Talk:Donald Trump achievements

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JDano (Talk | contribs) at 15:58, June 30, 2017. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting with Alex Jones

December 2015 - Trump met with Alex Jones, becoming, after his election, the first President-elect to have met with Alex Jones.[14]

What an honor that must've been, meeting with Alex Jones.
It's stiil unclear wheather the meeting took place in Dec 2015 or Nov 2016, or if the two have ever met in person at all. RobS#NeverHillary 22:15, 5 January 2017 (EST)
no they did meet. that's what Alex Jones article says.
Yah, but in Transition like the subheading says or pre-election in Dec 2015? RobS#NeverHillary 09:31, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Article I Sec.5

Article I Sec 5 of the Constitution states. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, traditionally voted upon at the start of each new Congress. Trump interfered with proceedings of the House after a majority voted on ethics reform. I would not refer to this as being "right". Substantively, the ethics rule change was to stop accepting anonymous claims by House members to open an investigation, which members of both parties approve of (under House rules only House members can bring charges against other members). IMO, Trump most definitely was not "right" for playing into the hands of the liberal media and partisan Democrats to criticize House Republicans and Leadership. You can leave it in as an accomplishment, but interfering in Congressional business mandated by Constitutional law, thwarting badly needed ethics reform, and pandering to the liberal media, I wouldn't call "right". RobSMake Exxon Great Again 10:05, 29 January 2017 (EST)

I fixed it because I've seen conservatives present different views on this issue. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2017 (EST)

Success, failure, or none of the above?

Is this recent decision best considered a failure or is it best to be neutral on this or not include it[1]? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2017 (EST)

From a conservative standpoint, it is a failure. However, I don't know if it's an achievement, as it is something he's leaving alone (which I believe he should not) rather than doing. You could list it as a failure in that he has intentionally failed to do what he should have--I don't know what's best. Unfortunately, some of his morals are questionable. --David B (TALK) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (EST)

Parking spot

I'm creating this section to put sources/events that would probably be best if we wait for those events to play out before adding them to the article.

Trump's 2017 budget
Regulations

--1990'sguy (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

Revoking Obama's federal contracting orders

--1990'sguy (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2017 (EDT)

Potential environment failure

--1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

DoJ, "sanctuary" cities, and illegal immigration

--1990'sguy (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

2020 census
  • this might be interesting to watch, and possibly good to add [9] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
North Korea
  • It may be that Trump is successfully pressuring China to adopt a tougher stance on North Korea[10][11] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (EDT)
Foreign policy stuff
I have removed info regarding Trump's alledged "flip-flopping" on China being a currency manipulator. I think he made a convincing case on why he was just being flexible, rather than flip-flopping. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Potential education failure

--1990'sguy (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Intelligence investigation, visas, and immigration nominee

--1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Military economic boom
Illegal immigration and technology

--1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

More articles having to do with immigration/illegal immigration

--1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Premature info

  • South Korea suspended the THAAD implementation. We'll see what happens next.[20][21] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Budget

We don't know what will happen to the budget, but when the President, and both branches of Congress are controlled by the same party, the OMB Director has an expectation to come up with a budget framework that will garner some support on the hill. JDano (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

We will see what happens. It's too early to call it a failure. We shouldn't jump to conclusions. Maybe something good will come out of the budget talks. Who knows. The OMB budget was just released yesterday, and just because some members of Congress appear to disapprove of the bill on the very day it is released does not mean it is a failure. Actually, one could easily call it a success because Trump crafted such a great budget (reducing spending on many programs but raising it on important programs like the wall and military). It will take quite a bit of time until Trump signs the approved budget into law.
Also, when adding info, I recommend not using a source like WaPo as the default source, unless it has clear advantages to another source like Fox News or Breitbart, which is unlikely.
Concerning the wiretapping claim, President Trump stated in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, as I remember it, that he would be presenting info to Congress and making a speech on the topic. Trump is not finished. Let's wait for it to play out. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2017 (EDT)
The budget will be dictated by the upcoming debt ceiling vote. Whatever number they come up with, the remainder of this year, all next year (FY 2018) and a few weeks after the Midterms all have to fit within that number. Here again, the Freedom Caucus has a big role to play. So the fate of healthcare reform, a tax cut before Midterms, infrastructure/border wall, etc. remain in their hands. After that, they are out of the process, and Pelosi & Shumer will be called upon for the votes to make anything happen.
Now you might say the Freedom Caucus might try to limit the debt ceiling because they are allegedly fiscal conservatives. If that is the case, Pelosi supplies the needed votes to keep the government open, and the debt increase will be even larger. Then infrastructure and corporate tax cuts are back on the table for the remainder of this year, with Trump/Ryan trading with Shumer/Pelosi for big tax cuts and big infrastructure pork barrel in Democratic districts - a bipartisan solution to adding to the deficit.
And of course you can thank those loyal conservative Freedom Caucusesers for all this. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:48, 28 March 2017 (EDT)

Add election info? Input would be great

Should I re-add this info that I briefly added?[22] This article has a desired focus on ideological/legislative/political achievements of President Trump, but the election info could be useful in showing the reader how historic Trump's presidency is or hopefully will be. Or should I add it but collapse it? Input would be great. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Restoring that data seems like a good idea to me, but I'm not really involved in this article, so others who know more might disagree. --David B (TALK) 12:11, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
I agree that restoring that information would be helpful. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
OK, I will add the info. I won't do it immediately because I am still considering how to organize this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

More stuff I will add

Soon I will split the election and transition info into a subpage. I will add this info, most likely, when I do so:

2016 election win
Broke political rules, historic win

--1990'sguy (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2017 (EDT)

Media coverage
Clearing the GOP of RINOs
OK, I added all the info in this section to the sub-article about the 2016 election and transition. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Input requested for subpages

I am planning to split this article up into several subpages due to length. However, I am not sure how to split it up.

