Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign

Carl Icahn Endorsement

Carl Icahn is listed as endorsing without actually having done so. Mk17b (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

He already endorsed him a long time ago [1]--Cuckservative (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So that source should be listed as ref there. Mk17b (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-financing

With Politifact (and others) asserting that Trump's claim to be self-financing is only half true, is it accurate to state in opener, "Free media coverage, contributions and campaign self-financing have enabled him to eschew..."? Mk17b (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think it is more accurate now. Before I made this edit [[2]], it said: Persistent media coverage partnered with his ability to effectively self-finance his entire campaign has allowed him to eschew... Actually, the money he gives his campaign is a loan. The more contributions he receives the less he has to loan the campaign. IP75 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) currently redirects to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, but sources have been collected at Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) if anyone is interested in creating an article from the redirect. I think the segment is obviously notable. Tobacco (Last Week Tonight) shows what an article about a single segment can look like. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

False Flag

Following on from this, does anyone object to the false flag theory being removed? It seems a case of undue weight...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave the false flag theory, but I think more conspiracy theories are needed. What about the theory that Trump is a Russian mole, sent by Putin to destroy the Union? I think this deserves a section, maybe even a separate article, given the very public episode of mutual masturbation which took place between Trump and Putin recently. Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B40D:4BD7:C857:DF88:5E47:D221 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources will be needed before we consider mentioning anything like that.LM2000 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be evidence that he is an Eastern European sleeper.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to see what evidence there is that any of these theories are being considered outside of fringe sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cherchez la femme.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

BUT SERIOUSLY, does anyone think this "theory", which no one genuinely believes, should be mentioned in the article???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You did the right thing, I think it should stay deleted. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"OUT! OUT! GET (IT) OUT OF HERE!" Buster Seven Talk 21:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Washed-up Wednesday

What does this mean? Is it notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Why go to Canada, when you could just vote for Cruz?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text for the lead

"Trump is widely beloved by White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, the Klan, Stormfront, Neo-confederates, Jim Crow apologists, and Civil War re-enactors. He is the candidate of choice for those who have not finished high school, and has been endorsed by at least 11 hate groups, according to the anti -defamation league. He sleeps with a volume of Hitler's speeches on his nightstand, which he kisses goodnight each evening before retiring. He has been known to retweet Bennito Mussolini, and has openly admitted on at least one occasion that his campaign slogan is code for "Make America White Again", as those who Trump calls "my base", namely, White Supremacists and other advocates of race based violence and expulsion from the country, have always implicitly known."

Comments? Criticisms? Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B40D:4BD7:C857:DF88:5E47:D221 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B40D:4BD7:C857:DF88:5E47:D221 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We can see that you're the same person. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Equipment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why does Trump's Penis, and the controversy regarding its size or lack thereof, receive no mention in the article? It recently came to national prominence in the latest Republican debate. I think a "Donald Trump's Penis" section is in order. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.67.93 (talk • contribs)

Why should it? If we wrote about every silly thing Trump trumpeted we would run out of server space.- MrX 17:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Its own article?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It belongs in Rubio's article. He made the slur about small hands. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Spy magazine called him a "short-fingered vulgarian"...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If at all, would belong in a larger section regarding questions on vulgar language Mk17b (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)'

Can someone please change the name of this thread. I am so tired of seeing Trumps Penis on my watchlist! Buster Seven Talk 23:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How about "Trump's Magic Wand (to Make America Great Again)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Too late. Already picked something innocuous. Just let the thread die.Meters (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If created, Donald Trump's penis would probably suffer the same fate as Rasputin's penis. I'm referring to the World of Wikipedia here, and not in any way endorsing terrorism or voting.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violence

Verbal and physical confrontations between supporters and protesters have been a part of Trump's campaign events since the very first rally in October of 2015. The current increasing level of violence and degradation toward protesters and the candidates supportive response is a major difference from the other Republican candidates rallies. The level of violent response differs from any campaign in recent history. The crowd response to interlopers and Trump's "in the moment" support of their aggressive response is newsworthy, has been repeated in at least a dozen locations and deserves mention in the article. Buster Seven Talk 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you would need to find one or more reliable sources coming to this conclusion instead of separate sources for separate incidents, or you would run into WP:SYNTH. Objective3000 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

More than a few reliable and acceptable sources are available. The question becomes which list to use in order to maintain a neutral presentation. Huff Post? Slate? MSNBC? NYTimes? Boston Globe? Chgo Trib? Wash Post? Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems quite noteworthy: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-rally-protester-crack-down-220407 Mk17b (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I support including this material. It has become a noteworthy aspect of the campaign.- MrX 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on it unless someone gets there first. Buster Seven Talk 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you made a good start. I wonder if we can get a photo of the journalist being thrown to the ground by his neck.- MrX 12:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Women and people of color seem to be the overwhelming targets of rally animosity but I'm sure there would be editorial dis-approval of mentioning that fact. However, should the focus that Trump supporters have (as to what "type" of person gets degraded) continue, it becomes to obvious to ignore. Buster Seven Talk 13:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Verbal and physical confrontations between Trump supporters and protesters have been a part of Trump's campaign events since the very first rally on October 14,2015 in Richmond, Virginia. Protesters and members of the press have been cursed, punched, spat upon, kicked, shoved and taken to the ground. Violence and increasing aggressive response toward "outsiders and interlopers" along with Trumps supportive response from the stage [136]have steadily increased as the campaign continued.[137][138]"

Getting a little far out on a limb here, the article is accusing Trump and his supporters of being the culprits, but the ref 136 says quite clearly that the incident started when people at a Trump rally were physically attacked by a man who was throwing punches at them, and when the assailant got socked by his intended victims, Trump said from the platform that he would defend their actions in court. Its very deceptive to have this section accusing Trump of blanket approving of criminal violence generally, when in this incident he was simply saying that what he saw was proportionate use of force in self defence. The tile for the section being "Violence" is adroitly reticent about what is actually going on in the confrontations. Trump and those attending his rallies to hear him talk are clearly being called aggressive by neglecting to mention that people have disrupted Trump rallies by shouting and cursing at his supporters. Trump supporters have been insulted and sometimes even assaulted. A little more balance to reflect the real world in this section please.

"It looks like you made a good start. I wonder if we can get a photo of the journalist being thrown to the ground by his neck.- MrX"

That was the Secret Service as the article makes clear. The Secret Service presumably restrain people for good reason, and the journalist admits he stepped outside the pen where he was authorised to be (apparently while saying Fuck you! to the agent) and the Journalist gave the agent a bit of a choke back seconds after being downed. How is Trump responsible or connected to this incident? Overagainst (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Claims of Hitler comparisons

I added a well sourced section on the growing claims of Trump comparisons to Hitler - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&oldid=709013080#Claims_of_Hitler_comparisons.

The section was summarily reverted by User:TheFancyFedoraWielder which I believe is uncalled for. If someone feels it not a NPOV and wants to edit I can understand but at this point seems to be noteworthy and important to include. Mk17b (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there are adequate sources for a comparison to a type of contemporary and historical "strong man" such as Silvio Berlusconi. However, I'm not sure we have a category that this type of political leader would fit into. Hitler is way overdoing it however. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it would be editorializing to compare to anything other than what's mentioned in sources (Hitler, Nazi Germany, Mussolini). What do you suggest? Mk17b (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mussolini would fit in that Trump used a quote of his a week or two ago. Don't remember the exact quote but some research should bear fruit. Buster Seven Talk 01:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep". Buster Seven Talk 01:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So how best to continue with the section? The sources are clear in referring to Hitler in comparison to Trump (only some mention Mussolini) and that was the question posed to him on TODAY and Morning Joe. Mk17b (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should avoid making slurs against Hitler. He might still be a living person.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, last month called Trump “the world’s most dangerous man” and leader of a “hate-filled authoritarian movement” who “inflames tensions against ethnic minorities . . . while ignoring democratic conventions.” "Trump’s flirtation with fascism" is a sort of source. However, Hitler is sui generis. Even "fascism" seems too strong for what amounts to just talk. Real fascists kill. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that argument doesn't work, seriously. People thought Hitler was all talk. I don't think Trump is a fascist, but that's not because the hasn't killed anyone (much) (yet).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler proposed and carried out mass murder. Trump does not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"comparisons between Donald Trump and Mussolini or Hitler are overwrought" "Larry Summers: Donald Trump is a serious threat to American democracy User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump proposes a militarised wall between USA and Mexico. Trump proposes the assassination of other world leaders, and a foreign policy of unilateral aggression. Trump's supporters have carried out a campaign of violence against their opponents. No doubt this involves killing people. But very few people described Hitler as a potential mass murderer before he was elected and appointed. If you disagree, cite a source.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mein Kampf User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the front-running candidate of a major US political party is being compared (in national and international press releases) to Hitler and/or Mussolini is something so rare that it needs to be included. As editors we would be doing a dis-service to our readers to exclude it. However it gets done, I think we need to mention it. Buster Seven Talk 12:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be a violation of WP:BLP. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The three core principles of WP:BLP: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V). No original research (NOR). This clearly complies with all three. Mk17b (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this section is about people comparing Trump to Hitler, not whether you believe the comparison to be valid. The comparison has clearly been made by heads of state, NGOs, celebrities and others. (See for example here Another Hitler? How world leaders see Donald Trump). Mk17b (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As I read it, there will be no WP:BLP violation. Secondary sources abound. It's not a pleasant comparison but it is neutral. Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was sure someone would mention Mein Kampf, Fred Bauder, but that doesn't answer my point. In any case, as others have said, the issue is whether Trump is compared to Hitler, not whether we as amateur scholars endorse such as comparison.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly the comparison soon breaks down when we get to brass tacks. We're not seriously suggesting Mr Trump has declared himself "tax free" are we (yet)? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, the discussion is not how well the comparison holds up. The discussion is if the fact that prominent people are making the comparison makes it notable to include in the article. Mk17b (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite. It's not as if Mr Trump is tall and blond, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So how do we reach a consensus going forward? - MK17b 02:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk17b (talk • contribs)

I don't think we can say that many sources claim that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler but we can certainly say, with dignified respect for BLP, that some/many outside the American body politic are making the comparison... and provide refs. Buster Seven Talk 03:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How would you refine the section as I wrote it up originally here? - MK17b 05:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk17b (talk • contribs)

I'm fine with it as is. It's well written and gives a solid reason for the comparison (pledge=Nazi salute). It explains why, for many who saw the visual, the comparison was immediate. Most likely, Trump had no idea that the viewing public would correlate his request for a pledge with the negatively symbolic salute. But many that saw it did make that jump. The comparison didn't arise out of thin air. There had already been many media and press discussions about facism and nationalism. Also, the mention of the pledge request, aside from the Nazi connection, was important. Trump is bringing new tactics into the art of campaigning. When was the last time an "I wanna be President" politician asked his supporters to physically and outwardly make a pledge of loyalty in public. IMO, no refining needed. Buster Seven Talk 07:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's no good. Hitler is strongly associated with mass murder, not outward pledges of support, or even hand salutes. When, and if, Trump begins to engage in actual Hitlerite behavior I will strongly support reporting it here, but not a remote allusion to some minor characteristic. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is good and has been returned to the article. It should not have been remove without discussion and consensus. The report is about what others see in Trumps behavior not the actual behavior itself. You may call it a "remote allusion" but to others the allusion is far from remote: it is obvious. Hitler is associated with many things. One is the visual expression of loyalty and support, the nazi salute. Your deduction is stretched to the extreme. You see his mass murder. I and others who make the connection see his influencing of the voting public. Buster Seven Talk 08:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a brief note that according to CBS News Trump has been compared to Hitler in social media would be more appropriate. That, in fact, is the content of reliable sources regarding the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the Der Spiegel article manages to discuss Trump at great length, and very critically, without mentioning Hitler. Maybe sophisticated Germans know something you don't. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

CBS was only quoting the people who made the comparison like the Mexican President, Former ADL Chief and Louis CK. | MK17b | (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've all made your points. My take on it: I, being a rational person, do not believe that Trump invoked any kind of fascist statements. But, many media sources and even people took it that way, and I can see how they would take it that way. When I saw it created, I wasn't thinking about this, but merely myself. Let it stay. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding sophisticated Germans, German laws ban speech that incites or instigates harmful action. Maybe sophisticated Germans would rather the people of the world forget World History of the ′30's and ′40's. Maybe they would prefer it not be discussed in polite society. Maybe 'der Spiegel" mirrors the desires of its readers. Maybe people (myself included) of German descent would rather forget anything to do with the Third Reich. Buster Seven Talk 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Ron Paul on David Duke/Trump saga

The article states: "Former presidential candidate Ron Paul called the entire controversy a media plant.[322]" Is Ron Paul's response that noteworthy with so many others who have commented pro and against Trump not included? (He is after all the same guy that believes the government was aware of 9/11 beforehand...). I previously removed the line but it was reverted by User:TheFancyFedoraWielder with the claim that "Ron Paul is a popular and well-known politician, and has been a candidate for pres twice. And Romney has his own section in this article...". Don't want to get into an editing war but don't think Ron Paul is noteworthy when so many others ignored (Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Morning Joe, Tim Scott, Bernie Sanders, - list never ends) and sourcing to Daily Caller is only the icing on top. Mk17b (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree and I removed it. It would need better and more sources to demonstrate weight. That said, the section needs better/more sources overall. The David Duke YouTube video is particularly weak, as it is a primary source. It would also be best to find a third party source for the ADL reaction.- MrX 01:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Added Forward as third party source Mk17b (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mk17b, I just believe that it IS important because Ron Paul usually does not make public statements about things like this. Now, he is no longer silent and mentions something specific to this election. Shouldn't this be noteworthy? --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

He seems quite vocal with his opinions and current candidates based on the Google search I just did. For example, he recently called Sanders "a big voter for militarism". | MK17b | (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Announcement speech and immigration

Donald Trump's announcement speech can be found here: [3]. It doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. So the references to illegal immigration in the announcement section aren't supported by the source: his announcement. It would be true and inarguable to say that Trump spoke about immigration, so we can stick to that, rather than asserting whether he limited his words to illegal immigration. We can also say that Trump later revised his remarks, which he is free to do, but such revision is the candidate's job, not Wikipedia's. Pdxuser (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with your assessment and solution, as long as we continue to use secondary sources without trying to interpret his announcement speech ourselves.- MrX 02:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Article whittling

As the article expands, some new things become more important and "reader-worthy" than previously included items. This is an obvious conclusion for articles about a subject matter that evolves over time. With that in mind, I suggest the following be removed from the "Rallies and Crowds" thread On July 24, the Des Moines Register announced that it had been denied press credentials to cover a Trump campaign family picnic in Oskaloosa, Iowa, due to an editorial the previous week which called on Trump to drop out of the race.. What seemed important and newsworthy at the time has become extremely insignificant. This is true of much information that will need to be culled and removed. Buster Seven Talk 12:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Removed sentence. Buster Seven Talk 13:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The recent removal of the "Ron Paul/David Duke/Trump" saga is a prime example. Without careful editing the article becomes unwieldy and uninteresting. That's what editors do. They whittle. Buster Seven Talk 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the section "Twitter controversy" is a good example. Obviously by now many more than just one controversy (Mussolini tweet comes to mind). Re DM Register example, I think that is still noteworthy to help explain Trump campaign's relationship with the press - think it could be whittled down and included with other press related incidents. Mk17b (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the DM Register incident belongs in a "Interactions with the press" section which should also include the story du jour of Trump campaign manager allegedly shoving Breitbart female reporter. | MK17b | (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I just added the Bretbart incident to "Violence at rallies". Like you say its probaly better located at "Interactions....". Can you move it and at the same time retrieve the Des Moines Register stuff I mistakenly removed the other day? I'm off to work soon. TY. Buster Seven Talk 20:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In the wake of latest story on Politico being denied press credentials, I think it's more relevant than ever. Something like this should be included: The Trump campaign has also denied press credentials to reporters in the wake of negative coverage, a move described as troubling by CNN. Reporters from The New York Times, The Des Moines Register, BuzzFeed, The Huffington Post, Politico, Univision and Fusion have all reported being blocked from Trump campaign events. Based on this CNN Money article | MK17b | (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

2000 Reform Party run

This was just added to the David Duke thread: Trump declared in the year 2000 that he would not support the Reform Party and the Pat Buchanan presidential campaign, declaring David Duke being a "Klansman", Pat Buchanan a "neo-Nazi" and Lenora Fulani a "communist". The only significance I can see is that the reference shows that Trump knew of David Duke in 2000 in contrast to what he claims now. Other than that, adding this 15 year old tid-bit is fluff. Either it gets tied into current claims by editing or it serves no purpose in this article. Buster Seven Talk 14:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Tied it in. - MK17b 00:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk17b (talk • contribs)

Violence at rallies

I've restored this edit because the sources provided don't reference the content I removed. Please provide specific text from the sources here to support the content.CFredkin (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You removed:

"After a Jupiter, Florida news conference on March 8, Trumps campaign manager is reported to have accosted a Breitbart News reporter "...moving her out of the way and nearly bringing her down to the ground.""
— Removed by CFredkin

Source says:

"Michelle Fields, a reporter for Breitbart News, was attempting to ask Trump a question after his press conference in Jupiter, Fla., when his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, “forcibly grabbed her by the arm … moving her out of the way and nearly bringing her down to the ground” as Secret Service members were clearing a path."
— "Yahoo! News"

I'm sure this was an honest mistake. Perhaps you could put it back?- MrX 23:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are the bits I removed:

...since the very first rally on October 14,2015 in Richmond, Virginia...

...increasing aggressive response...

...have steadily increased as the campaign continued.

I don't believe any of these points are addressed in the sources above. I believe the content in the article reflects the sources you provided. Am I missing something?CFredkin (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you also removed an entire paragraph. The last paragraph. The one I referenced above. Would you please put it back?- MrX 00:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. Sorry. It's back now.CFredkin (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!- MrX 00:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are some photos to migrate if anyone wants to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathanmac87/ Victor Grigas (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Current article says "There have been verbal and physical confrontations between Trump supporters and protesters at Trump's campaign events. Rally attendees have physically provoked protesters and members of the press in many rallies. Trump has not formally condemned, and in some cases has jokingly expressed support for, his supporters' actions.[134][135][136]"

"Protesters at the rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump rushed the arena floor in jubilant celebration after the announcement that he was calling off the event due to security concerns. Many jumped up and down, with arms up in the air, shouting “F— Trump!” ”Bernie! Bernie!” and “We stoppedTrump![4]

The section is not NPOV. The heading is "Violence" and the tone in it is pretty clearly accusing Trump of encouraging physical attacks by his supporters against protesters, and making this charge in Wikipedia's voice without any qualification. There are indeed various media including well known ones that say as much, but it is still an accusation being made against Trump, and as far as I can see not an established fact that is unchallenged. So IMO while page should say that Trump has been accused of instigating violent attacks, there should be balance with referenced quotes of Trump's response to these' accusations.

According to Trump the incident he remarked on was when a man who start throwing punches at Trump rally attendees got hit back. He has said the Chicago protests were organised disruption by Sanders supporters. Here is a ref http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/12/trump-blames-thugs-canceling-chicago-rally/81685100/ . It has a Trump quots "The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago" The protesters are trying to stop Trump speaking and they have succeeded at least once. He also mentioned an unfair double standard about protest shutting him down but it would be a national scandal if his supporters did it to anyone else. Sanders admits some of his people were at Chicago. Trump also said there is a double standard over rhetoric when Obama can call Republicans and police polluters and racist respectively. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/12/trump-cancels-chicago-rally-says-didnt-want-to-see-anyone-hurt.html?intcmp=hpbt1. I am not saying any of this this should be presented as the truth in Wikepedias voice, merely that Trumps side ought to be given.

Having many reffed sources for a viewpoint that could be challenged means it is one that is widely held and should be included and quoted as a viewpoint, but not that it should be made in Wikipedia's voice in the article. Balance is best served by giving both sides and not by deciding one side is worth giving in Wikipedia's voice. I brought this up a couple of days ago and the article section is getting worse all the time. Overagainst (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty NPOV to me. | MK17b | (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? Currently it reads

"There have been verbal and physical confrontations between Trump supporters and protesters at Trump's campaign events. Rally attendees have physically provoked protesters and members of the press in many rallies.[136][137] The New York Times reported that the most "potentially dangerous recurring act committed by ordinary voters in the 2016 presidential cycle" is protesting Trump at one of his rallies; when a protest breaks out as at rally, "Trump supporters typically begin shouting, pointing, jeering — and sometimes kicking or spitting — at the protester, surrounding the offender in a tight circle."[138] "Trump's tone often seems to encourage aggression," and he "has berated security guards for not ejecting protesters quickly enough."[138] "

WP:NPOVAll encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

My understanding is things that may be challenged cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice The first sentence of the above article section excerpt is in Wikipedias voice and peculiarly worded. For instance "physically provoked" is a very odd phrase which seems to imply something beyond catcalling. If it means Trump supporters actually assaulted demonstrators then make that clear by saying so in so many words and with good source references. This is not undisputed I think, so don't use Wikipedia's voice but rather quote the sources, and follow with sourced responses by Trump (such as have been reported by FOX) for balance. Include Trumps rejoinder to the charges and criticism being levied against him: that's NPOV. You can't have a section starting with a sentence in Wikipedia's voice all about Trump supporters striking those who are not Trump's supporters, and not mention what Trump says about the issue. Trump is not standing mute, and the characterisation of events by the NYT isn't undisputed and unchallenged. The section has a long quote from the NYT , which would be NPOV if it gave Trump's response to the NYT's charges (he said the incident he saw and commented on started when a protester started swinging fists and boots at people around him). What is in criticism of Trump is given at considerable length, but sources supportive of Trump are absent, and what he said in explanation and reply to the criticism is not being mentioned. This is not NPOV.Overagainst (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow

This article has a "Comparisons to Nazi Germany" section. If this was on the article for anyone else it would have been reverted immediately. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That section does seem a bit much to me too. Darmokand (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is long discussion above, but one hard head doesn't respond to reason. The section is an abomination. A short section saying that there have been comparisons on social media would be much more appropriate. I'd count the Today Show as social media. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Or even two. Better to be a hard head than a dumkopf, surely? Trump's response to the accusations, given in that fulsome quote, suggests he takes the issue quite seriously? Or could be accused of also simply pandering to the pressures of "social media" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me another presidential candidate that discussed and dismissed comparisons between himself and Hitler on national TV (mornings shows, presidential debate). | MK17b | (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Fred:Fred Bauder, you can call the Today show social media, but that quite aptly falls into the category of editorializing. Is Morning Joe also social media? GOP debate? (Never mind the comparison made by Mexican president, ADL chair) | MK17b | (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a continuum. And yes, Morning Joe is not a whole lot different from someone's Facebook page. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And the presidential debate falls where in that continuum? | MK17b | (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: Please be more specific when name-calling. Which hard head are you referring to? I'm sure you don't want the wrong editor to think you have cast aspersions at them. Please assume the good faith that all editors are entitled to. Name calling doesn't help. It just alienates one editor from another. Or is that your goal? Buster Seven Talk 17:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

For some reason, the reference list is not visible for me despite me refreshing the screen. Is this an issue for anyone else? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The only ref I can see is the one for the thread Claims of Hitler comparisons which has the ref included with the thread it is used in via {-{talkref}-}. Buster Seven Talk 18:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any references. I don't know what's wrong with the markup. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed - This edit attempting to transclude an entire article broke the reflist display. I have removed the endorsements box template in favor of a {{Main| hatnote, as is done on the HRC campaign article.- MrX 12:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

New page for controversies

Compaired to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz This article is EXTREMELY negative, as you read this your bombarded by not what has happened and the campaign is about but rather the negativity that has happened from those who oppose his campaign. This article needs a YUGE tone change!!! Some of the references to the opposition needs to be shortened or moved to a new page especially considering how this campaign is of the frontrunner. Maybe it can go to a seperate page that lists the controversies like the one for Bill Ayers A summary of it could be included. That would leave much of the page about the events of his campaign and not the criticism surrounding it. (sorry about posting this on a section above but as I looked at it more I realized it's a bigger issue that needs to be bought up)ShadowDragon343 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Compared to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz Donald Trump's campaign IS extremely negative. It is one of the most negative campaigns ever run in the modern history of American politics. How are we, as conscientious editors, supposed to report different?. Buster Seven Talk 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)...and I would add that the violence displayed toward those that oppose his campaign is unprecedented. Don't blame the messenger. Buster Seven Talk 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All campaigns are negative, attacks and criticism are part and results of the process. Depending on your point of view some can seem more negative than others. If you look at the Ted Cruz article it talks about the campaigns and events with a small section of his eligibility. Much of the Trump campaign article on the other hand is about backlash and controversies which could go on their own page. The section "Campaign" is mostly that (McCain, False Flag, violence at rallies (Rubio has violence too but no mention of a guy in a robot suit getting swings at him), twitter controversy, much of the border wall and ban proposal is about the backlash and responses, David Duke, Hitler comparisons). This is enough material that it could potentially go on it's own page.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The media coverage has focused on negative aspects of the campaign so that's what we have to use per WP:NPOV. A WP:POVFORK would be a bad idea in my opinion. If we are getting into too much detail and direct quotes, I have no objection to trimming them back a bit. I also have no objection to adding 'Violence at rallies' sections to any campaign article where there are widespread reports of such. Has anyone been thrown to the ground by their neck or elbowed in the face by a rhinestone cowboy at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 or John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016? - MrX 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny how some of you don't even bother to pretend to be objective and uphold NPOV. Hillary's campaign has also been highly negative as they sling mud at Bernie's campaign with allegations of racism (against Bernie's wife) and misogyny (against the so-called "Bernie bros"). Plenty of decades-old controversies have also been revived by Bernie's supporters.--Cuckservative (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the HRC campaign article to add any noteworthy criticism.- MrX 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time editing articles that are obviously gang-patrolled by her paid staff.--Cuckservative (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure your new name would be a big hit with the HRC editors. What do you infer by "paid staff"? Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I requested this name because apparently the prudes here find "cuckservative" to be too profane and I didn't feel like wasting my time arguing with them. My name does not imply a political agenda. It could very well be ironic. Why not assume good faith?--Make America Great Again (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Stuff like this only happens at Trump rallies. When it's being called "unprecedented in the history of modern presidential campaigns", it needs to be covered as such. NPOV does not mean all articles being equal, nor does it mean adhering to "he said, she said" rhetoric loved by the 24 hour news networks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead outdated

In light of the significant coverage of violence and growing protests at various Trump rallies, the lead is no longer representative of the significant points in the body of the article. I propose trimming the second paragraph and adding a couple of sentences about the violence and the sharp criticism that that Trump is receiving from members of the GOP, the press, and other candidates for his tacit support of such violence.- MrX 01:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I notice that while the article is updated to include tonight's Chicago rally being shut down, it doesn't yet mention the violence from earlier today in St. Louis. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Blowback is to be expected but I agree that updating the lead is logical and necessary. Buster Seven Talk 05:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. I will try some edits later today, unless someone beats me to it.- MrX 11:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Neutrality^talk 03:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added a short paragraph, but it could probably use some tweaking. I tried to condense the second paragraph by removing some redundant wording, but I didn't get very far. I removed the transclusion markup since the content wasn't actually transcluded into the main article and the markup was making it difficult to edit. -MrX 03:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

user: MrX says above that Trump is in tacit support of violence by his supporters ("his tacit support of such violence). Again, this is not NPOV because it characterises Trump supporters as violent. Be specific about the incidents. The only incident that this can be referring tow as the one in which Trump refused to condemn attendees at his rally because he said they had reacted to someone who started to swing punches and kicks at them (his supporters), who defended themselves. "Violence" is a very misleading term for a person who responds to an attack. Trump said his supporters did not get violent, they were responding to someone who got violent. After the incident was over Trump said his supporters had done nothing wrong. Mr X is too one sided in what he is saying here about editing, you can't assume someone tacitly supports "violence" on the basis he said he witnessed an incident that he said was legitimate self defence. Trump presumably does not support attacks on his supporters.Overagainst (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I had difficulty summarizing the section of the article while maintaining a neutral voice. I welcome any efforts to correct that, but let's please stick to the sources and try to actually summarize the content, rather than use specific one-off examples of Trump condoning violence or Trump denying that he condones violence.- MrX 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2016 Chicago protest

