Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article too long

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

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

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

This can be condensed into a single sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

DECORUM, Decorum, decorum, ...

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

New NEWS today, for future editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Twitter item

Concerning [1], @Meatsgains:: I'm willing to have a discussion over the question of the Twitter content but you committed a decent amount of collateral damage with your reversion.

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

Collateral damage? Don't be dramatic. The information reporting Trump retweeted a post from a white supremacist "whose website contains a pro-Adolf Hitler documentary and a photo of American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell" is unnecessary and WP:UNDUE. There is no need to detail a twitter handle's website. How is that relevant? Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

1st - look at your edit, you reverted multiple things other than what you're complaining about by deliberately jumping back the way you did.

2nd - Looking at the sourcing, CNN focused quite a bit the aspects you're complaining about. So that doesn't look "undue" based on the source. The Reuters coverage [2] does the same, and I'll be happy to add that momentarily. Suffice to say that based on the news coverage it's not undue, those aspects of the twitter account in question are notable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with keeping the information on Politifact's rating. What I do have an issue with is using this page as a WP:COATRACK. Just because the Twitter handle's website was detailed in a reliable source, does not mean it needs to be included on Donald Trump's presidential campaign page. Meatsgains (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

By no means am I trying to whitewash Trump's page, but this is too much. Meatsgains (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not too much. The news outlets are mentioning it because it's egregious and therefore notable - some other twitter accounts he retweets from aren't nearly as openly white supremacist as this one is. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this page. Should we open an RfC to get other users' input? Meatsgains (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I would support an RfC. Buster Seven Talk 17:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• This should not be in until an RfC decides it's not a violation of all kinds of stuff. I think it's out--need to purge the page, I guess--and that would be good. Do not restore until etc. etc. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the content again and posted an RfC below. Meatsgains (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The word Republican is not accurate and is misleading.

From the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you people serious? There hasn't been a general election yet. Therefore, Fuhrer Trump has 0 known support from non-Republican voters, since only Republican voters have been able to cast any votes for or against him, and when you remove the qualifier you state an obvious falsehood. good job, guys. And, it's highly tendentious as well to say Trump opposes illegal immigration, a distinction the candidate does not make himself, and has never made, and portraying Trump as an anti-interventionist is just pure unadulterated nonsense. He's advocated belligerence if not outright warfare in various forms against at least a half dozen countries thus far in the campaign (China, Mexico, Iran, Syria, Palestine, North Korea...). Pay attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.199.53 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Campaigning in Wisconsin, the 'bellwether' state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You probably saw the YouTube video of Trump campaigning in Wisconsin, so it is history. He'll be there until the important bellwether voting in less than a week. Here's current CBS news.[3] It isn't a vacation--it's intensive campaigning (the topic of this article). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Despite the problematic language, I'm not really seeing the problem with the kernel of what Charles Edwin Shipp said, actually. The Republican primaries 2016 page already says (with citation) that As a Trump nomination became more likely, the Club for Growth and other backers of the Stop Trump movement began adopting increasingly drastic strategies to derail his nomination, including all-out opposition to him in Wisconsin, so some more detailed description of the campaign in Wisconsin, including controversies etc., is presumably worthwhile in this article if it is widely covered in reliable sources. This may not be a "Trump campaigning organizing website" but it is intended as an encyclopedic description of Trump's campaign organisation, among other things. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the article in its entirety for awhile. Changes are fast and furious. I think we all have agreed that the article is getting over-stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey. If @Charles Edwin Shipp: has an addition in mind let him propose it and we can discuss it. As of yet, I haven't seen a specific sentence re:WISCONSIN that can be discussed. Buster Seven Talk 17:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.199.53 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So, no one seems to care that Shipp admits above he is here to campaign for Trump and help him win the 'social media battle'? Good to know!24.46.199.53 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@24.46.199.53: Regardless of the merits of Shipp's content proposals, it is pretty obvious that he is talking about the campaign's efforts in "winning in social media" and not how to do so on Wikipedia, especially given that he said above that he's "not endorsing anyone". Your previous comments on this page were well out of line, and no personal attacks is a Wikipedia policy, as I've already noted on your talk page. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks All, for comments. FYI: I'm spending most of my time at Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 since it has the bigger picture (Trump being just part of the Republican process). If, and when, The Donald is POTUS, President of the United States of America, I may return here and help reduce/clean-up this article. At this time, this article is of secondary interest to me (and I consider it biased against candidate Donald J. Trump!) My lovely, beautiful, wise, and inspired wife supports Ted Cruz, and I currently am cheering for the front-runner, however, I have nothing to do with his campaign. I follow Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly and others who see the value of a winning president, rather than always losing or caving to Democrats. My wife prefers Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, and those that spew vitriol and start a 'shadow campaign' Tuesday, Apr5. What can you say? Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC) PS: What Beck and Rommney say has to do with Trump's 'decorum' and what they say about Trump's policy statements are wrong.

