As a community we're handling these questions just fine IMO, even more so now we have the new custom close reason for speculation but there has been a trend of questions with Trump tweets inside them and they seem to be getting slammed for either speculation or trump translation straight away (sometimes just for containing a tweet).

There also seems to be differing opinions on the matter, Some seem to think because it's a political figure, it's on-topic. I feel we can get good questions of out the premise of a Trump tweet regarding a separate matter raised, I decided to write this as a point of reference as it's only going to keep happening and to avoid users just commenting about the Trump tweet in question but being constructive and asking for further context if needed. We need to understand that some questions using the tweet as a means of context are certainly on topic, but again some aren't.

How can we word it to ask for context instead of "being a Trump translator"?


Blatantly off-topic [and rightly should have been closed]:

How can.Obamacare implode?

What does Trump mean when he says Senate let people down by doing what he said from the beginning?

Where we should ask for more context, maybe definition of attribution of debt to NATO or evidence of such (one of my own questions, i know :))

Why would Trump callout Germany saying they owe the US and NATO 'vast sums' of money for defence?

Where no context is needed, but the inspiration is based on a trump tweet but can have more context from further citations (again, another one of mine :)).

What medical costs burden the military enough to warrant banning all transgender people?

Are we handling these kind of questions just fine right now (not just the ones above)? or should we have a minimum required references in the question than just tweet(s), even if the tweet is sufficient for the minimum, to keep it consistent?

I think we should have a minimum required citations or point of references in the questions that just contains tweets, not even specifically Trump ones as-long as they're a good contribution to the site.

Note: I'll be weary of this very same thing when asking questions in the future, if the discussion points as such.

1 Answer 1


The approach I've developed for Questions that are Trump Tweet related or inspired is looking for a concrete reference or external influence. I have zero interest in trying to dive into the dark abyss that is Trump's narcissistic psyche yes, that's an opinion, but let's get meta.

For the Medical Costs query, while it was inspired by the set of tweets claiming an establishment of policy, there was a root question in there about whether the military was obliged to pay for the transition. In building the answer, I didn't focus on Trump's statements, set of mind, biases, or other idiocy. Instead, I referenced established military policy, and exercised my experience as a senior member of the uniformed services, to identify the medical costs and disruptions referenced.

For a question you didn't highlight relating to Trump, consider "Why does Trump want to increase Military Spending?" Instead of referencing a Tweet, it relied on a call back to articles that presented a possible contradiction, isolationism with vast military build up. If left at that, the question would have resulted in speculation, particularly if we just looked at "future foreign policy". However, it was then scoped with the modifier "Is it just pandering to his base?" From that, an answer can be started with survey/polling data on the perception of the military and military spending in the populace.

On the border, there are question like "London No-Go." If it were just a "what is he thinking?" this question should have been closed. The wording is tinged with an attack against Trump, affecting community response. However, it asks for specific data on locales that have become no-go areas.

Properly closed questions just ask us to read Donald Trumps mind, like "What does Trump expect to gain with banning Transgender?" It starts with a biased premise, attempts to assign motive, and jointly denigrates those who support Trump.

We can expect that there will be many Trump associated questions for the next 4 years, with their quality being inversely proportional to the bombastic nature of the Administration.

  • 1
    The wording is tinged with an attack against Trump -> This is something that can just be edited out (as I have just done).
    – user11249
    Jul 29, 2017 at 15:26
  • 2
    @Carpetsmoker I was on my way back after wrapping this up, but you beat me to it. The statement reflected agitation toward the president, which is likely to be present in future questions responding to his actions. Jul 29, 2017 at 15:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .