Talk:Social media use by Donald Trump

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022
A lot of this article requires editing for conjecture. Second paragraph, first sentence "For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial and false statements,[6][7][8][9]" Wikipedia should not determine validity of statements made by political figures in public office but only state that said claims are disagreed upon and controversial. I find this excerpt and others like it in this article against the integrity of Wikipedia.

Statement should read: "For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial statements,[6][7][8][9]" Wid777 (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you got any policy based reasons for your suggestion? If you haven't, then nothing will be changed. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 06:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Frankly a lot of these citations point to not a specific issue on an external website. Furthermore, there are many disputing claims in public knowledge to the opinions held within these cited websites. I do not think Wikipedia should determine validity of statements made by public officials when there is a large amount of dissent present. Material should only have citations to specific matters. Wid777 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that you're requesting to remove the words "and false" from the phrase "he often posted controversial and false statements". But as you can see (from the link), there is a whole separate article dedicated to Trump's false statements. That article currently has over 400 sources, including (as just one of those sources) the Washington Post's fact-check database that tallied 30,000 lies during his presidency. It is well-documented that Trump says false things (in general), and his lies are cataloged individually.
 * It is Wikipedia's job to separate truth from falsehood, and politicians should not be immune to fact-checks. Certain politicians cultivate large followings who will say that the Earth is flat if their leader tells them to say it. This kind of widespread "dissent" shouldn't prevent Wikipedia from saying that the Earth is round. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Is "nondisclosure agreement" the right term related to the Jan 2023 search warrant for Twitter?
The article currently says:

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023
jounral = journal 2603:8000:D300:3650:7CCD:C3ED:BF89:9279 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bestagon ⬡ 19:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

split twitter to seperate article
Due to the substantial size of the twitter section, would it be worth splitting it into its own article? Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)