One option is to split the article up by year and have all the 2017 accomplishments on one article, all the 2018 accomplishments on another article, and so on. A potential problem with this article is because the Trump Administration is still ongoing and they are still working out their agenda, it might be difficult determining which achievements to add and which years (for example, the government restructuring plan has been ongoing this year and there have been several executive actions concerning this already, but the final government restructuring most likely won't become official this year[33]).

The second option is splitting this article up based on areas of policy, such as a page for social issues, a page for fiscal issues, and one for foreign policy. Potential problems with this format are the possibility of these pages themselves becoming quite large, having to decide which category each achievement goes (for example, is reducing the size of government a social policy or fiscal policy?), and/or too many subpages will be created.

I would appreciate input on this matter. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

I am leaning towards the first option, as it seems the most simple of the two options. I would only have to worry about editing one or two pages each year, while with the other option I would have to edit at least 3-4 pages (and maybe even more). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
What I think I will do is what I said right above, and then I will add Trump's main or overall (big picture) accomplishments to the main article. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

Do not make them subpages in the sense that the Bias in Wikipedia had subpages. Make each a stand alone article. Perhaps broken down by year. Certainly a separate Transition to Donald Trump Presidency would be a way to reduce a lot of the material. Please ask yourself what are our goals. You will never be a more definitive catalog of Trump actions than whitehouse.gov. I think the page was born in the spirit of "Trump will move fast and get things done." Now that the 100 days are over and we are in the slog of governing, not everything is worth reporting. Conservapedia was around during the George W. Bush administration, and we did not report on every Presidential action. JDano (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Regarding the first 100 days, that's a fair point. However, I think I will make the subpages like the "Bias in Wikipedia" pages. They are sub-pages, after all, only split up because they are so large. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
You can have them in the same category, and have cross reference at the top of each, but you are much better off having each as a stand alone main space page (each with a different title) than using the slash and making them subpages (as in subpages of your talk or user page.) JDano (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
I don't want to use a dash. I want to use a colon. For example, "Donald Trump achievements: 2017". The articles will be organized better and more clearly this way. The only reason why they will be separate articles is the simple fact that there is so much information. It really is multiple pages of the same article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
And this article will remain the main article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Have a "Opposition to Donald Trump" section

Since Donald Trump's achievements face opposition, it would be helpful to have a small section entitled Opposition to Donald Trump which offers a link to an article about this topic. Conservative (talk)

That would be beneficial. We could include those court cases against his executive orders (even though it might be a good idea to let them play out to see what happens). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Should this be included

President Trump signed an executive order creating an American Technology Council on May 1.[34] Do you think this is something worth adding to the article, or is it just noise? (for the record, I don't normally use Politico as a source, but I found the link through the White House website, so the Trump Administration apparently likes the source). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Another, probably better, source.[35] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2017 (EDT)
It's good progress, but I don't know if it should be listed or not. Achievements are goals, while this is more like a means to several ends. As the article mentions, some nuclear missiles have their targeting solutions stored on floppy disks. Meanwhile, submarine systems run on Windows XP, and some military bases use systems which are even older. Especially considering the U.S. receives hundreds of cyber-attacks every day, I would say we need a serious upgrade to keep or systems secure as well as functional. However, is this an achievement? It's a good step, but these things and other issues have not yet been corrected. So far, the government has show great ingenuity is certain ways (such as using super cookies on their websites because it is against the law to use regular cookies on them) but a negligent disregard in others. --David B (TALK) 00:02, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

Funding freeze

This might be of interest: the Tump Administration has frozen funding to organizations that fight "right-wing terror and white supremacism."[36] However, The Independent is the best source I've found regarding this move, and that source leans Left, so I cannot make an informed judgment on whether this can be counted as an achievement or not. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Opinions wanted

In addition to the above section, I am curious what everyone thinks about adding this information. Should these facts be listed as failures, or are they so insignificant that they should just be omitted?

Your thoughts would be great. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

The first one makes sense; it shows he's figuring a good plan to encourage legal immigration. The second one seems okay as well, furthering scientific progress. The third is not an achievement - continuing a discipline policy that led to a teacher getting kicked in the head and being unable to punish the student. The fourth, I'm not sure. The fifth is more the doing of DeVos and not Trump himself, and it is not really an achievement by our standards.--Abcqwe (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

Defunding "sanctuary" cities

This is an interesting development, but it remains to be seen if/when the U.S. government will actually withhold the money from the cities.[39][40] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

One possible additional achievement in President Trump's foreign trip (and immigration/Paris accord)

Here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/one-of-trumps-top-foreign-trip-achievements-an-agreement-to-stop-financing-terror-says-white-house/article/2008268

I'm not confident enough, at least yet, that it is notable, reliable, or meaningful enough to add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Some other things to watch: we'll see what actually happens to the Paris Climate Agreement renegotiation that Merckel and Macron have denied would happen.[41]
Also, it seems the DHS is reversing its statements in favor of granting additional H-2B visas.[42] However, it is too early to say anything certain about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

Trump and refugees

Although the State Department lifted the upper limit of refugees allowed into the U.S.,[43] The Washington Times is reporting that the Trump Administration is taking steps to keep refugee entry relatively low.[44] Not clear enough to call it an achievement, but maybe something to at least watch. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2017 (EDT)

