Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign

RfC: "racism" in lede

Should the following highlighted statement be included in the lede to this article?

Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign and has proved to be popular among his supporters, although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.

References

CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Per discussion below I have removed the word "explicitly" from the text in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• No It appears to violate WP:BLP. This is sensationalism generated by editors of these news outlets and politicians who politically oppose Trump. WP:BLP specifically states:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

SW3 5DL (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's a misapplication of WP:BLP to exclude prominent controversies about living public figures from their Wikipedia pages. The paragraph you quote mainly concerns privacy and rumors about people's personal lives. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - there's a ton of sources, another couple tons can be provided and the fact is obviously pertinent to his presidential campaign. As a result, not a BLP issue. Not even close, given the careful wording of the present text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: What reliable sources claim Donald Trump is a racist? What evidence is there that he behaves like a racist? Characterizing his comments as racist is not the same thing as his being a racist. His behavior does not support such a claim. Donald Trump made sure his club in Florida admitted Blacks and Jews when other clubs were still discriminating. That doesn't sound like a guy who seeks to appeal to racist people. When he was running for President with the Green Party back in the 80s, he resigned from the party because David Duke was a member of the party and Trump explicitly said he wouldn't be part of that. His daughter and her family are Jewish. Mitt Romney politically opposes Trump. He's not a racist. And yes, this would be a BLP violation. I think it would be all right to state that some of Trump's comments could be seen as appealing to those with racists tendencies, but it must not suggest that Trump is a racist since a careful reading of his past comments and behaviours do not suggest racism. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply: The text being discussed DOES NOT claim Donald Trump is a racist. See strawman fallacy. This is why I explicitly mentioned the "careful wording of the present text". (and, uh, David Duke was not a member of the Green Party. Neither was Donald) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, include - this is properly hedged (it's presented not in our own voice, but in the voice of others), carefully worded, and thoroughly referenced. It may be unpleasant to talk about, but as the references plainly indicate, this is a major, sustained, months-long theme/controversy. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney's statements should absolutely seal the deal on this. This is not, in my view, even a close call. Neutrality^talk 05:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This should not say ". . .have viewed him as appealing explicity to racism." They have no proof of that. Rather, it would be acceptable to say '. . .have viewed his comments as appealing to those with racist tendencies." Using 'explicitly' accuses Trump of intending all along to discriminate and seeking like-minded followers. There are no reliable sources to support that. Mitt Romney, who does not hide his scathing hatred for Trump, saying it doesn't make it so. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTTRUTH. Romney may be wrong, but he's sufficiently prominent that his comments merit mention. (Though I'd prefer his name be in there explicitly, along with Paul Ryan et al., rather than the current vague wording.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include - to reiterate, his statements have been described as "racist" by GOP House Leader Paul Ryan, former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and a myriad of other Republicans (as well as Democrats and mainstream RS observers). It is a central component of his electoral appeal -- he launched his campaign with racial generalizations about Mexican immigrants, after all, and has attacked an Indiana-born judge on the basis of his Mexican heritage -- and it is obviously a trait he takes pride in and has defended, arguing that he opposes "politically correct" speech. The additional clause is necessary, in order to contextualized what Trump claims as a campaign against "political correctness", and I find no objection to its NPOV wording as currently proposed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Include.- for the reasons given by other editors. The almost year-long societal conversations and hundreds of media dialogues and reports have mostly centered on Trumps racist thinking and his damning comments. We didn't get here alone. We know him by what we see....and hear. Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• No: this isn't an attack page about the campaign. It's an article simply about the campaign. Criticisms like that do not belong in the lead. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I might agree if it were a normal campaign. But it is not. Attacking ones opponents and any naysayers is the #1 tactic of the campaign. Outliers (other races) have been the #1 target. The fact that they (tactics and targets) have been repeatedly used since the beginning of the campaign to the present day creates their importance and their proper placement in the lede. They are not criticisms in that they are more than just "finding fault". They are accurate observations made by thousands of available secondary sources. Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, people who have officially endorsed Trump are ALSO saying this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That's original research. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea what "original research" means, in this context, if that's your belief. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. There is no basis for it. Partisan (left-wing) media sources may try to smear him, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. He's appealing to people who like America; that's not racist.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How are comments by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, accurately reported in mainstream sources such as USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Associated Press, etc., "partisan left-wing sources"? Utter nonsense. Neutrality^talk 14:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutrality: Well, they are wrong. Trump was talking about culture. He's pro-Western and pro-American. Anybody can become pro-American no matter what they look like. We know there is only one human race and no basis for "racism" anyway. But Trump is opposed to cultural relativism.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Include - There is nothing "partisan (left-wing)" about comments from Republican sources. As mentioned above, this is not stated in Wiki-voice. Objective3000 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes This is properly sourced and attributed, e.g. to Ryan and Romney. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes of course. Reflecting what a large body of very reliable sources has reported is not a WP:BLP violation per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but it certainly would be a WP:NPOV violation to omit the material from the lead. It's not at all sensationalist. His racially-charged comments have occurred in public forums and don't involve getting naked. His racially-toned rhetoric is part of a prominent underlying theme of his appeal to poorly-educated white voters.- MrX 14:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes Very well sourced, its not in Wikipedia voice, and it expresses the consensus view across the political spectrum. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Because this is a BLP, if we include this quote from Ryan/Romney, we should also add the context in which they say this along with their opposition to Trump's policies on trade, immigration, and criminal sentencing reductions. They are motivated by their donors who are opposed to all of Trump's proposals. Paul Ryan just spent time with the Koch brothers who support TPP, open borders, etc., because it's good for their bottom line. I don't believe for once second that Mitt Romney gives a rat's about racism, or misogyny, what with his binders full of women, 47% quotes, etc. So these guys do not come to the table with clean hands. They are smearing this guy for their own agenda, and unfortunately, Trump is giving them the ammunition. Self-inflicting his own wounds. Here's a bit on Ryan's romp with the Kochs: [1] SW3 5DL (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• To be clear, this language was recently discussed at length, and consensus supported its inclusion. This RfC is seeking to overturn that consensus, which is fine, but it means that the burden of proof is a bit different. There would need to be a clear consensus to remove the material here in order to support its removal, since it's already been included by consensus.