I want to discuss whether or not last night's protest really needs its own article. This strikes me as WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, and if we believe there is sufficient scope for WP:NEVENT, I think that scope includes the violence earlier in the day in St. Louis, which completely changes this article to a spinoff from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Violence at rallies. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• support merge per WP:NOTNEWS. Way too early to tell if this event us going to be a footnote in the history of the campaign, or something independently notable (my money's on the former). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate This was a highly notable event that received widespread media coverage. It also details the heated rhetoric prevalent in Donald Trump rallies, which culminated in this notable event. Expand, and keep separate. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge you can't convince me that a confrontation resulting in no injuries or arrests, and a campaign rally called off by a political candidate, deserves a separate article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note There were two police officers injured, and five arrests. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge - Although the article meets WP:GNG, it probably fails WP:EVENT. I think readers would be better served if the content was included in this article. Every time we create spinoffs of spinoffs, it makes it less likely that readers will find the content they're looking for. I offer page view stats as evidence of that.- MrX 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge In the big scope of things it's a minor event and if there were to be an article on every protest held at rallies there would be many pages. Expand by mentioning Trump's view on the subject and rumors surrounding the protest. Ralphw (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge Protests at his rallies have been commonplace, this was obviously the largest but should be given WP:DUE weight on this article in the appropriate section.LM2000 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Seperate - There is much surrounding the events of yesterday, both in St Louis and Chicago. If merged with this article, the events will be allowed a few sentences at best. Seperated, the events can receive the attention they deserve. Buster Seven Talk 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate a notable historical event that warrants a standalone page. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate This page is long enough with the many sections about the backlash against him as it is and there likely will be more incidents especially if nominated, a few sentences can be included with a link. If we included everything it would eventually be as long as the Obama 2012 Endorsements page if they were on a single column!!! This particular incident also involved many injuries as well making it more noteworthy than others.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate I don't think necessary. This page is too long and the another article that you say to be merged is partially another different subject, very interesting. Also the event was just suspended, the next one could be more violent or interesting stuffs could happen. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate Event is notable on its own; the fact that Trump cancelled this rally adds to its weight ABF99 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate There will be more and will probably be titled Civil unrest associated the the Trump 2016 or whatever. People who think a fascist is coming to power (having read the Wikipedia article on him...) will no doubt protest vigorously. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep separate A very notable event that received international news coverage. If there are future events of a similar nature they could be merged together, but for the moment this event stands out. Another name would be better, calling them Chicago riots seems to be a bit strong. Michael5046 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge This is hardly the 1968 Chicago Convention protests. It seems likely that these protests will continue. How many articles should we have? Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as currently proposed, because this is separate from the Trump campaign. If a merge is to be done, it should go to a better target like List of riots in the United States. epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this was a major event, Keep separate notability passes WP:GNG, and trumps WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge The event lacks notability so far. TFD (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think this article has just enough notability and coverage to remain separate, but barely Inter&anthro (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Temporary Weak Keep, but spin off a Protests article — The notability of the Chicago event is established, but either it will be an event that remains distinct (either as a singular event, or as a turning point) or will become part of a larger story about Protests of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. The latter is already getting independent coverage: 1 2. At the moment, this page has a section on violence, which is inadequate to cover all protests and also includes violence against journalists, so covering this topic would need new work.--Carwil (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment An editor, Spirit Ethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) closed this discussion thread saying, "No consensus on change."[5] I reversed it. This editor has only been active four months and has already been blocked twice. TFD (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge Not notable enough to merit its own article. No deaths, no serious injuries, mostly just people yelling at each other. The information about this even is more useful in relation to the Donald Trump campaign as a whole and is less useful as a stand alone article.Found5dollar (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Later After elections is soon enough. Decide significance later. -- AstroU (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Merge nothing to do with presidential campaign. Tangential. This entire page is a WP:COATRACK. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Confused are you asking to merge the protest article into this page? Or merge the section of this article onto the protest page? Either way there is too much attribution on this page. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

David Duke Never Endorsed Donald Trump

Set the record straight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diq1WohFHi4

International Business Times (IBT): So, where did people get the idea that you actually endorsed Trump?

Duke: I didn’t go to the media for this. I have a major talk show. I have a huge following. But I have not been engaged in self-censorship. I made it really clear [on the radio] that I did not endorse Donald Trump, that I have many differences with him, and that Donald Trump is not endorsing me. But I’m going to let my followers know my political opinions in this very important race for president. I think it’s a very un-American thing if a person self-censors himself or does not talk about things.http://www.ibtimes.com/david-dukes-donald-trump-endorsement-never-happened-former-kkk-grand-wizard-says-2329067 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBestEditor (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The article clearly states what David Duke said: "On February 24, 2016, the white nationalist David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon, said on his radio show that "voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage" and that he supports Trump. Duke stated: "I'm not saying I endorse everything about Trump. In fact, I haven't formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action."" | MK17b | (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I got so lost in reading that quote I need Rod Serling to help me escape. Seriously, he is saying he isn't endorsing him -- but voting against him is treason. Objective3000 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable person would read the sources and conclude that Duke endorses Trump. If someone wants to change "endorse" to "support", that's fine to.- MrX 23:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It is quite obvious from the above source that David Duke supports Donald Trump even without an official endorsement. A non-official endorsement does not equals a non-support of Trump. Neutral point of view must be followed in this article, but adding this implies that Trump is not endorsed by a leader of the KKK. Which is false. epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to tangle this up. 1. Duke says don't go against Trump all others candidates are "traitors" 2. Duke says unambiguously in a interview and in a film clip 'I did not endorse Donald Trump'. I think we have clear question and a clear answer! SO WHAT DO WE THEN HAVE? We have Duke saying that you should not vote for the others because they are all "no good", but you don't need to actually vote for Trump. Is this NEUTRAL or PASSIVE SUPPORT? I would go for both as Duke says that 'I have many differences with him' and hence does 'not endorse Donald Trump" i.e. best of not electable candidates. IBestEditor (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) PS I am not from the US and neither for or against Trump. Please don't let your opinions get in the way! Thank you so much!

The following is accurate reporting- (Note: has his support, in part.)" But the front-running Republican presidential candidate has his support, in part because of his hardline stance on immigration, Duke said in a phone interview with International Business Times". So partial support is the answer IBestEditor (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's just put ice in our caps and stop this guilt by association game! IBestEditor (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. What I am understanding is that Duke will vote for Trump but does not officially endorse him. Still... epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So Duke does not publicly recommend anyone to vote for Trump, no endorsement, because he has many differences with him. PS I haven't heard whom Duke will personally vote for? IBestEditor (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"He [Duke] also urged listeners to continue to support Trump before the government wipes out “the European-American majority.” Source | MK17b | (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump protest articles

Okay, so now we have Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest as separate articles. At least one of them needs to go; this is duplicating content from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Violence at rallies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest should be folded into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. It may be a good idea to nominate the former for deletion to get broader community input. The merge discussion above has a hung jury.- MrX 17:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That could be the way to go. My other thought was CSD A10 on the protest article as duplicating content, but since I still don't believe that the events of Chicago on Friday night are enough for its own article, maybe AfD on that one with an eye towards a content merge is the best way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the right approach (AfD for merge). The protests article is more general and will have plenty of content.- MrX 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Because of this, copying content from one article page to create the backbone for another article within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If copying is extensive, which it was for Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 it is good practice to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. This was not done, just a mention of "taken from the campaign article" in the edit summary. I have not checked the history of other article, 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, but I believe it was more spontaneous. Before we start advocating for the changes suggested here, lets be sure that we are building on a solid platform, one that wasn't built with adherence to Wikipedia's page history functionality which would list all edits made to a page and all the users who made those changes. Let's not save the one with a copyright issue. Buster Seven Talk 17:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but keep in mind this can be easily fixed after the fact by slapping an attribution template onto the talk page of the new articles. I don't remember off hand the name of the template though.- MrX 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Glad to here there is an easy solution. Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I do believe you're right that the Chicago-specific article was organically created, and the protest article was copied content. So the Chicago article history should remain, but in a more general "protest" article title? What's the best way forward? An AfD that includes both articles with the intention of a "Highlander" style decision: there can be only one? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Chicago article can be merged and turned into a redirect with its history intact. That will serve for attribution. Even if the article is deleted, an admin can do a WP:HISTMERGE. The key thing is to follow WP:CWW.- MrX 18:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of the link. A discussion has been started. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am to blame and am an administrator. But I am lazy. However, I will put this on a list of some sort. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have used Template:Copied which is the appropriate remedy in this instance. In my opinion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had also copied some material from 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest also, but it is not clear to me now when I added it to the new article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Because then their lives are going to be ruined."