Deal with Mexico

The Trump Administration made a deal with Mexico regarding sugar trade. It has been reported that this is a first step in renegotiating NAFTA,[45][46] but the sugar industry opposes the deal,[47] and at least some conservatives don't like it as well.[48] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

John Kelly & amnesty

DHS Secretary Kelly appears open to amnesty for illegal immigrants.[49] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

To be fair, Democrats don't like him either.[50] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Due to the Iran deal, the Trump Administration is required to accept hundreds of Iranian refugees without full vetting. It seems like the Administration will adhere to the requirement.[51] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Edit war comment

I'm not really involved in it, but I just want to put in my two cents anyway. Firstly, the Breitbart article seems very relevant--I could be missing something, but I don't see a reason to challenge it as a reference. As for the wording--I don't know that it much matters. We don't want to be overly verbose, but we also should make the reader jump to conclusions. Federal law is implied, but it could be understood as state law if we do not clarify that point sufficiently. I hope you can agree on a solution. Talking on something other that edit summaries of reversions might be a god idea also. To me, either attempted version of that point seems suitable. Perhaps efforts would better be focused on other topics. What about an article on James Hodgkinson? We don't want to start writing before we know the facts, but some information is already available. (For example, we now know he was a liberal).
Cheers! --David B (TALK) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Yesterday, the bullet read, "Although receiving little reporting from the mainstream media, the Justice Department established a policy in April 2017 against female genital mutilation, which is practiced among many Muslims.[29]" citing just the Breitbart article. We have now established that DOJ did not establish a policy in April 2017. The new bullet is better, but we are arguing over whether the Breitbart article is too over-the-top and misleading to be cited to support the current bullet. Also, please note: diff where two sets of three people with the same three names were thought to be a total 6 distinct people, but were in fact just three. Most of the relevant discussion is on my talk page, but 1990sguy has also moved it to Andy's talk page and the Community forum page. A feeling of page ownership is no reason to resist logic and research. JDano (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
The Breitbart article is entirely appropriate, and any editorial statement is dwarfed by what we see in the MSM. I have considered your criticisms, and I did change much of what the statement said. I am willing to consider other points of views. You, apparently, are unwilling to even hold off editing the article while we are waiting for a consensus. If your only criticism is citing a source, and if every single other editor besides yourself has no problem with the source, you should just let it go. I am serious: I have been extremely patient with you. Please stop, I am sick of this, but because I am convinced there is no problem with the Breitbart article, at least to the point of having to remove the article, I will continue to ensure that it stays. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
1990'sguy is right at least on one point--using a source as a references doesn't make it ours. Even Conservative has used that same argument for some...less tasteful websites. Citation only means that the work influenced the writing of this piece, not that it is all true, trusted, and used. I haven't seen the other Breitbart article JDano mentioned yet, but perhaps both should be referenced.
In any case, if the policy does not exist, then that clearly should go. --David B (TALK) 22:17, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
We originally only cited the Breitbart article, but because of the dispute, we have about eight cited articles for this achievement -- and I think this is a good thing: having several sources with different standpoints, all verifying the achievement. JDano did positive work in that regard (he provided most and got me to provide others), but I think it is time for time to let the Breitbart article go an be content with what he has already done. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Folks, we really don't need this kind of in-fighting. Andy said the Breitbart article 1990'sguy added was fine, so please leave it there. Please work together on this, and understand that once published, everyone has an equal right to revise or remove content, but this should not become a fight. No one truly "owns" a mainspace page--it is there for everyone to change so that the best of the public can result. If your edit conflicts, wait a bit then try again--it's not a race, so please take your time. You two seem to be at each others' throats. I might appreciate this determination if it was an important topic, but from what I've seen, it really isn't. Please keep be respectful, and sort this out. I can't say one is clearly right while the other is wrong, but I can say that edit warring is wrong. It's against the rules, and could get you both banned permanently. That said, assistant SysOps such as yourselves are not allowed to ban in order to resolve a dispute. Only full administrators can do that. Assistant SysOps are only to ban for blatant disregard for the rules and clear hostile intent. Both of you seem to want the right thing, but are going about it all wrong. How about this bullet be moved to the talk page and worked out between you two, rather than just reverting mainspace changes over and over. I know you both mean well, but please show it by working together better--Wikis are all about collaboration.
This article has developed well, and I trust will continue to. You both have also done great work in other areas. Please don't overshadow that by fighting now. Thank you! --David B (TALK) 19:34, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
here are my responses to a major edit JDano edited that I reverted.[52][53] Here is my response to a criticism that I "own" the article.[54] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Border patrol raid --> appropriate to add?

Is this border patrol raid on an Arizona desert camp that had illegal immigrants appropriate to add as an achievement?[55][56][57] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Here are two Breitbart articles discussing the incident: [58][59] The CBP was required to request a warrant in order to raid the camp because the owners would not allow them in. It is good that the U.S. is taking additional steps to arrest illegal immigrants, but I'm not sure if this example is appropriate to include here. If the Obama Administration never took the pain to receive a warrant, then I think this should be added. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2017 (EDT)
I went ahead and added it to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2017 (EDT)
Now that we are past the 100 days, could we please establish criteria for when to add something to this article? I agree that the federal government does things every day. I agree that federal actions will be different under the Obama and Trump administrations. I also agree that some federal actions will align with Trump's campaign promises.
1) It is impossible to report every "interesting" federal action in this article. If we did, it would be impossible to see the forest from the individual trees.
2) Not every action can be tied back directly to Trump personally or to the White House staff.
3) Most people in the federal government will be trying to align with Trump's policy directions, but most actions will be "Trump policy neutral."
What is our criteria? JDano (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't think we need any formal "criteria" for what to include here. We need to judge each action on a case-by-case basis. This article is not intended to include only achievements directly signed off by Trump, but rather any achievement made possible through him, his administration, and Congress. For example, while John Kelly or Scott Pruitt signing off on something is not Trump signing off on something, they are only able to do what they do because Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed them in the first place. "Interesting" federal actions can be used to illustrate the positive changes in the Trump Administration, at least as opposed to earlier administrations, in advancing conservative, common-sense ideals/policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
I understand the approach of covering the first 100 days, but we do need criteria. One possible criteria is "Does it have an estimated annual impact of more than $100 million?" Conservapedia has now be here since 2007. We did not cover the George W. Bush administration nor the Barack Obama administration in the level of detail that we have been covering the first 100 days. We don't have the volunteer staffing necessary to do so and things will quickly go out of date. Recently, I tried to organize a systematic update of all of our state articles. We could not get enough volunteers to make sure that basic facts in those articles were updated. Nor could we keep up to date all of the infoboxes in the university articles. Suppose an editor adds an item to the page that is low impact, but interesting. A few months later, the opponents of the particular item take it to court. Two years later, the court reverses the agency, nullifying the achievement. If we list the achievement, we owe our readers a duty to later note that it is in court or how the court finally decided the question. General agreement on criteria is needed. Thanks, JDano (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
Liberal bias was not as intense against President George W. Bush, and there was virtually no bias in the media against President Obama. Also, a court ruling against an action by Trump does not erase the achievement. There is still the Trump effect, there are appeals, and there is the precedent set for the future.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
JDano, achievements are achievements regardless of what they cost, and even if a court blocks it. We can note that an achievement was blocked by a court (only if the block was final -- court proceedings take a long time and are oftentimes in numerous courts). BTW, I am not differentiating the "first 100 days" (a silly date marker) from the rest of 2017. Also, just because we did not cover Obama and Bush's presidencies in so much detail, it doesn't mean we can't cover Trump's presidency in more detail. As Andy correctly stated, Obama and Bush were not as opposed by the MSM (the MSM loved Obama, and Bush was a RINO). It is easier to find information about their "accomplishments" than about Trump's (and really, we do not need formal criteria for achievements -- achievements are achievements, and we'll thus approach it on a case-by-case basis. Period.). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2017 (EDT)
Also, regarding your argument on there not being enough volunteers on CP for this, let me note that people here edit on topics that interest them. You cannot make people edit topics of which they have no interest. However, I do have the interest and the willingness to edit and update this article series through the end of Trump's presidency, and assuming I am still editing CP in 8 years, I might start on a new series for the next president. Unless I become unable to edit (serious injury, death, etc.), there is no reason to worry about updating this article. I am trying to note new developments in previous listed achievements, including court obsticals. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2017 (EDT)
You are correct that people will edit on topics that interest them and we can't "force" people where they must edit. However, in any wiki, we need editors to copy-edit and fact-check every article. This is an online encyclopedia (mostly modeled after Wikipedia, but without the bias that is found there) targeted to a high school reader. It is not a daily newspaper; it is not a PhD dissertation; and it is not the bullet-point research notes for the author's next book. (People have tried to turn Wikipedia into all of those.) I understand what the Conservapedia article on "Baseball" is supposed to be. It would be weird for me to add a paragraph on last night's baseball game to it. We need to have a thoughtful, broad-based conversation on what this article is supposed to be. If Trump invites the winner of the 2017 World Series to the White House, does it get included in this article, the baseball article, or neither?
Trump promised an action-packed 100 days, so I can see how Conservapedia worked hard to document it in detail. Now that we have a cabinet in place and continue to have a very large federal work force, what is our criteria for determining that some achievement is included in this article? If a scientist at NIH discovers a cure for cancer, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? If an infrastructure project which was planned during the Bush Administration, and built mostly during the Obama administration, has a dedication ceremony this year, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? Let's agree on something to avoid future editor conflict and avoid confusing the readers. Thanks, JDano (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
This article and the "Baseball" article are very different articles. One talk about the sport, and the other lists the achievements in the Trump Administration and Congress in advancing conservative ideals and policies. No achievement is too small or insignificant to include here. It is ridiculous to create silly "criteria" which will lead certain editors to oppose including an obvious achievement because, for example, it "doesn't spend as much money as the formal criteria states". Whether to include these achievements will be decided on a case-by-case basis, as I have been saying all along. Is this not enough for you? All of your examples can easily be solved if we decide them on a case-by-case basis. Whenever I see an achievement that might not be worth posting in the article, I add it to the talk page in the hope that people will comment on it. This is a case-by-case basis. Finding some "criteria" will just waste our time and lead to more harm than good. There are no formal criteria that define what is an achievement other than if it advances conservative ideals. That is the only guideline in including information.