  To the point, I think this is an example of someone seeing something negative and reflexively assuming it must be a BLP violation. In this case, the actual policy is very clear that even negative material is appropriate, and in fact mandatory, for inclusion if it is widely reported and supported by multiple independent, reliable sources. Obviously, many such sources describe a racially charged or frankly racist element to Trump's rhetoric. Conveying that is not a BLP violation. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell: I absolutely agree with you. But the context of some of these claims I think should be presented. I think there's RS to show that Ryan/Romney don't have pure motives here. Certainly, Romney doesn't have a spotless background on this. But as you said, there is plenty of RS to substantiate what Trump is saying and how that is being perceived/received. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are those sources about Romney/Ryan? I'm not sure what you mean by "pure motives". I mean, they're politicians—their motives are political. That's what is so unprecedented about this - there is a huge incentive for a politician to fall in line behind a party's Presidential nominee, even in the face of substantial disagreements (cf. Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton). It's literally unheard of for the Speaker of the House to call out his own Party's nominee for "textbook racism" or "anti-Semitism" during an active campaign. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

They are politicians. And I agree it is unheard of that the Speaker of the House. took such exception to his own party's nominee. It just gets curiouser and curiouser. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes include. Not only this is widely covered in RS, but this very notable in context of the presidential campaign, which is the subject here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Tone it down. If we're going to say that the campaign is based partly on opposition to political correctness — a coded term if there ever was one — we owe it to the reader to point out that this has racial overtones that people have objected to. However, I don't think we need to go so far as to say that it appeals to racism, even when attributed to opponents and detractors. We could use a word like offensive, or divisive, or something that actually describes what it is rather than characterizing it with a value judgment. That's not really necessary. In the body perhaps we can keep the fuller discussion of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to assume a value judgement associated with racism uniquely among ideologies. Racism is an ideology, as is liberalism, feminism, patriotism, conservatism, communism, etc. Many individuals would make a negative value judgement about racism as, I suspect, many Americans would about communism, for example. And certainly, there's electoral advantages for candidates who associate/disassociate themselves from these various labels (varying depending on the context).

