Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I thought Wikipedia was not a soap box?

How is any of this a valid entry in an encyclopedia? This article is more like a thinly guised campaign platform that surely must be a violation of WP:SOAP.

Much of it is just copypasta from news reports. A real encyclopedic entry would be written later with criticism from political scientists on what went right or wrong. This piece is nothing but a bloated list of "he said, they said" which makes it narrative. It's also a classic example of WP:Recentism in that it is happening so it must be covered. BY 2017 this turgid, bloated mound of copypasta opinion will be just gathering dust on Wikipedia servers.

And it's not just Trump, the other candidates that are vying for a run at the White House in 2016 all have "presidential campaign, 2016" articles. It is quite clear to me that they serve no purpose other than to be truncated news updates to the political process of electing a candidate to run for US president.

Therefore the people editing these pages are most likely to be those with a vested interest in such an event. But once the process has concluded this article and others like it will serve no purpose. I can only conclude that Wikipedia is being used for the purposes of political campaigning in the USA which as I pointed out at the start is a violation of WP:SOAP. Either way tl;dr. 86.182.40.5 (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Important history is being made and the campaigns are both interesting and highly significant--now and for the future. The article could be 'trimmed' when appropriate, but will definitely remain. IMO, in my opinion. I have no vested interest, but am highly interested, as are many other Americans. They look to Wikipedia for information and insights. Keep up the good work. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many of these articles get read in the future.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't being used as good propaganda. If you take a look at it at doesn't even dispense proper information. It states that Donald Trump is a fascist THREE TIMES throughout the article, and says he is racist towards Mexicans and Muslims. So, it's being used as propaganda against him, and nobody seems to let me edit it. Please see my section in this talk page. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, there are also many Real Americans(TM) who are completely uninterested in the 2016 race for president. While I cannot immediately find a source for this fact (other than the circa 33% voter participation rate), it seems highly likely that many tens of millions of people consider this presidential race utterly insignificant, and even further millions regard Wikipedia's coverage of this race to be completely irrelevant. 184.97.170.129 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the elections, and you deserve what you get. On the other hand, it is reported in all the acceptable and reliable sources that the Iowa and New Hampshire voting broke records because of the interest. Also, that interest in Wikipedia was of very high interest. -- AstroU (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Errors in Trump's tax plan

Trump's top cap for taxes are at the 25% threshold (whereas the current is 39%)(NOT 10% or 15% for over 1 million as indicated). His plan offers single folks making under 25K, head of household 35K, and married couple 50K a year or less completely tax exempt status. He consistently talks about the tax breaks on the middle-class. I don't see any of this in the article?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone care to respond or acknowledge this?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the next note/thread I just added, this type of discussion should be in Political positions of Donald Trump yet to be split off and created. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

After the next primary, I suggest that the results be moved to the body of the article rather than listed in the lead as they, understandably, are now. Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV issue → ISIS section

This section has serious neutral POV issues. It consists almost entirely of quotes with very little third party analysis. We need far fewer quotes and some meaningful statements of policy presented with a dispassionate tone. Just because CNN and Huffington Post write this way, doesn't mean we should.- MrX 02:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha! Yes, let's try to become more fair and balanced and cherry pick some less aggressive statements made by Trump about ISIS. Unfortunately I don't think there are any! I don't think third party commentary is going to strengthen or soften this walking disaster. Sure, the context is Trump is running for president as a child talking to children. Can we find less than 100 pundits who say something like this and would that help clarify anything that his direct quotes don't? Tom Ruen (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be a lack of discussion about his "policies" beyond quoting Trump's ranting, populist rhetoric. I did find this: "On defeating Islamic State militants, Trump said the key is to take away their wealth by taking back the oil fields under their control in Iraq."[1]. This states that he would send troops into Iraq to "target" ISIS. The same source goes on to say that outgoing Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno characterized Trump's strategy as "rather simplistic and shortsighted". - MrX 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree there's more content on than simply Trump's dramatic aggressive assertions. I tried to add some needed context. I'm not really an article writer, so glad for anyone else to add or improve it. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at the section and fixed some grammar/wording. It doesn't seem to be biased whatsoever in its current state. I would remove the source tag. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Common-sense conservative?