And once again, the "first 100 days" is complete garbage. I am not making any distinction on the first 100 days and the rest of the four years. Sure, politicians try to make their achievements in the 100 days look grand, but achievements are achievements regardless of the date in a presidency, and the time in which they are made makes no difference in advancing conservative policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
If you are proposing "Whether to include these achievements will be decided by JDano on a case-by-case basis" I could agree! I suspect you meant something else, so having agreed upon criteria will avoid future conflict. One technique is to quantify things without listing them. For example, you could go to whitehouse.gov and report that President Trump has issued X proclamations, Y executive orders and Z presidential decision memos without listing them all. In your opinion, what are the 10 most important questions a reader would come to this article to answer? You are hiding those answers by listing proclamations of "National Day of Patriotic Devotion", "National School Choice Week" and "Loyalty Day." Let's find some meaningful criteria that produce a useful and factual article. JDano (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
This page certainly has grown to an amazing size! One issue I'm seeing, however, is that there really is too much. One of the "advertising points" of CP is that we don't ramble on, taking up large amounts of space and in so doing, bore our readers. While a fantastic job has been done at documenting each thing he has done, facilitated, or in some way enabled, I wonder if this is getting to be too much. Perhaps as we go along, some of the more minor parts should be trimmed down. When writing a resume, many people advise that you keep it to one page. Write some detail about each topic, and stop at the end of the page. As more things are added, some details must be cut out, to maintain that size. Eventually, even job positions may start being removed, just to make space. We don't need to go to this extreme, but perhaps as time goes on, some "fat" as JDano called it should be trimmed down a little. I doubt most of our readers will go through all of this anyway, so perhaps we should try to work towards making the important points more noticeable.
That said, I think a pretty good job of keeping each entry short and to the point has been done. I wonder if we just have too many points. At over 11,500 words, this just might be too much. It's Andy's site, so if he is fine with this length, then that's okay; I'm just concerned that in a word where no one looks at page two of a Google search, we will loose readers before they get to the best points. I'm not saying we should slash huge amounts of information, but I wonder if there are some less important points which could be trimmed, or even removed now that better content is available. At the very least, perhaps we should focus more tightly on what Trump has directly done. For example, the entry under failures of "Due to confirmation delays in the Senate, many leaders of the agencies in charge of border security still had "acting" status well into Trump's presidency, something which prevented agencies from implementing stronger immigration enforcement policies." doesn't really relate to him. Others are resisting him, but that is not his fault. he could bow to their demands to get more cooperation, but that is not what he should be doing.
When I was asked before if size was an issue I didn't have much of an opinion, but even skimming through this page takes quite a while! It's good to show all the great things he's done, but maybe we can trip it down a bit, and eliminate anythnig he didn't directly influence. Any thoughts? --David B (TALK) 01:23, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps some loose criteria would be in order, just to keep thinks neat. We don't need hard rules preventing us from entering something valuable, but perhaps trying to restrict things just a little would be smart. For example, the page is entitled "Donald Trump achievements" but then immediately explains it is about him, his administration, and congress. Should this perhaps be reduced to him and his cabinet only, and leave all others somewhere else? --David B (TALK) 01:44, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
DavidB4, I strongly disagree with you. Achievements by the administration and of Congress are only possible because of the election of Donald Trump, and as you mentioned Trump's cabinet members, they hold their offices because of the U.S. Senate confirming them. Additionally, when Trump makes a decision, he is surrounded by many advisors who help him make a decision and draft executive orders, etc. Conservative legislation cannot be signed by Trump unless the House and Senate (most of the time, 60% of the latter) support it. The federal government is too intermingled for us to safely only include achievements personally made by Trump himself. His 2016 election is the only reason any of this is happening. Also, achievements are achievements regardless of whether it was Trump personally or another member of his administration that he appointed.
Also, the MSM has been falsely reporting that Trump has done only very little. If you read MSM reports of the first 100 days, they made it sound like Trump was vacationing at Mar-a-Lago half the time rather than governing. This page, which is fully cited, proves the MSM narrative (which still exists today) to be blatantly false. If the page is long, it is because all of these achievements really are achievements, and to show the MSM narrative to be a lie.
One last thing, I will be splitting this article by year, with the main page still existing but with a much smaller size and with most of the information being in the sub-articles. It will be like the Bias in Wikipedia series. Some of those sub-articles are very long and hard to read as they are just continuous blocks of words. This one will be a piece of cake by comparison because I actually have article sections and sub-sections. I strongly oppose trimming this article (other than creating sub-articles by year as we already discussed) and think this article not only combats MSM bias but also is not out-of-line with CP standards, at least compared to other high-profile articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
@JDano: what I am saying is that since I am the one doing the vast majority of the adding, I am posting disputable achievements to the talk page for input from other editors. I have done that numerous times already. Also, if you do not believe something is an achievement, you can bring it up on the talk page for us to discuss. The article from the beginning has stated in the intro that these achievements help promote conservative ideals/policies. If an achievement does not promote conservative policies (or improve the nation), that is enough. If anything, I will only accept broad criteria like those. Having detailed criteria like you are apparently proposing will do more harm than good and lead to fights over the criteria to use. I think we can all agree here that an achievement helps the nation and promotes conservative values (that's why I listed those proclamations -- unlike the others, those I listed explicitly promote conservative values. Also, I oppose listing the total amount of executive orders, etc., as opposed to listing some notable executive actions. Barack Obama made many executive actions -- did they do any good?). --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