But for example, what if what a candidate has been saying has been consistently conservative, and a significant number of reliable sources are describing it as conservative, but the candidate doesn't describe him or herself as "conservative" for political reasons (maybe they're a conservative running in a general election in a particularly blue state, for instance)? Would we decide that since people make value judgements about conservatism, we should find some sort of euphemism as you're suggesting? Of course we wouldn't. So I don't see how we can pick and choose which ideologies we should be ascribing "value judgment[s]" to. Graham (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The term, in modern American English usage (and as far as I know, the rest of the English speaking world), is a pejorative term to describe and condemn bigotry, not ideology. As I said there are less judgmental terms for conveying the same facts. These aren't euphemisms, they're simple factual statements. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the word "communist" (among others) not often used pejoratively in the United States too? And surely there is no doubt that in that case a spade should be called a spade. Graham (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include – of course! There is a massive amount of balanced material documenting that Trump appeals explicitly to racism, thereby justifying the use of the term in the lead section. His campaign has been racist from the outset; journalists have correctly reported on this from the outset; commentators and politicians have commented on it from the outset. It really takes a lot of POV to deny all of this, I say. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Definitely include – The racially charged comments Trump has made and ideas around which he has built his campaign, which many have described as "racist", is a key component of his campaign. To not include include that in the lede would be to whitewash (legitimately no pun intended) the subject. We can't be tiptoeing around the word "racism" more than we would any other ideology (see my above reply to Wikidemon).

That being said, I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of the word explicitly in this context (though if it's a question of the sentence as originally proposed or nothing at all in the lede, on balance the original would be greatly preferable).

And a couple other minor things: I wonder if the phrase political correctness should be enclosed in quotation marks to make clear that that is Trump's language. As well, while it's difficult to find published sources outside the news media for an article about an ongoing election campaign, it wouldn't hurt to throw in a citation to a peer-reviewed publication. What about this one?:

Gökarıksel, Banu; Smith, Sara (2016). "'Making America Great Again'?: The Fascist Body Politics of Donald Trump". Political Geography. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.07.004. ISSN 1873-5096.

Any thoughts about these possible changes? Pinging CFredkin. Graham (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:LEAD, racism is mentioned twice in the article in passing, and is therefore not covered prominently enough for there to be coverage of this in the lead. Further, per WP:BLP this material should be removed immediately. You do not leave in contentious BLP material and discuss exclusion; you remove it and discuss inclusion. As has been pointed out to me, this is not supposed by a single citation, but a single inline TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, of course -- omitting this would distort the topic and mislead readers by leaving out a key aspect of how his campaign has been covered in a vast range of sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - As an overwhelming number of reliable sources discuss, there is wide agreement that explicit and implicit appeals to racial prejudices, white nationalism and xenophobia have been a key component of Trump's presidential campaign. It is neither undue weight nor a BLP violation to include this in the lede; to the contrary, it is effectively demanded by the weight of what reliable sources say about the campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to the basic idea, but wouldn't oppose wording tweaks - The sheer volume of sources about Trump and racism during this campaign is overwhelming to the point that it would be strange not to mention it in the lead. The sourcing blows away any WP:BLP issue, and WP:WEIGHT is substantial enough that it would be weird not to include in the lead. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think your comment is a good example of why most of this RfC is talking completely across purposes. My understanding is that WP:DUE applies mainly to the prominence of coverage in an article, not the lead, and WP:LEAD simply says that prominence in the lead should follow that in the article. Similarly, most of these comments are citing completely wrong criteria, and making a completely irrelevant argument. If it's due weight, then a section should be written about it. If a section cannot or has not been written about it, then it probably shouldn't go in the lead. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include - important, fully sourced and not in Wikipedia's voice. There is no original research or synthesis here, and all BLP provisions are fully followed. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• No because it does not accurately reflect reliable sources (thus violating WP:V), and because the body of the article does not support such a statement in the lead (as it must per WP:Lead). Those are two clear violations of policy, and there are more, e.g. the material violates WP:BLP in that it excludes the Trump campaign's denial of engaging in racial "Dog-whistle politics", much less engaging in explicit appeals to racists. As to not reflecting reliable sources, the sentence quoted above in the RFC question includes language ("although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism") indicating that only "some" prominent Republicans feel this way, and that all mainstream commentators feel this way. That is false, and moreover it is different from what the current version of the lead now says ("although some mainstream commentators and prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism"). Also completely unsupported by reliable sources (as far as I can tell) is the word "explicitly", given that few if any reliable sources say that Trump has explicitly said "I hope racists will support me" or made any comparable explicit statement. As for absence of support in the body of the article, the only mentions of "racism" or "racist" in the body of the article are comments by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and not any "mainstream commentators" as claimed in this RFC question. As for WP:BLP, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist", and suggesting that Trump has "explicitly" (or even implicitly) appealed for support from racism-supporters is sensationalist (in addition to being false). The leading incident on this subject involved the notorious racist David Duke, and as described in the body of this article "Trump highlighted his previous terse disavowal of Duke". Given Trump's repeated denials of any appeal to Duke (either explicit or implicit), any accusation in our lead about appealing to racism ought to at least briefly mention Trump's denial. In American politics, associating with racists is rightly the kiss of death, even more so than having extramarital affairs, and so the BLP advice about the latter would need to be followed here: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Lede should reflect body In the absence of a comprehensive section on Trump's use of appeals to racism and his personal record it should not be in the lede. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead section does reflect body, I say. In recent posts above, Users Timothy Joseph Wood, Anythingyouwant and Fred Bauder have all claimed that the text in the lead about Trump appealing explicitly to racism is not supported by the body of the article. This claim is factually incorrect. I think you should read the article's subsection on 'Announcement', the second paragraph starting with "Following the announcement, most of the media's attention..." This piece of text has been in place for months already (I checked the log). It's a bad thing to have the current RfC tainted by pure ignorance of the subject matter commented on. Editors, please shape up. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