I'm opposed to the inclusion of the self-laudatory statement "He has also said that he is a "common-sense conservative." This was apparently cherry picked from a debate transcript. Not only is it not encyclopedic; it's downright promotional. As both myself and Knowledgebattle were reverted for removing this, I would like to get other editor's thoughts.- MrX 23:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove it. While he has said it, it doesn't seem to be a notable platform.LM2000 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I just removed it. If the user comes back it's edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.- MrX 00:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Our "common sense" as experienced editors tells us it is promotional. Buster Seven Talk 00:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@MrX:I didn't even know that anyone else had previously removed it. I just saw it as I was browsing, and was thinking, "Wtf? This is entirely irrelevant, and of course he's going to say that about himself. He's a narcissist." I mean, what narcissist doesn't speak overly highly of themselves? It's interesting that this has even made a talking point on the talk page. We don't need to add every narcissistic claim he's made about himself. If it's actually relevant and provides relevant information about him, then it should be added. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the user who reverted it is User:TheFancyFedoraWielder. But of course, others may try, too, for the reason you pointed out: "promotional". Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 01:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read my entire statement. For one, he is not as much of a narcissist as the media would like to paint him. He says "common-sense conservative" because he tries to make the point that politicians don't know much. Sorry for saying this, but I am a factual editor, I did not cherry-pick this quote from him. He has described himself as so, and I thought I should mention it in the article. I believed I should mention it because it said he stated that he was a "conservative Republican." He also stated multiple times that he was a "common-sense conservative." I could cite a new source if it is necessary on this. Anyway, that is what I thought should be done, since he has described himself as so. So I ask this of you all: Please watch Trump and accept the fact that this statement was not meant to be narcissistic from him, and I kindly ask you to stop this aggressive attitude toward a fact you don't personally agree should stay. I realize that this quote shouldn't be implemented, but not exactly for the aforementioned reason; I realize that "common-sense conservative" is not an established class of political party. Therefore, it would be factually incorrect to include it. However, the fact that he has stated he is one still stands, and I humbly keep my own reasoning for adding it in the first place. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's one thing to use his descriptor of "conservative vs. liberal", but what's a "common-sense conservative" exactly? That appears to be calling other candidates inept, impractical, etc. That's promotional. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well when you put it in that way, then sure you're right. What I thought when I added it was that I thought it was stating quotes by him, and what he said was he was a "common-sense conservative." So, I interpreted the context wrongly. Thanks for clearing it up, kindly. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Common sennse conservative" is not definable. As the other editor states, it is a phrase that is used to imply that other conservative presidential candidates do not have common sense or, at least, not as much as Trump or as much as Christie who also called himself a "common sense conservative". Buster Seven Talk 02:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheFancyFedoraWielder: I don't know why Trump and his fans keep using the quote, "as the media paints him". Quite frankly, that sounds like a scapegoat, to avoid taking responsibility for his idiotic statements. I don't pay much attention to the mainstream media, anyway, so you can't really use that on me. My opinions of politicians (or anyone else for that matter) come from my own research, actually listening to the people in question, paying attention to what they say, fact-checking what they have to say, and figuring out where their mindsets are at. For example, I don't really have much of an opinion on Kasich or Rubio, because I haven't done much research on them, gone back to watch their speeches and listen to their claims, et cetera. But I've done loads of research on Trump (and Obama, for that matter), and I've watched many videos to hear what he has to say. You believe he's not a narcissist, though he's made claims about having "highest IQ" and "smarter than you", while simultaneously calling people infantile names, such as "dummy", "bimbo", and "loser", and throwing out false statistics and spreading false claims. Despite intelligence failing him, logic doesn't have his back, either. Having himself Tweeted, "Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations!", does he also intend to say that America also won't see another white President, thanks to Bush being a worse President? I understand you have already agreed with the conclusion that User:MrX made, due to it not being an "established class of political party" (good point), but my reason for responding here was just to reconvey that he is, in fact, a narcissist, as I previously stated. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 04:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And your point? How do your comments improve the article? BTW, this being about his campaign, the self-applied term "Common-sense Conservative" is most appropriate in this article. -- AstroU (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@AstroU: I'll repeat myself for you, so here you go. "If it's actually relevant and provides relevant information about him, then it should be added." And I'll throw User:TheFancyFedoraWielder's point your way, as well. "I realize that 'common-sense conservative' is not an established class of political party." So... "appropriate"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 12:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Divide the article

Today, the Ted Cruz Campaign (article) split off the political positions to Political_positions_of_Ted_Cruz and it would be excellent to consider that here also. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, is entirely too long. It is all good information, but needs to be appropriately divided. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have split the relevant content to Political positions of Donald Trump and done some restructuring. I have kept the "reaction" sections on this page since they don't make sense on the political positions page; they probably need more editing to make sense in context however. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