[outdent]Dear 1990sguy, reading your comments, I think we drifted into something in a reactive mode. You discuss "the MSM has been falsely reporting that Trump has done only very little." and trying to show a lot of action from the first 100 days. The 100 days is now over, and we have to reach consensus on the long-term purpose and structure of this article. You want to keep the current structure but spin off content once a year. You have proposed as criteria that anything, no matter how small or unimportant should be included "if it advances conservative ideals." I question whether that is practical. For example, people can differ as to whether the new health care law advances or hurts conservative ideals, but it will affect most Americans and an important sector of our economy. I also question the "current news" nature of this plan. There is a difference between reflecting at the end of the year and writing a "year in review" article vs. just archiving bullet points written as events unfolded. In retrospect, different things will prove to be of lasting importance. Thanks, JDano (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

About the first 100 days, I have told you many times already. Do I have to say it again? The "first 100 days" is a silly and meaningless concept that means nothing. Zero. Achievements are achievements regardless of whether they occurred in the first 100 days or the next 1,000 days, and it does not matter to me which day something happened. I thought from the start that the purpose of this article was recording Trump's achievements before they are forgotten in the numerous waves of (oftentimes fake) news. The achievements I am adding are real and not too small to add here.
Also, small achievements are also achievements. Even though the government is so powerful these days, it happens that with administration after administration, small problems go unfixed even though they are so small and could be easily fixed. Some of these accomplishments may be small, but they are clearly accomplishments. It may not mean much to you that the achievements were done, but considering the shape and inefficiency of the government, it is a wonder that any of these small achievements are being done. Adding small achievements (which are real achievements nonetheless) helps this article rather than hurts it. Contrary to your claim, I am not including "anything" or "unimportant" things. Besides, things that are borderline I bring to this talk page. You can see how many things I have brought here already.
Also, the fact that I am updating this article every day is a good thing -- not a bad thing. This way, I am able to catch the smaller, but still meaningful, stories that might be next-to-impossible to find at the end of the year. Achievements are achievements regardless of the size. The fact that these small achievements are actually being made it remarkable considering the inability of the government to fix such things before this administration. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
Just because other Conservapedia editors were willing to cut you some slack during the first 100 days when Trump's critics challenged Trump to live up to his promises to get a lot of policies accomplished, does not mean that the same approach is workable for longer time periods. When encyclopedia users come to this article with questions, what information do they seek? We are not trying to duplicate whitehouse.gov. "Some of these accomplishments may be small, but they are clearly accomplishments." is a debatable conclusion. Everyday, thousands of federal employees go to work and do their jobs -- State Dept. officials vet visa applicants; they process social security claims; USDA inspectors stop bad beef; Justice Dept. prosecutes criminals. Ninty-nine percent of the work of the federal government is being done the same way as on Jan 19. The proposed criteria does not make sense. If an employee was doing things that further conservative goals during all eight years of the Obama administration (for example, detaining and deporting an illegal immigrant) it is not worth inclusion if he did it again after Jan 20. This article should explain how Donald Trump's approach to government is different than before, what steps he is taking to change things, and whether he has succeeded or failed on each of those steps. You write, "His 2016 election is the only reason any of this is happening," but have not incorporated that "but for" test in your proposed criteria. How does the Arizona border camp raid meet your latest criteria? Thanks, JDano (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
Contrary to what you are saying, I am not "duplicating" whitehouse.gov. I barely cited that website at all, and instead cited third party sources. They think the accomplishments were notable enough to report, so I will too. Also, I am not reporting on the "99%" of the work that is done the same, but the "1%" (as you are apparently putting it) that is done differently. Your arguments are self-defeating because every achievement (even the "small" achievements) I have added show how the Trump Administration is different from the Obama Administration (even if Trump kept "conservative" policies from the Obama Administration -- of which there are none -- it would warrant mention because it is so easy for administrations to change such policies). It would show that the Trump Administration were conservative in more areas than expected. The Obama Administration did not end the $1 million gym membership program for the EPA, for example. The Obama Administration started or continued many of the policies that Trump ended, including the "small" things. Are you really trying to improve the article, or are you trying to whitewash the article by removing half of the very real accomplishments made by the Trump Administration? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
I am saying that if a researcher needs a definitive list of every action by President Trump, he would use whitehouse.gov instead of this page. We are here to build an on-line encyclopedia which is free from the liberal bias of Wikipedia, not to whitewash anything in either direction. If a high school student wants to look up facts about the Trump administration while writing a term paper and comes to the article in its present form, he would probably get an "F" because he was confusing what was important with what was trivial and was confused about what happened before or after Jan. 20. What criteria can we use for this article? I agree that there is nothing magic about the first 100 days, so let's apply the criteria back to Jan. 20. Thanks, JDano (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
None of these achievements are trivial, at least enough to keep out. They were reported on by good media outlets -- surely they did not think they were trivial, considering the administration makes many decisions every year with the media reporting only a fraction. Because we do not have WP's leftist bias, we are including all relevant achievements, and none of the achievements I added are irrelevant. The Trump Administration has signed about 40 bills, signed, maybe, a hundred orders, memorandums, and proclamations, and I have only included a fraction of them -- the ones noted by the media and recognized as achievements. I am not going to agree to any "criteria" that end up removing large chunks of content.
This article does not list "long-lasting" achievements because how in the world can we know which achievements have stood the test of time to have greatly impacted the nation? Not even historians can agree on such criteria when analyzing previous leaders and events -- if you read the works of different historians of a single person of event, they come to completely different interpretations, conclusions, emphases, etc. They rewrite history each time they publish something (I am a history major, so I know this from experience). It is impossible to note which of Trump's achievements are "major" (under your "criteria"), even if we were writing this article 100 years in the future. And no, we are not going to let you choose which achievements have stood the test of time even before any time has passed.
The way this article is organized is good. We are including real achievements that we know are achievements because they are reported in reliable media outlets. Even IF something happens to a Trump achievement in the future, we will either make a note or move it to the "failure" section. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
If a home-schooled high school student is assigned to write a report on Donald Trump, how would he go about using this article? Most wiki editors can tell the difference between trivia and major items, without waiting 100 years. I am sure that we can come up with some threshold for inclusion. JDano (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
This is rediculous. Multiple conservative media sites are reporting on all of these achievements as achievements. We don't need to have a criteria because multiple reliable sources are doing it for us. None of the items here are "trivia". Breitbart, Fox News, the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Free Beacon, and even non-conservative sources such as The Hill view these achievements as true achievements. Are we going to defy them? That is not a wise thing to do. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