First, calling others ignorant is not exactly being a paragon of civility. Second, a section on comments that were controversial does not equal a substantial section on racism. "Racism" is mentioned twice in the article, both in reference to comments made by Romney. "Racist" is mentioned once, in reference to comments made by Ryan. Both are essentially passing mention, and neither concern "mainstream commentators". TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Please accept my humblest apologies for calling you ignorant; but you should consider that the paragraph I refered to above concludes thus:

“ Reactions from other presidential candidates were mixed, with some Republican candidates disagreeing with the tone of Trump's remarks yet supporting the core idea that illegal immigration is an important campaign issue, while other Republican candidates, along with the leading Democratic candidates, condemning Trump's remarks and his policy stances as offensive or inflammatory. ”

There you go! We could easily add the term 'racist' to the text, like this: "... and his policy stances as offensive, inflammatory or racist." If the present references do not support this addition, we could easily add some more references that do (just repeat the current reference #15 from the lead section). Satisfied? Gaeanautes (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy? No. I'd be happy if there were enough cited coverage about this in the body that you don't have to tack on a list of seven sources in order to justify putting it in the lead. Although three passing mentions is better than two. TimothyJosephWood 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include – of course! Trump's explicitly racist demagoguery is well documented (and the primary reason he won the GOP nomination according to some polls) Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Accusations of racism have played such a large role in media coverage of Trump's campaign that it would be amiss not to mention the subject. However, "although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans" strikes me as weaselly. All mainstream commentators? Which ones? Which prominent Republicans? Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL provides that "They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Going into detail about exactly who had made such characterizations would be excessive for the lede and may even put undue emphasis on this issue. Graham (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• No: Every other statement in the lead is factual or uncontested: businessman, populist, controversial, temporary ban on Muslim immigration, etc. Saying he's appealed to racism would be contested by about 30-40% of the US. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just contested - the lede should be neutral. Opinions, especially controversial ones, belong in the body where we can provide full context. D.Creish (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include - I agree with Neutrality and Dogg's assessment. Well sourced, a major feature of sources' coverage of the campaign, and decently worded. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include BLP requires "the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." These requirements are abundantly fulfilled here; the statement is supported by a number of sources, it is very carefully worded and not in Wikipedia's voice, and is thoroughly sourced. Given the volume of coverage this has received, it would be a violation of WP:DUE not to include this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• No, per Wikidemon and WP:LEDE. The lede of an article shouldn't contain references, i.e. it means something is not right about the body of the article if you need to reference something differently at the the top. Furthermore, it is WP:SYNTH in the way it's currently worded. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Explicitly"