68 million Americans have arrest records. Trump wants to improve those figures by getting more protesters arrested for disrupting his events. [6]. Should this major shift in campaign tactics be mentioned in the article? Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump's a uniter. I think a very brief mention would be in order.- MrX 13:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Unifier? Also, is People Mag a reliable source? There are many others. I just used People here since it provided a quick read on the matter. Buster Seven Talk 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the U word I was looking for! I try to avoid People as a source. I think a major newspaper or two would be better.- MrX 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Buster Seven Talk 11:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

LEADCITE

Does anyone object to me removing the citations from the lead, or at least trimming them back significantly? If we are following WP:LEADCITE and truly summarizing the article as we should be, then footnote citations should are not be necessary.- MrX 13:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I support all efforts to trim "the fat" from the article. Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I was think about removing the lead references per CITELEAD anyway. epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list all states won? And 'Super Tuesday 2' doesn't really seem to be a thing. | MK17b | (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I think that can be summarized down to a sentence or two without mentioning specific states.- MrX 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed to this: "As of mid-March, Trump is the clear Republican frontrunner having won 13 states and one U.S. territory." Good? | MK17b | (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording seems good, but the main bio says that he has won 20 states.- MrX 12:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Death threats

I removed a recent addition of a new section called 'Death threats' [7] because it makes claims about living people Glenn Beck and Emadeldin Elsayed that are not supported in the sources, and two of the sources are not considered good sources (NY Post and Washington Times). There were no death threats made directly toward Trump, but rather some hypothetical comments. In the case of Elsayed, he said "I literally don’t mind taking a lifetime sentence in jail for killing this guy...". I would like to get the thought of other editors. there may be something salvageable here, but not an entire section suggesting that Trump has receive numerous death threats.- MrX 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with the removal. The "El Chapo" stuff in particular is unreliable. The Washington Post notes: "Outlandish stories about Guzmán and the Mexican cartels often spread online. Earlier this year, it was widely reported that Guzmán had threatened to kill U.S. political hopeful Donald Trump (these comments could ultimately be traced back to an anonymous Twitter account)." Neutrality^talk 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I largely agree with you on this. There should not be an entire section on this, but rather a small mention of it. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The word Republican is not accurate and is misleading.

From the lead:

Trump's opposition to illegal immigration, free trade, and military interventionism[6][7][8][9] earned him support among Republican working-class voters, especially blue-collar voters.[10]

Neither the reference nor the polls that it cites limit themselves to Republican voters. Inserting Republican in this context is not neutral point of view.

135.245.49.14 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Corrected. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The reference and accompanying graphs reference Republican voters multiple times. | MK17b | (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Republican party is far from united and just because he has significant support does not mean he has the party's support. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

‎White death

Article reads: "Even after controlling for these other factors, the middle-aged white death rate in a county was still a significant predictor of the share of votes that went to Trump." What other factors? Buster Seven Talk 18:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Any guesses? White death as a predictor of voting patterns is certainly an interesting sidebar but our reader should be told what these other factors are...or else we should remove the comment. Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

At the moment this is just a quote in the references but you can see if you follow the link in the citation:

::*The death rate for middle-aged Hispanics and nonwhites

• The percent of people employed in manufacturing
• The change in the percent of people employed in manufacturing
• The median income
• The growth (or decline) in the median income since 1999
• The percent of people working
• The change in the percent of people working since 1999
• The percent of people with a bachelor's degree or more
• The urban or rural character of a county —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How do we know who is who

The Tucson, Arizona video that shows Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbing a person brings up what I think is a good point. In not only this video but in others (as well as frozen images) the judgement is made (by someone) as to who is who, supporter or protester, and we, as editors, follow the lead of the caption or description. And, in most cases, the label is obvious and raises no doubt. But in this video there is no movement or act or sign or T-shirt that would give us a clue as to what side of the spectrum, supporter or protester, that the person grabbed is on. We get a hint because Lewandowski (and another man) grab him and our article reasonably states "grabbing another protester by the collar". BUT, is that enough to label the person grabbed as a protester? As WP editors we are trained to report what is---not what we speculate. I think in the case of this Tucson video, it is not clear and we should be careful and vigilant in our depictions and descriptions of "Who is Who" going forward. Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We rely on secondary sources to determine who is who and what happened. Presumably reporters have the expertise to determine this and when they err are supposed to write corrections. TFD (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Political Positions Doubled?

Sections 3.3 and 7 are both 'Political Positions'. Am I missing something? Why is this here twice? | MK17b | (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want to offer to correct this? There exists a whole separate wiki page just for his policy positions. Just delete section 3.3? | MK17b | (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The point of Section 3.3 is, I take it, to summarise the history of the campaign in relation to his policy positions (particularly the wall and Muslim ban controversies), as opposed to the political positions article which gives an overview of the positions themselves. It should probably just be given a better name and the import tax section removed. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hate and bigotry

"Hundreds of rabbis either boycotted or stood as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump began to speak at a pro-Israel conference and walked out to protest his "hate and bigotry" that hold troubling reminders for them of the Holocaust... Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, leader of a prominent Washington DC Modern Orthodox synagogue ... shouted: "Do not listen to this man. He is wicked. He inspires racists and bigots."[8]. I think this should be added somewhere. 86.183.242.34 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

His speeches and rallies have been protested all over. Why would this be most notable example? | MK17b | (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It belongs at Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 anyway unless it's uniquely notable —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this section here. Yes this is way too much attribution and weight on this article. As I stated below, the "Violence" subsection of the "Rallies" section is the largest on the page. That at the very least borders on a WP:COATRACK violation. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"People and groups" section concern

Firstly, I have never seen such a section on the presidential campaign pages of any other candidate, although its possible I just haven't looked hard enough. That aside, this appears to have been created as a subversive Criticisms section in truth, where editors with anti-Trump sentiments have run away with all the negative comments he has received in the media, and masking it with minor "this group likes him" remarks. While I personally don't really care about Donald Trump's bid, I am concerned at the longstanding WP:COATRACK issues on this article and related ones. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and yet this article surely does appear to do so. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Violence and expulsions at rallies" subsection of "Rallies and crowds"

This subsection is the largest subsection on the entire article. Are we really supposed to believe that instances of violence at Trump's rallies are the most notable aspect of his campaign? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Buster Seven Talk 12:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the "Violence" subsection is the largest in the entire article. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was writing my message below when you posted this, but I agree that the coverage is disproportionate—see my comments below. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Article too long

I've just tagged this article with Template:Longish, per the WP:SIZERULE (the readable prose size is ~64 KB, falling into the "probably should be divided" category, and much of this is unnecessary), and following my own difficulties navigating it. Some observations/suggestions:

• The "Violence and expulsions at rallies" is overlong, and simply lists events (this is discouraged but I don't recall the location of the relevant guideline). Given that Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 already covers this material, much of this should probably be cut.
• Some of the sections for controversies with other individuals could be condensed and rewritten in continuous prose, e.g.:

Macy's announced it would phase out its Trump-branded merchandise. Serta, a mattress manufacturer, also decided to drop their business relationship with Trump. NASCAR ended sponsorship with Trump by announcing it would not hold their post season awards banquet at the Trump National Doral Miami. ESPN decided to relocate its ESPY Celebrity Golf Classic to the Pelican Hill Golf Club in Newport Beach. The charity golf tournament was once scheduled to be held at a golf course owned by Trump.

