? TIA, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that not an NPOV addition? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. We are not supposed to interpret a quotation, or the intent behind a quotation, much less present our POV as fact. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed "come up with" to "find", which is the expression used in the secondary source. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This article was number 15 on WQ
Some here may be interested in WQ Topviews Analysis, which says that DT was #15 in terms of pageviews on en-WQ in 2019 Cheers Ottawahitech (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

CBS: 30 of Donald Trump's wildest quotes
Thanks to a new contributor on this site: 30 of Donald Trump's wildest quotes in case you have not seen it. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

December 26, 2020 tweet removed ?
Looks like Trump removed the tweet referred to by this quote? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) The latest tweets I see now are dated December 23? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC) I see 3 other Twitter tweets dated Dec 27 that say: "Information to follow!" the rest are from December 23. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The most recent post has been deleted by Twitter
The most recent post has been deleted by Twitter saying: "This Tweet is no longer available because it violated the Twitter Rules. Learn more" Can we somehow salvage it? opinions? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's an archive at https://archive.is/j9Amy but archives are mostly just useful for text posts, it can't seem to load videos. WakandaQT (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mount rusmore speech 4th july 2020
Add this plz "This left wing cultural revolution is fesigned to overthrowthe American revolution,”Baratiiman (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do about tweets that are not available any more?
Now when the twitter account from Trump has been suspended, many links to tweets will be half dead. What should we do about this? Replace them with links to secondary sources? It may be some work, but it should be doable. I guess that (approximately) all tweets that are referred to here have also been mentioned in mass media. Joreberg (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd just go with archive.is as I'd be shocked if even a single tweet of his wasn't archived multiple times. That's what I did for the later ones. The sooner the better, Twitter doesn't deserve more traffic. WakandaQT (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Long
Page too long Baratiiman (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ..and some quotes are not inserted in the right chronological order. For example the 1980's section contains quotes from the 1900's, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

quote question
out-of-control wild man kills beautiful Ashli Babbitt, a true Patriot, did Trump really say this recently, or is this a regurgitation of a different quote? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks to be accurate - I'm pretty sure that is actually his account. Antandrus (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)