As Anythingyouwant has now raised the same concern, I'm wondering if there would be any objection to removing the word "explicitly" from the original proposal, as I proposed above. Graham (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there are many serious flaws in the RFC proposal, and removing one would only make the others more likely to be accepted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Provided that were true, I would hope that if one were to feel that way, one would not game the system by opposing my proposal. This is an exercise in consensus building, not strategic voting, is it not? Graham (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(As an aside, it is generally courteous not to edit your comments after someone has referenced them without indicating that you have done so (per the talk page guidelines).) Graham (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you change the RFC question, then it will appear that people have given their opinions about the revised RFC question, even though they did not actually do so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it won't. While any reasonable person would assume that the vast majority of the three quarters of participants thus far who were supportive of the original proposal would also either prefer my amendment or accept it as a second choice, we will soon see get to see whether that is the case. By default, RfCs can run for up to a month, so given that we aren't even a week in yet, I think we have time – after all, there is no deadline.

And I can't imagine what other procedure you would prefer. Because someone made a proposal, does that mean that it either has to be accepted or rejected and then that paragraph is set in stone for eternity? Are compromises are entirely impermissible in consensus building?

Look, you've already been pretty explicit about that fact that you oppose my making this proposal primarily because it doesn't serve your strategic interests, so I would appreciate if we could get on with constructive discussion rather than stonewalling with procedural wrangling. (Also, as I did you the courtesy of not reverting your edit that blatantly violated WP:REDACT, I would have hoped that you would have corrected what I presume to have been a mistake…) Graham (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The standard way to proceed would be to withdraw this RFC and start a new one, but that can only be done by the person who started the RFC. You cannot change an RFC question after people have already responded to it with a !vote. My preference is that it not be withdrawn, so that it will be quickly and easily rejected, and I think that's a reasonable preference. But the person who started it is entitled to withdraw it, notwithstanding my preference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not been very active in this thread, but I do agree with removing "explicitly" and doing it now. It avoids arguments about whether things like pointing out the judge's Mexican heritage are "explicitly" or "implictly" racist comments. And contrary to Anythingyouwant's procedural arguments, I have often seen modifications to the discussed wording in the course of an RfC. I suggest that Graham go ahead and remove the word "explicitly", and note the removal at the top of the RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I would also go along with changing "although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans" to "although some mainstream commentators and prominent Republicans" - if people think the current wording implies that ALL mainstream commentators feel this way. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, are you suggesting that Graham change the wording of the RFC question, or of the lead, or both? He cannot change the RFC question without permission of the person who started the RFC, right? (Even then you would have problems about people !voting on something that's subsequently changed.) If you mean that Graham should change the lead without changing the RFC question, then the RFC question would become obsolete and would have to be started over, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting that he remove that word from the lede, and add a note right under the RFC stating that he had done so. I don't believe that materially alters or voids the discussion. I don't believe the presence or absence of that one word is going to change anyone's opinion about whether or not to include the whole phrase. And no, I don't believe he needs the "permission" of the person who started the RFC. Please let's not wikilawyer this thing to death. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this comment of yours will be found useful by Graham and others, and it will not cause any "death". (Such violent rhetoric!)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that nobody got around to removing the word. I have removed it just now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

This RFC has not yet been closed, but the lead nevertheless has a sentence like the one under consideration. I have edited the sentence for clarity: "Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as an appealing candidate to racists." We need to qualify "mainstream commentators" because most haven't said this about Trump. Also, the word "appealing" has different senses and I have clarified which one. If another sense of the word is intended, for example that Trump has made appeals to racists, then we can change the sentence accordingly, but leaving it vague would confuse readers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Order of material in Controversies section

Why are the subsections in reverse chronological order? Shouldn't they be in chronological order, where applicable? Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing endorsements

