Talk:International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election

Organisation

By:

1. Supranational
2. States
3. Financial markets
4. Media
5. Academia
6. Other

Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Format

There is a standard format for such articles. Please go and see the previous intl reaction list in 08. If you want to seek change, kindly get consensus first.

If you stop adding copyright content, then we'll talk. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 09:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If you calm down on an ongoing current article then you will see it will happen. And ive reworded it twice. If you don't like it till it pleases your sensitivity, then be BOLD and update it to something more conmfortable. Its clearly notable.

And youre threats not to talk for consensus doesn't mean you can OWN the article! Stop throwing a tantrum because you cant have your cake and eat it too. Be productive and BOLD and do something useful!!!Lihaas (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Never have I said that I own the article. You continuingly add copyright content, which is against policy. Please stop readding a copy-pasted content from the source. It is against policy. Write from scratch and in your own words. Do I have to remind you about civility? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I hav e asked repeatedly HOW IS IT COPYRIGHT? Ive changed it multiple times. If you have a continuous problem then indicate here what is still copyrighted and/or CHANGE IT AND BE PRODUCTIVE AND USEFUL!!!!

Do I Hve to remind you to be civil?! To learn how to work with people and constructivel edit with people. Ive asked you in edit summaried AND initiated a discussion here!Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand this an emotionally-charged night, but please conduct yourselves appropriately. Vile-eight (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Good to have another pair of eyes. Im going around in circles trying to get him to explain and discuss his objections. I cam e here immediately to try and discuss it (As the time stamp shows)Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the copyright content:

Wikipedia: "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office said it would issue a statement after a winner was declared. At a U.S. embassy party on election night, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna arrived and left without making any comments.

Source: "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office said it would have no comment until a winner was declared. Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna both came and went from the party without talking to reporters.

Wikipedia: "Former diplomat Colin Robertson said a Clinton victory would be more in Canada's interest because of the continuity it would offer with Obama's two terms.

Source: "Colin Robertson, a retired Canadian diplomat who served in the U.S. said a Clinton victory would have been better for Canada because it would ensure a level of continuity from Obama's two terms."

It is not my responbility to redo an edit of yours. It's your responsibility that you follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is best that you restart from scratch. You follow the same format as the source. You kept the sentences just change the words and kept some. Please don't do that.

Also, show me where I have been uncivil? You calling me an amateur, saying that I am throwing a tantrum is very uncivil.

Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 09:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes but it is your responsibility to discuss this through and try to resolve the issue. Not demanding we meet your standards.

Anyways, we can discussit now. Ill respond accordingly.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, not my standards. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT carefully. It is a policy, not any of my standards. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 09:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Then instead of merely claiming copyright you can break it down as you just did after ages. Back to point:

On the first part, "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office said" is basically a proper noun referring to who made the statement

"winner was declared" winner was announced?

again the ministers in question are proper nouns explaining who they are.

The last part I have already changed and only "without"is the same word.

Next, diplomat is histitle and followed by his name.

"said a Clinton victory" what do you suggest? Would a "Trump loss" be better?

"would have been better for Canada" I completely changed ths to "more in Canada's interest"

"continuity it would offer with Obama's two terms" continuity is obviously a key term here that explains his reasons. Should I change "two terms'" to tenure"Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Facts are not copyrightable. The source material appears to have been sufficiently reported to avoid any copyright claims. Vile-eight (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to go?Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office declined to comment on the election until a winner was officially announced. Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna refused to comment on the issue. Former Diplomat Colin Robertson expressed that Clinton winning would had been more beneficial for Canada as it would ensure that Obama's views would remain during a Clinton presidency. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 09:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