This can be condensed into a single sentence.

• The purpose of separate "Campaign" and "Republican front-runner" sections is unclear—most of the latter section is about Trump's controversies and not his status as front-runner. This is confusing and the two sections should probably be integrated together.
• More generally the article lends a lot of emphasis to the controversies surrounding Trump and not the actual progress of the campaign. It might be worth considering forking this article so there's a place to talk about the controversies in more depth, and reserving more space here for discussing Trump's support base, his results, his strategy (and successes and failures), etc. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This sums up much of my above concerns. As per your last statement, "More generally the article lends a lot of emphasis to the controversies surrounding Trump and not the actual progress of the campaign", I believe the article is in violation of WP:COATRACK rules. This is especially concerning on such an important page. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. No. I am emphatically opposed to that idea. Controversy is absolutely part of his campaign. Cutting out the unpleasant bits and hiding them in a separate article would not be "neutral", it would be pro-Trump. We are here to document what's happening, not to help his campaign by glossing over his controversial statements and the public's/press's reaction to them. Rosekelleher (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment, that simply does not follow WP:NPOV. That suggests that Trump is a bad character and that reporting such is "neutral". It is not neutral to turn the entire page into an attack piece. A neutral page would, sure, make mention of these controversies. But it would not be the entire article. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you whose suggested approach is non-neutral. You want to whitewash him. We are here to present the truth, whether it's ugly or pretty. We are not his PR people, helping him to put his best foot forward. If he quotes Mussolini (or whatever) and that makes headlines, it is not our job to sweep that under the rug. Rosekelleher (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, he has been getting a lot of free publicity as a direct result of these controversies. They are central to his campaign. Rosekelleher (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? "Comparisons to Hitler" is neutral reporting? We are also not the PR people of his opponents, trying to paint him as solely a controversial figure. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Mussolini quote, "It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred as a sheep", 1. in truth was first said by someone else, 2. gives zero credence to Mussolini's ideology, 3. has been used by plenty other's after Mussolini who didn't get flack for it because they weren't Trump. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

DaltonCastle, listen to yourself. You're calling me non-neutral because I want to report the facts, and defending him against the facts. The fact is, he retweeted a Mussolini quote and it made the news and generated a lot of comment. Yes, it generated a lot of comment because he's Trump, because he's running for president of the United States. That's kind of a big deal. You don't get to run for president and have your supporters edit your mistakes out of Wikipedia. Rosekelleher (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I advise you change your tone. Do not presume to label me as anything, especially when, in essence, you want the page to read "Trump is bad" and I am seeking a neutral view. Much of this content is not Trumps mistakes, but tangential incidents. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There should be an account of the controversies on this article, but it can be considerably shorter than at present, and it should only be one component of the article rather than making up the vast majority of it as it does at present. Bear in mind, from an information standpoint, that more people will actually read it if it's shorter and more readable. My point in the original message is that at the moment the article is a bit of a mess to read. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the "People and groups" section, at the very least, deserves a split off. Maybe into Endorsements and opponents of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 or something similar. Preferably less wordy, but nothing comes to mind. ~ Rob^Talk 23:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Shorter" is one thing, "less controversial" is another. Nizolan and DaltonCastle have suggested shortening the article by placing less emphasis on the controversy surrounding Trump's campaign and more on "his status as front-runner". That suggestion has NON-NPOV written all over it. I already had my doubts about the neutrality of this article when I first opened it and saw that the word "misogynist" was nowhere to be found. That's like writing an article about David Duke without mentioning white supremacy. Not acceptable. Rosekelleher (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with @Rosekelleher:. The article is reporting the events of the campaign. If it is heavy on mentioning the rally incidents and light on talking about policy, it is because that is essentially what The Trump Campaign is about. The incidents drive the campaign. They create the high percentage of Trump media coverage when compared to any other candidate. Buster Seven Talk 12:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Rosekelleher: I'm not saying the article should focus on his status as front-runner, just that the section titled "Republican front-runner" should (or else be retitled). My comment was about structure, not POV. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

---

I saw DaltonCastle made a major omnibus edit - I've reverted, not because I disagree with the article could be streamlined (I think it surely can) but because I think that these removals bear further discussion and because of the concerns raised by others on the talk page. I would also suggest that we discuss content in terms of specifics (a paragraph-by-paragraph look) rather than generalities (too short/too long, too negative/too positive). This is more labor-intensive, yes, but it's really the only way to do it. Neutrality^talk 14:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What has always worked to the benefit of political articles and the editors that work on them has been discussion. Wholesale changes of existing content without discussion is contrary to the art of collaboration. Going all the way back to the Sarah Palin article, what works is presenting wholesale changes on the talk page so that all interested editors can discuss Pro/Con before the change is made (when the common ground of mutual neutral article creation exists) rather than after (when points of view seperate us and edit wars are right around the corner). Buster Seven Talk 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and also agreed with Neutrality that a systematic section-by-section run-through might be a good idea. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Referring to "A new page for controversies" this article gives Trump a negative light with the controversies rather than explain his campaign like others have. Though many may oppose his campaign that doesn't mean this article should be hijacked from the intended purpose of giving basic info about the Trump campaign itself.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There has not been the sort of editing discipline imposed here that is characteristic of articles about political figures many Wikipedia editors feel some affinity for. The result is inclusion of a plethora of minor details, many critical. However, there is a lack of reliable sources regarding strategy. Clinton's campaign workers sometimes talk to the press in ways that roughly conform to what the candidate is doing. All I've seen from the Trump campaign is "Let Trump be Trump," as if they could actually manage him in a meaningful way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

WP:NPOV contemplates including all significant points of view, not pasteurizing information so that no disagreeable information is included. The article, "The Geography of Trumpism", in The New York Times is a very good source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This goes the other way too. It can't be a page that is just negative. Hence neutral point of view. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be a struggle. Trump's natural constituency is not congruent with that which typically edits Wikipedia in large numbers. And, in general, the sources we use are hostile to Trump now and will likely get worse. Another hatchet job in the New York Times today, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html And they are just getting started. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That is true, as the article states, many are blue-collar workers who have reason to support Trumps immigration and trade policies which are areas that affect them a lot. Quite blatant in the NYT article unfortunately is the section on George Wallace which has near-zero relevance considering 3 new generations XYZ can now vote and the 2 main political parties have swapped areas of dominance. The Deep South happens to be one of the heavily blue collar areas of the US, others being the midwest, Great Plains, mountain west, and Appalachia. The NYT also has a conflict with Trump as has been seen on twitter. It is true the media being negative to Trump means articles being used could make Wikipedia itself negatively biased of Trump.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase comments in a Feb 2016 speech by former Governor Jim Douglas of Vermont, let us all edit in a way "that demands overlooking party labels and embrace a pragmatic approach to produce real results through cooperation, respect and compromise." We cannot propagate a distorted view of the campaign. Readers come to Wikipedia from all over the world to learn about the candidates and the varied campaigns. We are obligated to create an article that conveys what is happening, not what we wish was happening (or not happening). Buster Seven Talk 18:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure the best way to refer to a worthwhile article about Trump's foreign policy views is 'another hatchet job'. | MK17b | (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Being aware of the point of view of major references regarding a subject is one of the minimum requirements for adequately editing an article about the subject. Opinion makers in the United States are on the warpath against Trump. There actually is an establishment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Article in reference is not an opinion piece but a news article. Claiming that "newspaper of record" is on some sort of warpath isn't exactly NPOV. | MK17b | (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But it is obvious. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, Mk17b, the New York Times is not neutral simply by virtue of being a newspaper of record, and we should consider their political positions when referencing them in the article. Of course much of what they say will be notable because they said it, but it's something we need to bear in mind. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