I deleted some extended content about three white supremacists who endorsed Trump's candidacy.[2] Please forgive me if this has been discussed and reached consensus… but my read on encyclopedic standards of POV, weight, notability, and WP:COATRACK are that the simple fact that a controversial person has expressed approval of something, even if sourced, is not enough to warrant its inclusion in the article about the thing. Hypothetically, suppose that terrorists enjoy Coke more than Pepsi. It's interesting, it's salacious, it makes good news copy, but it really has nothing to do with the subject of Coke or Pepsi. In this case, unless the Trump campaign is somehow connected to the endorsements, encouraged them, accepted them, etc. (as in the case of David Duke, where Trump's slow and tepid response was indeed an issue for his campaign), then merely listing controversial people who have endorsed trump is not suitably relevant content for the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I did rearrange the sentences a little so they would be in chronological order. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with R/The Donald

As some people pointed out at the AfD, while the article may pass WP:GNG, it does not necessarily warrant its own article per WP:NOPAGE. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would have supported deletion, but I see it has already been to AfD with a "no consensus" result. So I support making it a redirect to this article (which already has a section on this topic). --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded. Buster Seven Talk 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yep. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge WP:OSE states that When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The R/The Donald is similar in nature to Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash. Both articles have survived AfD discussions. If the Sanders discussion group is not merged into its presidential campaign article, to preserve consistency, neither should the Trump discussion group be merged into its presidential campaign article. SSTflyer 05:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @SSTflyer: You seem to have completely ignored WP:NOPAGE. That article is a lot more detailed than this one. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know whether a major expansion is possible – if that happens, I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate article. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect that one (R/The_Donald) to this one. No reason that should have its own page. It's just a non-encyclopedic vanity page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I think you're a bit obsessed with this article, first you tried to remove it, now you are trying to merge it with another one. It's almost like you're trying to censor some kind of information? There have been articles, and there are still articles regarding huge subreddit hubs, this one is the most active of all of them, and is the number one site for discussion of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. I feel as if it is big enough and notable enough to warrant its own article. Kabahaly (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Kabahaly: Woah, assuming bad faith much? And it shouldn't come a surprise that the article was nominated for a merger given that the closer of the AfD specifically stated in his or her closing decision, "Although delete and merge together have a slight edge over keep, we don't have consensus here. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page." I would encourage you to strike your personal attacks against Nyuszika7H. Graham (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• This seems very reasonable. There's not much information contained at the subreddit's page, and what little there is would be more informative tied into information here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge and redirect per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge not appropriate for the larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect - It's short, ephemeral, thinly sourced, and already covered in this article.- MrX 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. More relevant to Reddit than to this article, so it would be better to merge into that one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The subreddit has gathered multiple AMAs over the past. Unless more information is given in the article, the article should be merged. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Primaries number of votes

The main Wikipedia Page for Trump is protected, as is the talk page, and I don't know enough about editing or making requests to figure out how to make a request for that page, so I'm hoping this will work. The Presidential Campaign, 2016 section on the main page about Trump, under the Primaries section, says "With nearly 14 million votes, Trump broke the all-time record for winning the most primary votes in the history of the Republican Party." The source for this is https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/ which also says: "But Trump also had more votes against him. The giant field of Republican candidates meant that votes in the early primaries were split widely, making it hard for anyone to cobble together a majority. It also appears to have meant that more people came out to vote. So it's not a surprise that Trump also set a record for the most votes cast against the top vote-getter -- or that he won a lower percentage of votes (the pie charts) than anyone since Reagan in 1968." I think it is misleading to state only the part about the most number of votes for and not the part about the most number of votes against. If I hadn't hovered over the source part I would have finished the article assuming that he somehow was the most popular republican nominee in history, but since that sounded fishy to me I wanted to check the source on it and found the second half of the statistic.

Also there is a typo under the section 'Involvement in Politics 1988-2015' 5th paragraph, it says he stated that Obama's grandma 'witnesses' his birth in Kenya but it should be witnessed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.177.137 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

C-class, really?