VA to deal with under/unused buildings

[60] Might be a very noteworthy achievement, though it seems like the decisions have not translated into action yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Many of these buildings are small buildings that have been used for storage or housing landscaping equipment on larger campuses. There is now increased security at VA facilities, and access to the specific building is in many cases tied to access to the VA campus. One large VA building is in the middle of a state mental hospital, it would be difficult to turn it over to another purpose that requires a location that is welcoming to the public. Finally, some Congressmen would resist reduced federal spending in their district. JDano (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Opposition to D.T.

There is duplication between this section and the recently created article Opposition to Donald Trump. To avoid exact dupication, I am going to summarize the topic and add "For more detailed treatment see Opposition to Donald Trump." There is no reason to have two full length treatment of the same stuff. It is unfair to reader and makes unnecessary work for editors. Thanks, JDano (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

Right now it is mainly duplicated, but you are missing the fact that I am going to be working on this for several years (assuming I don't die before that). This is a work in progress, and trimming the info here does not help. The information you see in that section will only be for the year 2017 (I am keeping all the info here for now to make the article more interesting for readers). At the end of the year I will move it to the 2017 sub-article. In the 2018, 2019, and 2020 sub-articles (and those for the next four years, assuming Trump is re-elected), I will also add "opposition" sections because many of Trump's achievements are challenged by liberals, including the courts they control. All of the information I add in these sub-articles will also be added to the Opposition to Donald Trump article, and this article here will have a summary of all the info in the various sub-articles and the Opposition to Donald Trump article.
I strongly oppose trimming the information here now for these reasons. It is unnecessary and misses the long-term plan for this series. The information you see now is only for 2017, which will be in the 2017 sub-article, while the Opposition to Donald Trump will have information throughout Trump's entire political career. Your argument of it being "unfair" to the reader is nonsense. We have many articles with dublicate information already. Your argument of it being unnecessary work for editors is also nonsense because I am the only editor making regular and major edits here (and I am happy with it this way). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
Again, there is no personal "ownership" of articles. On a wiki, we need both editors to originate materials and editors to copy edit and cite check the materials. So, when Conservapedia has two different articles covering exactly the same thing, it makes more work for multiple people. It opens the possibility of "edit wars" over whether a sentence should be in one article or both articles or neither article.
As for the reader, it is unfair and confusing to ask a reader to read the same length presentation in twice because you don't warn him that it is almost the same thing and that he has to read it twice because you decided to migrate the 2017 material early in the year. I don't understand your reasoning about why you must start an article early in 2017, have it drift into something different, and then at the end of 2017 try to merge the two different 2017 materials as a part of an archiving action. When I saw that you were starting the Opposition to Donald Trump article based on the section from this article, I thought it was like your move of the Donald Trump achievements: 2016 election and transition section. The article is getting too long to edit at 280,458 bytes, and I agree that Opposition to Donald Trump is the next logical piece to move to a sub-article. If you don't want a clean break, then a summary paragraph is logical to leave behind. If you did not think that my summary paragraph was optimal, write your own and we can edit it. Thanks, JDano (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
The Opposition to Donald Trump article is not a sub-article of this one. It created it at the request of an administrator. I have no intention of making it a sub-article. Because this is the beginning of Trump's presidency, the info here and there is much the same, but as his presidency progresses, the two articles will diverge. Please have patience. Also, of course, I do not own the article, and that is why I am open to sugestions and critism. However, I strongly disagree with what you are proposing. I will write later when I have time. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
I solved the problem of the article's length. Since the Democrats are in such disarray and Trump could be reelected, the article Donald Trump achievements could grow quite long over the next 7.5 years or so. Conservative (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
I already was planning on dividing the article by year. I haven't done it yet because we are still in the middle of Trump's first year of his presidency. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
Just to be clear, you are proposing to have an article "Donald Trump achievements 2017" and that article will have sections dealing with Opposition to Donald Trump and with Failures and partial failures. (Presumably an achievement in 2017 that is reversed on judicial review or somehow fails in 2018 would still be in the 2017 article together with the outcome.) Is that your proposal?
Let's say there is a big infrastructure bill with an important new financing mechanism. Each year, there are dozens of important infrastructure projects financed under the new law. How would you handle that? JDano (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
That could get tricky, but might be manageable. That would depend on the actual issue--I can see how that could become a problem. However, a page split was discussed and generally agreed on, as I remember. I guess we'll see how it goes, unless someone comes up with a better solution. --David B (TALK) 01:32, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
@JDano: you are correct. I will try to keep failures only to those that are immediate, such as the Senate failure to repeal the Obama methane regulation, or the Trump Administration's continuation of Obama executive policies. If a court modifies or undoes an achievement, I will still note it in the 2017 article if it happened in a later year. If a failure is undone (like the administration ending DACA in 2018, for example), I will remove the failure but note in the 2018 article how widely-discussed it was as a failure the year prior. The main article would be an overview, so people wanting more information can go to the sub-articles. The articles have a clear organization, and I will be doing the same organization style for each year, so navigating it is not an issue.
JDano, I don't like discussing hypotheticals. I like tackling an issue only if it is already happening, partly because there are so many variables to consider. But just so I can satisfy your question, I would probably only note the former and not the latter. Noting the bill signed into law is enough I think. I might consider noting the number of infrastructure projects done that year, but it I would not go into specifics. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Russian Mi-17 helicopters

Let's slow down and be careful in our research. The Washington Times article said "The Obama administration came to realize the failure in its last weeks in office and stopped the deal." Defense Tech reported on the decision on December 6. What is at issue is that Afghanistan had a bunch of Mi-17 helicopters and was already trained to fly them. In March 2014, the Obama administration crafted sanctions against Russia for attacking Ukraine, but the sanctions did not include Rosoboronexport, the state-run arms broker, who was allowed to continue maintaining Mi-17s. For whatever reason, Russia by 2016 stopped supplying parts under its contract, so the US will replace Mi-17s with US made products. Some people were disappointed that Obama did not cut off the Rosoboronexport deal back in 2014. Trump was silent on the issue back in 2014 and during the campaign, so I don't see why this is being added to the article. JDano (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration made it official, and decided to stock the air force with American helicopters. I don't care what Trump said during his campaign (why are you even bringing this up? This article is not a list of kept campaign promises -- it's about every campaign achievement). I will let it be, at least for a while, and think of another way to add it. This is the diff of me adding it: [61] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
I found earlier sources saying pretty much the same thing (other than the fact that the Trump Administration made it official): [62][63][64] The fact that the Trump Administration made it official may be a good reason to add it, but I will leave it for other editors to comment on for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for the further research. The December 1, 2016 "diplomat.com" reference said that in November, the White House sent a supplemental appropriation request to the Congress to include funding for the new American replacement helicopters, so as far as the Pentagon was concerned, the Executive Branch had approved it, subject to Congressional funding. So, I think this was an Obama Administration decision. This is another example of a non-partisan change. Neither Republicans nor Democrats like the idea of being dependent on Russia for parts and maintenance of Afghan helicopters. It was not practical to retrain Afghan pilots, so the Russian contractor was exempted from the Ukraine-related sanctions. Russian were not fulfilling the parts and maintenance contract, so the Afghan government was ready to switch to US helicopters, and the Obama Administration requested funding to make this possible. The new copters will be delivered in 2019. Nothing to add to this article, although you could add something to the Afghanistan article. JDano (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is "nothing" to add to this article about this, but I will keep it out at least for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

EPA to rescind "Waters of America" rule

The EPA has begun rolling back Obama's "Waters of America" rule.[65][66] I don't think the rule has actually been rescinded, but only that the first steps in rescinding it have begun. This is something to watch.

Also, I should check if the FCC Net Nutrality has been fully revoked yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Do we need a WOTUS article? --Ed Poor Talk 10:17, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
Great idea! Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
This is important issue, potentially affecting millions of Americans. I'd like to contribute to developing an entry about it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Notable Court Cases

This article is about "Donald Trump's achievements." I understand that the President plays a role in nominating judges and the federal government is frequently litigating specific cases, but under the doctrine of separation of powers, by definition decisions by the Judicial branch are not his achievements. I would recommend deleting the section. I respectfully question the competence of the people who have contributed the items written thus far in this section. Thanks, JDano (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

I strongly disagree, and when you say that "I respectfully question the competence of the people who have contributed the items written thus far in this section", I know you are only referring to me. What happened to your call to end "false personal attacks on other editors"? There is no denying that a president has a huge influence on Supreme Court descisions, and the Court was a big issue in the campaign. Imagine if Clinton got a judge confirmed? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Here is a simple solution: limit this page to judicial nominations and appointments. If there is a Supreme Court case that you want to write about, do it in a separate article. If there is a judge that you want to write about, start a biography article for that judge. If a case affects an existing bullet, add a reference to the case in that original bullet. Anyone with an understanding of Article III of the Constitution would not dare to call the stuff in this section "Donald Trump achievements." For example, the Binderup v. Holder case that you added yesterday, really started in 2013, and the court received petitions to hear the case in January. They declined to hear the case. How is that a "Donald Trump achievement?" Is there anything in your background or training that would equip you to successfully summarize and accurately cover complex judicial proceedings? This section requires a different skill set than seems to be involved in the other parts of the page. Thanks, JDano (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
I have a better idea. I'll ask Andy again what he thinks. It's his website, after all. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
While he pays the bills and keeps the servers going, from Day 1, this project has been a team effort. Many people have donated countless hours of hard work to build this encyclopedia. Many of those people came here from Wikipedia, because they were turned-off by the dictatorial and immoral conduct of Jimmy Wales. Under the software license, each contributor owns his own contributions. The total website is much larger than the contributions of any one person. So, in both a moral sense as well as a legal sense, "It's his website, after all." is a very mistaken notion. For success, we need both leadership as well as internal self-assessment of our own skills. While Mr. Schlafly can help steer us toward our common goal, each editor needs to be honest about his own strengths and weaknesses. Is there anything in your background or training that would equip you to successfully summarize and accurately cover complex judicial proceedings? This section requires a different skill set than seems to be involved in the other parts of the page. JDano (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Dear User:1990'sguy, do you understand that the vast majority of cert petitions are denied, so having a cert petition denied in a case is not what most people would call an "achievement." Do you disagree? JDano (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

Navajo coal power plant

A coal power plant will remain operational at least through 2019. I'm not sure if this was the result of the Trump Administration (the Breitbart article suggests that the Interior Department played a main role in it), but either way, it does not seem like this is appropriate to add here.[67][68] --1990'sguy (talk)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_achievements&oldid=1357671"