These are both minor variations of reporting facts. There is no real difference. Agreed to either, but the previous version seems fine. Vile-eight (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally found that the previous version was way too similar to the source. What do you propose? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 10:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of WP:COPYRIGHT and propose no change. The short text segments used here report simple facts which are not copyrighted under governing U.S. copyright law Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Compilations_of_facts_and_the_sweat_of_the_brow_doctrine, and the short text segments are far from identical in any case. Vile-eight (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved? I re-added it with some changes. Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No objections to the revised text. Good night and good luck. Vile-eight (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to clarify one more thing: how is an anonymous Canadian's opinion any notable to the article? We're talking about government officials here and then a Canadian citizen appear out of nowhere. States is the government, not the opinion of one anonymous person. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hes a govt official (per the source). My bad, I forgot to add that originally as it got lost in the spate of additions.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Financial markets sunk

"However, following Donald Trump's win financial markets sank." is not NPOV. The statement lacks context, and "sank" is not well-defined in this context. Suggest: "However, following Donald Trump's win the Dow Futures index fell by 3%, but shortly showed signs of recovery." Vile-eight (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Will change.Lihaas (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Better? I didn't use yours fully as global markets also fell due to the result.Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "sank" is still lacking context. A 3% drop is huge and notable, but is not, say, a 50% drop. Some reference to the magnitude of market change is necessary, imo. Vile-eight (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My bad, already thought of a change just forgot to write it ;) I wrote "fell"

By at least 2%? Australia was a little less though.Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with sank. I think dow futures is the way to go, because it is generally used as a financial health indicator. "Financial Markets sank, including the Dow Futures market, which fell by 3%." or similar. Vile-eight (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How about "However, Donald Trump's victory drove down Financial Markets around the world." which leads the reader to the respective section for further information on the degree of change. Vile-eight (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The section above partially supports the stable lead. However, further on the topic there are a couple of issues. 1. BOLDTITLE is not necessary. 2. article leads dont start with "This article lists ". which is almost weasel sounding. 3. his inauguration is irrelevant to THIS article as the reactions are to this days events. 4. "anticipated Clinton to win" is not what the article includes (I know its true esp. in the week prior) but that's also not a reaction.Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we have a separate section for the Middle East?

Israel is in the Middle East, not really Asia, is it?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Asia begins at the Bosporus, Suez Canal, and Caucasus Mountains. It has been like this since antiquity. The confusion probably stems from American ethnicity options in the census, in which Asian only counts the people of the East of the continent Valentina Cardoso (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone should build a wall around those countries so there's no confusion! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts: Israeli barrier.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Its definitely Asia (they were in the AFC for soccer initially. They won the cup too)

And LOL ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Even before reading the suggestion here, I have grouped the countries of the Middle East into their own section together with Africa: this gives a better overview of geopolitical realities than sticking purely to geographical definitions of continents (where you would see Egypt, Turkey and Iran in three different sections). — JFG ^talk 23:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No it doesnt as thats not a continent. Its OR/synhhthesisLihaas (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lihaas: Could we avoid edit-warring over this? I restored the Middle East section because it is more relevant geopolitically; political articles do not need to follow purely geographical boundaries. Answering your point above, the definition of Middle East is not a matter of original research, it comprises 17 nations listed in the Middle East article. This is especially relevant given the United States' historical role and currently explosive relations in this region. I also pushed supranational bodies to the bottom, there is no reason they should have pre-eminence over continents and nations. — JFG ^talk 01:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Whose reactions?

When we list the reactions in countries, should we stick to the national governments (heads of state, those managing international relations, or similar), or any random politician is fine? Take for example the Netherlands: is that right-wing legislator a representative example of the international policy of the country? Does the prime minister Mark Rutte or the minister of foreign affairs Bert Koenders have a similar view of the result? Cambalachero (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not random. Notable ones that serve or served in govt (ie influence)

And hes forecasted to be the biggest part leader come March (Liek Le Pen)Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungary

Don't forget Hungary! Viktor Orbán is happy for Donald Trump's victory! I've watched the Hungarian news in Hungary, and Viktor Orbán says, the democracy is saved! --ViceCity343 (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good with a source.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Liberland?