OK, I know this is like a stupid thing to talk about, but HOW is this article C-class. It is huge (unintended reference). To be honest, it's probably going to keep on growing and is a very hot topic. Like, I've seen good articles with half the words that this article has (looking at you, Kesha). So like whatever WikiProjects that preside over this article, can we bump this up to B, at least. With the amount of neutrality in this article (no idea how that was achieved), it pretty much passes all the criteria. This is probably stupid to talk about. Esmost ^πк 01:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily opposing the article's promotion to B class, the size of the article is hardly the largest factor. There's FAs a quarter of the size of this article, and that's okay. Graham (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but the fact that this article is written with such neutrality is impressive, considering it's been vandalised a lot recently. Esmost ^πк 01:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: -- "appealing to racists"

RE: this edit. I'm going to AGF and suppose that you have not read the cited sources. They make clear that the previous wording before you changed it, may not be perfect but is clearly what's expressed in the sources, e.g. the first one that discusses "racialized hate speech" addressed to prospective supporters. That is "Appeal" meaning to address, solicit, court etc. Please undo your edit, which entirely changes and misrepresents the meaning of the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I will insert "solicit" so that the sentence clearly says what you want it to say, rather than being vague.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"Vague" is the new "misleading", eh? Thin ice. I actually prefer Anything's corrected version to MrX's. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The text is in violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR. We should not say things such as "Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans," since it "creat[es] an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." And determining the extent of those opinions is a matter of judgement that should be sourced rather than be based on our evaluation of every opinion expressed about Trump. Trump's has received sufficient media coverage that we can write an informative article about him and still follow policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion about that. Certainly a declamatory statement in the lede would need very strong support in the article. But just as to the statements within the cited sources, it's very clear to me that the new words are obfuscating what those sources say. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO here, and I've gone back to the stable version until we can talk over the change here. "Appeal to (an impulse/ideology/emotion)..." in the sense used in the sources and in this article is different from "appeals to (a group)." The former phrase means "he has played to X impulse"; the latter phrase means "he is attractive to X group." The senses are related, but not quite the same. See Merriam-Webster. Neutrality^talk 18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

When we say...Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing to racism we start to flirt with having to prove Trump's intent which can easily be deflected by calling his appeal a misinterpretation of his sarcasm or humor. But there any many reliable sources to prove Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as an appealing candidate to racists. TFD makes a good point that "we can write an informative article about him and still follow policy and guidelines". Sources abound. Buster Seven Talk 19:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, those particular sources, all 8+ are saying the former, not the latter. It's their opinion, not mind-reading, and it's stated as such. The statement Anything inserted is attributing an emotional attraction to the population of racists, which aside from being a misrepresentation of the sources, also seems at least as tenuous. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Political positions" section

I don't understand why we don't summarize his most important political positions here, instead simply citing the "political positions" article. The Donald Trump article has extensive coverage of his political positions. This is the campaign article, it seems to me it would be even more important to include here. IMO we shouldn't just banish all discussion of the subject to another article. Another oddity: there is extensive discussion of a couple of his political positions in the "early campaign" section. Would people be in agreement with expanding the "political positions" section to summarize major positions? --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the paragraph that's currently included in the Political Positions section could probably be improved. However, the article is tagged for being too long currently. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to represent his major policy positions here in duplication of content in the Political Positions article.CFredkin (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The article has been tagged since [this diff]. Since then 13000 bytes have been added which is an increase of about 5%. Attempts are constantly being made to remove unnecessary or outdated material and abbreviate input where possible. At the current rate it will increase by about 25% to 30% up to mid-November. But I think it is reasonable to predict that a 50% increase in length is not out of the question. While we all need to be brief and concise when inputting, I don't see that any of us will stop adding necessary info. One solution would be cutting the article in half by creating something like Donald Trump presidential '''primary''' campaign, 2016 and rename this article Donald Trump presidential '''general''' campaign, 2016. That would give us plenty of room for the next 2 1/2 months of the campaign. Buster Seven Talk 06:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I would be be in agreement with expanding the "political positions" section to summarize major positions. Buster Seven Talk 13:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic advisory council

User:Volunteer Marek: This edit restored content which states that a member of Trump's Hispanic advisory council "said he will no longer support Trump". I don't believe this is supported by the source. Please post the text from the source which supports the statement here.CFredkin (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"“The ‘National Hispanic Advisory Council’ seems to be simply for optics and I do not have the time or energy for a scam. (...) “I will pray over the next couple of days but it is difficult to [imagine] how I can continue to associate with the Trump campaign,” he added. “I owe my national audience an explanation."