While this may be a good idea at some point, the good faith split from User:Nizolan makes the article really confusing. There are reaction sections on topics that are no longer visible on the page. There are reactions on the new article which have no context in relation to the rest of the campaign. Perhaps there is some way to split it better, but as it is, I believe the split has more negative than positiveYourmanstan (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just gone through the new page and removed the remaining "reactions" there, which amounted to a few sentences (see the diff here). It's worth noting that since those reactions were already in the same long list of political positions on this page rather than integrated into the discussion of the campaign itself, they were just as decontextualised here. I agree that the two reaction sections left in this article need some rewriting—probably a short introduction on Trump's comments in each case—but I don't think the problem is as severe as you make out. I will look at editing those now. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — I've now added some contextual detail on the relevant sections in this page which I hope will aleviate User:Yourmanstan's immediate concerns. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort User:Nizolan.Yourmanstan (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of problems between the various split articles. These have constant WP:SYNC, WP:NPOV,WP:POVSPLIT and WP:LAYOUT problems. I have two points that I think would improve the division of the articles per WP:SPINOFF, WP:SYNC and WP:POVSPLIT.

1. There is a lot of conflicting content between articles. For example, the Muslims subtopic on Donald Trump main page is different from here, which is also different from Political positions of Donald Trump. It seems we should rely more on partial transclusion. This would help content to be developed in the proper location and avoid the many problems that keep arising.
2. It seems to me that "controversy" content should live with the associated root content. Again taking the Muslim subtopic as an example, the controversy should live on the political positions page to give the reader a full picture of both Trump's position as well as the controversy surrounding that position. A partial transclusion per WP:SYNC may be used where appropriate to give the reader a summary of the more detailed content.

Yourmanstan (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The first point seems reasonable, though the implementation might be tricky, but I'm not sure I agree on the second. The controversy over Trump's statements (which is strictly speaking a historical event relating to this campaign) and the political positions which are expressed by the statements are two very different things, and don't depend on one another. I think in general the political positions page should be limited to being a characterisation of Trump's views, and should not be mixed together with other detail which properly pertains to this page. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward on this. More talk here: Talk:Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Article_bias.3F and Talk:Donald_Trump#Violations_of_NPOV and Talk:Donald_Trump#political_positions and Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump.27s_Standing_as_Leader_of_the_2016_Republican_Candidates Yourmanstan (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements section

I don't know the endorsements have been removed or if the section just isn't working for me. On the other candidate's campaign pages here on Wikipedia, the endorsement section works and expands to display a list, but not on Trump's page. I've tried going to some recent previous versions, suspected that the endorsement section was deleted, a valid suspicion given how anti-Trump the editors here on Wikipedia are, and the endorsement section still shows nothing. I would attempt to correct this myself, either by finding a previous version of the article before the endorsement section was deleted or by carrying over the list from the general 'Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016' page, as it is displayed there, but I'm not sure what to do. DarkApollo (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)DarkApollo

Didn't Sarah Palin endorse Trump about a month back? We could add her as perhaps the most notable example, though I know a few others have also shown Trump support. 134340Goat (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it, the code was copied from a non-working version I initially did on the Republican party endorsements list and now expands with the listShadowDragon343 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Act of Love (advertisement)

Thought some editors here might have useful additions to make to this new article Act of Love (advertisement).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I had made a minor edit on this article regarding updated information on the presidential primary (and forgot to label it as a minor edit) which I believe was mistakenly reverted by a bot. I didn't mean to edit war - I was just correcting the mistake - but I apologize anyway.

Regarding my edit

I am requesting that my revision either be accepted or an explanation given as to why it was rejected in the first place. Thanks. --Keatzee (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason given is that your edit "(removes substantial sourced information)". Which seems to be the case. Just add your information; don't remove other well-sourced information also. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm a bit new here and I didn't know what that meant. I'll go fix it. --Keatzee (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150701161806/http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/11/donald-trump-family-values-conservative-believe-it-or-not/ to http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/11/donald-trump-family-values-conservative-believe-it-or-not/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150705071628/http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/donald-trumps-team-hit-back-at-neil-young/ar-AAbHtF4?ocid=HPCDHP to http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/donald-trumps-team-hit-back-at-neil-young/ar-AAbHtF4?ocid=HPCDHP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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 [2]--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 [[3]], 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)

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)

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)

Announcement speech and immigration

Donald Trump's announcement speech can be found here: [4]. 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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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![5]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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."[7]. 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)

Death threats

I removed a recent addition of a new section called 'Death threats' [8] 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)

Proposed merge with 2016 Chicago protest

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.

---

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."[9] 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)

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 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)