Why exactly is the unknown president of the self-proclaimed micronation of Liberland of note? With a population of 0? What a joke. Explain yourself User:Twalls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.207.252.243 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

According to their article, "There has been no diplomatic recognition of Liberland by any country from the United Nations". I think we should leave it out. Cambalachero (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

not seen it yet but IFF they are notable enough for WP article then yes.Lihaas (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Then please remove the Tibetan Government in Exile. It doesn't have any factual power and isn't recognized by any country unlike Taiwan or Palestine. It is at most an organization and pages like these have sections with organizations rather than "Supranational bodies". --2.245.116.114 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-free material tag

User:Psychonaut: You added a non-free material tag. Where is it please?−Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Judging by my recent slew of removals of copyright-infringing material, there's probably a lot more of it spread throughout the article. I would start (but not finish) with checking everything sourced to the reference titled "The Latest: Australia: Ties with US strong no matter what", since that's where I discovered many of the copyvios. (Note that the hyperlink there goes to a dynamically updated page of AP releases. It no longer contains the material used as a source in this article. The infringed sources will need to be discovered by Googling.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please fix whatever problem you see? I don't see anything wrong, and I am tempted to remove the tag as undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

By "I don't see anything wrong", do you mean that you carefully checked the whole article for further copyvios and found none? If so, please remove the tag with my thanks for your vigilance. If not, I think it would be premature to remove the tag. I already spent some time today spot-checking the article and very quickly located (and removed) four three sections that had been copied and pasted from the sources. I would be very surprised if that was the extent of the infringement. I'm going to bed soon and don't have time to check the rest now. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Psychonaut and Zigzig20s: I checked the current article using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Can you look into the copyvios it has noticed? I don't have time at the moment. — Gestrid (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time either right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave the wrong link. Here's the correct one. (ECD skips checking more sources if a copyvio is highly likely with one source.) It will take a couple of minutes to load as it checks for possible copyvios. — Gestrid (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, just copyedit the notable bits.Lihaas (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

South African Reaction

The Democratic Alliance (South Africa), the official opposition party in South Africa, has offered its statement:

https://www.da.org.za/2016/11/da-reacts-trumps-election-us-president/

This statement is attributed to Stevens Mokgalapa the Shadow Minister of International Relations and Cooperation on behalf of their party.

AFAIK, the African National Congress (the incumbent governing party) has not made any statement yet.

The President of South Africa has made its statement:

http://mg.co.za/article/2016-11-09-zuma-congratulates-trump-on-behalf-of-the-people-of-south-africa

197.89.183.216 (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Source is good enough to be added. And DA just got into e. cape ;)Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we have more reactions from countries that feel especially vulnerable to Russia, please?

Can we have more reactions from countries that feel especially vulnerable to Russia, please? We do have the reaction of Ukraine, but not of Georgia nor the Baltic Republics (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia). On BBC's Newsnight a spokesman from one of the Baltics (Latvia, I think) mentioned that for the Baltics, unlike places like Britain, this was an existential threat, explicitly comparing it to the takeover of the Baltics by Stalin under the Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939, which he described as the last time 2 authoritarian great powers from East and West of the Baltics decided to become friends. But this is presumably not the official public position of his government. It is also not obvious that the existential threat is confined to the Baltics - those 1939 events were an integral part of the build-up to World War 2, while the BBC's most recent program about the possibility of nuclear Armagedon is entirely based on an analysis of the possible consequences of unrest among Latvia's large Russian minority - this eventually leads to Russian intervention in support of that minority, followed by NATO-Treaty-obligated Western support of Latvia as an invaded NATO ally. It would be especially interesting if there are reliable sources out there pointing out that Trump's longtime disparagement of NATO may be interpreted by Russia and/or the Baltics' Russian minorities as meaning that NATO will no longer defend the Baltics, which could eventually lead to unintended escalation towards nuclear war if Trump and the Russians then discover too late that deserting one's allies is easier to say on the campaign trail than to do in the real world. However even if it turns out that there are no usable reliable sources saying this, it would still be worth seeing what the Baltic governments actually say about Trump's election. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: If you have sourced quotes from the Latvian government or similar reacting to Trump's election, feel free to add them to the article. For the rest of your speculation about possible future developments, see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTFORUM. — JFG ^talk 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