Anyway, I changed the text so there's no ambiguity, but outright removal, as you tried to do is obviously a no-no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In regard to this [3] - I think it's a bit stronger than just "reconsidering their support". The guy called Trump's efforts at outreach a "scam". This is in both sources (and honestly I don't think Politico is much stronger than Vox). So I'm fine with the "reconsidering their support" part, as long as the "scam" part is also in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the second source, from which comes the wording that "several" surrogates are "reconsidering" their support. Although the one guy did say "scam", he has not decided whether to withdraw from the advisory board, and his quote is not more notable than many others we are leaving out. There may be further developments, or additional resignations; let's save room for them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek: The above edit also added a "many" and removed an "all". You didn't mention them in the edit summary of your revert. Do you have an objection to my restoring them? Thx.CFredkin (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Vicente Fox

Of possible interest to editors of the article in regard to Mexicans, the visit to Mexico, and the wall, etc. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) Writegeist (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful.--Malerooster (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth a brief mention. Which part did you have in mind? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any place for this - or for the kind of language Writegeist is using here. This is a talk page, not a soapbox. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, any or all of it would probably improve the article, coming as it does from the former leader of a country whose significance in Trump’s campaigning might not be altogether lost on the article’s more informed editors. That said, I have no dog in the fight for the White House so I don’t care if none of it is included. It’s up to editors who give more of a fuck than I do, and who are more willing than I am to engage in the dismal partisan squabbling that characterizes political talk pages during elections. I just thought it was an interesting commentary. Take it or leave it :) User:MelanieN, if you bother to read the article you'll see the "language" in the post that troubles you is Vicente Fox's, not mine. Writegeist (talk)

MelanieN, the source is The Guardian which is definitely reputable, and its written by a prominent figure. And yes, these seem to be Fox's words, not Writegeist. I think the part that could be used in the article is one of the summing up paragraphs towards the end: "And yet he has stooped even lower, using the needs of his followers to validate himself with a speech full of intolerance, racism and fear. There is no way a nation could grow and prosper with no hope, values or responsibilities. History has proved that “leaderships” based on fear and ignorance are doomed to failure.". Properly attributed of course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that the fact they are comments of a former president of Mexico are adequate to establish significance. We would need to show that they had received widespread coverage. We should consider however putting in Fox's earlier comment that Mexico is not paying for that "damn wall," which was widely reported at the time. And of course the current president's comments are significant. TFD (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Good points as usual from TFD. Just to be clear, my "whose significance" refers to the country's significance in the campaign, not that of the country's former leader. Writegeist (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Writegeist, I was well aware that you were quoting Vicente Fox. I DID look at the link after all. Looking at my comment, I should have made that clearer. My comment toward you was inspired by the glee with which you were repeating all the juicy stuff; that was your doing, not Fox's. And I do agree with removing it; it didn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page no matter who said it. Anyhow, this kind of stuff is nothing new for Fox. He was the one who said, back in February, that Mexico is not going to pay for Trump's "fucking wall". We didn't put that into Wikipedia either. Many foreign leaders have made comments about Trump; I don't think we have included any of them here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You cannot possibly know what I was experiencing when I posted. Your “glee” snipe has no foundation in fact. (If you really must know, it saddens me—which could hardly be further from your “glee”—to see a presidential nominee debase the rhetoric of political campaigning to such an abysmal new low and make America an even greater object of widespread revulsion than hitherto.) The topics touched on in the Guardian article are of Vicente Fox’s choosing, not mine. I merely listed them (to indicate the article's breadth). As for your comment that you “agree with removing” them, I can’t begin to tell you how much of a fuck I don’t give about your agreement or otherwise in the instance.

Your “this . . . is nothing new for Fox” is a weird little straw man, as neither I nor anyone else here made any claim of novelty; and anyway, as surely you know, novelty is not a criterion here.

I note you don’t regard the Pope, an Argentinian who leads, oh, about 1.3 billion people, and whose comments about Trump are included in the article, as either foreign or a leader.

It would be just great if you would consider the Fox piece in terms of Wikipedia policies, or otherwise leave it to other editors to do so. Writegeist (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)