True. The NYT has become more and more overt in their 'feelings" about Trump and his campaign. When possible, another reference choice could be used to assuage the neutrality issue. The foreign press is sometimes a good source as it takes an event and presents a view outside of American politics. Buster Seven Talk 16:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll have a hard time believing the NPOV position of an editor who believes the NY Times sits and works on 'hatchet jobs'. Slant maybe... | MK17b | (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

New NEWS today, for future editing

"The proud grandfather has yet to make any public announcement."

Headline-1: It's a boy! Ivanka Trump gives birth to third child

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/27/ivanka-trump-gives-birht/82329434/

QUOTE: "Ivanka Trump, daughter of the Republican front-runner Donald Trump, has given birth to a baby boy, she announced via Twitter Sunday. Theodore James is her third child with her husband Jared Kushner. "Jared and I feel incredibly blessed to announce the arrival of Theodore James Kushner," Ivanka Trump tweeted." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

"Donald Trump has made frequent reference to his coming grandson and an expectant Ivanka has been a fixture at his side and on the campaign trail. Ivanka is the eldest of Trump's five kids. Trump had her and two sons with his first wife Ivana, a daughter with his second wife, Marla Maples, and a son with his third and current wife, Melania. The proud grandfather has yet to make any public announcement." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC) (same article)

Headline-2: Trump's daughter, Ivanka, gives birth to third child

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/27/trumps-daughter-ivanka-gives-birth-to-third-child.html

QUOTE: "WASHINGTON – Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is a grandfather — again. The billionaire businessman's daughter, Ivanka Trump, has given birth to her third child with husband Jared Kushner. Ivanka Trump announced the birth of her son, Theodore James, on Twitter Sunday, saying that the family feels "incredibly blessed."" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing. (AP story.)

Probably one for Donald Trump and not this article I think. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Second that, belongs on the Donald's page, part of his personal family life.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Congrats to Ivanka but mention should be made at Donald Trump. Buster Seven Talk 06:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Just added it there; I see it's already been added to Ivanka Trump. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And the reason it is here is because she has been so prominent (on camera) in the Donald Trump presidential campaign. She is standing by him all the time, she introduced him when he announced, he sometimes calls on his wife Melania or her for a comment when he is speaking to the nation, and The Donald says, "women love me" and that will be the theme of First Lady, Melania Trump. Anyway, her prominence in the campaign is very important as Ted Cruz tries to attack D.J.Trump on women issues. Theordore James Trump will boost the campaign, going into Wisconsin. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) PS: Plus, Trump loves his family (children, grandkids) and that is always very popular in presidential campaigns. Timing before Wisconsin couldn't be better.

Inclusion of a candidates family on stage or in photo-ops is not unusual at all. It is to be expected. Even Jimmy Carter had Billy Carter on stage at events. Every candidate loves his/her family. This page is not intended to be used to campaign for the candidate of your choice. Buster Seven Talk 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just observing (and seeing what could improve this biased article) and am not endorsing anyone. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

DECORUM, Decorum, decorum, ...

The only criticism (of any substance) that makes sense to me, I read recently, is his 'decorum'. Fine. What it means to me is that people take his comments too seriously. I haven't read his book on NEGOTIATING but everyone sees that he says things and then walks them back, such as using interrogation beyond waterboarding, and then walks it back to say, 'under current international rules'. His wife and Ivanka said he should be more 'presidential' in debates, and so he said almost nothing in the last debate, then said debating was 'over'. He also says he will have more [decorum] in the White House (Oval Office) but that would be after winning the Primary and General. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC) PS: So for the campaign (and this article) how important is Trump 'decorum'? Less decorum keeps him in the news cycles.

Campaigning in Wisconsin, the 'bellwether' state

There are just several 'bellwether' states. Wisconsin is not the most noted, except here in 2016. WI voting comes at a crucial time. The term, bellwether, in the political context, means that it will be an indication of the future, in the Primary and the General elections. It has enough and proper mix of voters to be a great indicator/bellwether. It can be seen as critical because the anti-Trump [rich ESTABLISHMENT [nuts/crazies] ] start their 100-day campaign for [anyone but trump] efforts with Wisconsin.

So how is Trump responding? His official campaign site https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ has this Tweet today: "I will be interviewed on @foxandfriends at 7:30. Things are looking good, had a great Easter-look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin!" ... FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure of the purpose of this thread. This page is for discussion of the article, not Trump's travel plans or to display his "seasonal greetings" or to advertise his campaign site. Is there some article improvement in mind? Buster Seven Talk 16:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The thread can discuss two things: (1) Winning in social media; (2) Countering the 100-day smear-Trump Blitz announced to start in next week in Wisconsin. Campaign momentum swings to Trump, Cruz, or away from them both, starting in Wisconsin next week. It is all about campaigning. Isn't Trump's campaign the puropse of this page? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC) -- Thanks for asking.

I'm a little leery of taking too much on board from someone who references "the anti-Trump [rich ESTABLISHMENT [nuts/crazies] ]" and seems to be under the mistaken impression that this is a campaign promotional webpage instead of a neutral encyclopedia entry about the campaign. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From the talk page header at the top of this page:

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject

Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Buster7. This page is for discussing edits to the article, not hypothesizing on how his campaign is going. Please let's keep the discussion focused on content and sources, not discussion of the subject itself.- MrX 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The article at hand should in a neutral point of view manner (a) only reference things that have already occurred and been reported on in (b) Verifiable, Reliable sources such as news coverage.

Therefore, discussing "winning in social media" or "countering (silly and pointless rant omitted)" is not the purpose of this talk page and is not something that should be in a thread on this talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You probably saw the YouTube video of Trump campaigning in Wisconsin, so it is history. He'll be there until the important bellwether voting in less than a week. Here's current CBS news.[9] It isn't a vacation--it's intensive campaigning (the topic of this article). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the thing: this is not a Trump campaign organizing website, a Trump promotion website, or anything else of the sort. If you want to do that, go make yourself a facebook page or something. The article you've listed says nothing about the Trump campaign's plans going forward, so it's irrelevant to the frankly silly and over-the-top POV claims (such as "100-day smear-trump Blitz") that you're making and trying to insist on inserting into the article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Twitter item

Concerning [10], @Meatsgains:: I'm willing to have a discussion over the question of the Twitter content but you committed a decent amount of collateral damage with your reversion.

Can you please state your case here for why you want part of the twitter-related content removed? Thanks, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)