United States reactions POV

It is very UNDUE to include only David Duke's statement in the United States section of reactions. What about other people, like Obama, Clinton, Ryan, McConnell, anti-Trump protesters, celebrities, and others. And how in the world did this blatant lie get in this article. Simply disgraceful. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Should that section be here at all? This article is for international reactions, that is, from countries other than the US. It goes without saying that there will be several domestic reactions to the outcome of any presidential election at any country, and the most logical thing to do would be to detail them in the article itself (background, parties, the election itself, etc; are all domestic policy, and the domestic reactions do not interrupt the flow as the international ones may do). Right now, the "Reactions" section of the main article is basically empty. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

They were added by a vandalizing IP user who wants to link the KKK, ISIS, etc., to Trump, who also added this on the First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency article. I removed them. Dash9Z (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the section and for pointing out who is adding those words. Yes, information about U.S. reactions should go somewhere, but not here. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I suggest this page should be protected, as well as the First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency article, so random IP users won't be able to edit them. Dash9Z (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We can request it at RPP.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

1 week.

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Layout and listing format

Not sure whether WP:NOTQUOTE applies. Right now the bullet points are used to organize countries. However, the layout makes editing this article more difficult. The structure must change. The names of countries should be subheadings of continents; if subheadings, then we must configure the TOC with {{TOC limit}}. Also, prose is encouraged per MOS:EMBED. Also, too many reactions, and I don't know which ones are most relevant and least relevant. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Least relevant is easy - we're including the tweets from unrecognized micronations? Really? Ravensfire (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope. this is fine and works.

Theyre notable for WP. We don't cherry pick what ww like.Lihaas (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this. First, I doubt anyone else notices their comments, other than to laugh at them. Sealand at least has had people residing there and had gotten a touch of notice. Liberland is, frankly, a joke that is just about totally ignored. These tweets aren't notable, they aren't important and are just WP:TRIVIA to include here. Ravensfire (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the Micronations section before, per WP:UNDUE; Wikipedia is not the place to give them a platform if they can't gain mainstream reputation by other means. — JFG ^talk 18:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Links to consider

>> Arab Leaders Welcome Trump Victory (probs for academia as Sis is listed here.Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

More religious heads needed

Religions and their earthly leaders have a substantial role in international relations and political beliefs. I added the head of Russian Orthodoxy because it has great influence in Russia, a global power and subject of much reports on their reaction to Trump. Right now we have Pope Francis (as head of the Holy See), the Dalai Lama in his temporal role in Tibet, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of Russian Orthodoxy. It would be nice to have more reactions noted in this section, particularly of non-Christian beliefs (I know that Sunni Muslims have no earthly leader, and I'm not sure that Jewish believers do either, but others surely do). Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate for inclusion?

Is this article about Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi close enough to the election to include here? Is it appropriate to consider it a reaction to the election?

• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/19/el-sissi-says-dont-jump-to-conclusions-on-trump.html

--1990'sguy (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody responded, so I went ahead and added the info. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"Emanated from around the world"? Surely we can do better than this

I cannot think of a less descriptive phrase here than "emanated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B416:B569:A90E:EBAA:BD81:F49D (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing Duma "applause" on Russia's reaction.

"The Duma then broke into applause" - false and based on unproven allegations. The link is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161123133658/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/11/09/cuba-raul-castro-congratulates-trump-on-election-win/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/11/09/cuba-raul-castro-congratulates-trump-on-election-win/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)