Claims of Hitler comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have any of you even read '[The Art of the Deal]]? It reads like Mein Kampf II: Hitler Returns. I vote to restore this section. There have been so many Trump-Hitler comparisons during this campaign that one in two of all Americans has made one at this point. I challenge you to find even a single major newspaper that has not run at least one "Is Trump Hitler? piece this election season. (spoiler alert: the answer is always yes.)24.46.199.53 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

New photo of Trump

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520915/Trump-bashes-U-S-Saudi-Arabia-relations-slams-NATO-allies.html

Photo here more accurately captures the man

Copyrighted and unusable on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Poll in Lede

I've put this section in twice (and will again) and twice it has been reverted with what seems to me to be a nonsense dismissive edit summary "Poll results don't belong in the lede here. We don't include polling on public perceptions of dishonesty in the corresponding article for Clinton"

My edit is a straightforward summary of a Washington Post article:

"In the general election Trump has a 67 percent unfavorable rating, the worst such rating in the 32 year history of Washington Post-ABC News polling. The poll shows that in a race against Hillary Clinton, Trump would be expected to lose the vote among independents, white women and white college graduates, as well as Republican white men, Republican non-college graduates, Republican evangelicals and conservatives and other groups."

So why does this belong in the lede? The main thing happening in the Trump campaign now is that he is almost to the point where he can clinch the Republican nomination (as stated in the sentence before) and that many Republicans are fighting back because it looks like a sure Republican election loss if he does win the nomination (which is what the 2 sentence I inserted said). So clearly - the main points of the current campaign belong in the lede.

There is obviously no rule against polls in the lede. I am a long term editor on Wikipedia who dislikes editing political articles because of all the sharp-elbows that get thrown over this topic. I'll ask that folks who concentrate on political articles follow the usual Wikipedia rules and try to develop consensus, rather than just delete without any sensible explanation. Please explain yourself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for participating on the talk page. My main objection to your above arguments is that it almost sounds like this paragraph should serve as a warning to Republicans about Trump. That certainly borders on WP:COATRACK. In addition, it certainly is not worthy of attribution in the lead. I hope this can clear things up. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I certainly have no interest in warning Republicans about anything. The 2 sentences simply say that Trump has a 67% unfavorable rating for the general election and that he does not have support among major groups vs. Clinton in the general election. I seems to me that a 67% unfavorable rating is the key thing to know about this presidential campaign. Why would that be considered coatracking? I'll ask the folks who spend all their time on political articles to back off and let normal editors look at this. Sometimes an outsider can see the forest despite all these annoying trees being in the way. 67% of voters disposed to vote against a candidate - obviously that's important for a presidential campaign. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You bring up some good points, but then that makes it seem like Trump's high disapproval rating is the most important thing about his campaign. As previously mentioned, no one is advocating for lousy public perceptions of other politicians in their article leads. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about other politician's campaigns here. I do think that a 67% disapproval rating is the most important thing about Trump's campaign. This can be backed up by articles in the NYT, Washington Post, Huff Post, and Real Clear Politics - it's not just my opinion. Polls are mentioned 62 times in this article - including polls from 2008 and before. Of course there is ultimately only one poll that matters to a campaign - this one will be on Nov. 8. Trump's record setting disapproval rating says a lot more about that poll than any of the other 62 poll mentions.

We can take our time and do this right. I suggest that we can get the sources mentioned above and make a very important section about "Prospects in the general election" and then put a mention in the lede. Does that sound good to you? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A section on "prospects in the general election" sounds overly speculative to me, and probably redundant with the "Support base" section. The historic disapproval rating deserves mention somewhere though. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

References

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

What has that to do with his campaign? '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your deceptive eyes can feast themselves over here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ... or maybe the lush hair here would be more suitable?

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

This edit should be removed. If not, the section title should be pared down to "Popularity". Objective3000 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Quotations in "Media Coverage"

There are several direct quotes in the "Media Coverage" subheading that could be deemed unnecessary. I propose that I paraphrase these quotes from media sources and cite them. By doing this, I hope to shorten the length of the article slightly and reduce the number of quotations, two issues that the article has been flagged for. Arwilson19 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the section contains excessive quotes. Rather that attempt to remove some of them and be immediately reverted, I think it would be best to start by discussing what quotations should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

False Flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote to restore. This was the best part of this article! Plenty of reason to restore this as Trump's plan goes into Phase 2.24.46.199.53 (talk) 02

06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Success is based on secrecy. If it is nonsense, it should be removed. If it is true, it certainly should be removed. Let's wait for Trump to enter the White House, take off the rubber mask and the horse-hair wig and reveal... And it was all predicted in Wikipedia archives... Happy Birthday, Hitler...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

look; the False Flag for Hillary theory was nice while it lasted, but the two conspiracy theories that NEED inclusion in this article are the following. one, Trump is likely an agent for Putin, an Eastern European sleeeper. tons, just tons of evidence for this one so I wont Bore you Trump experts with stuff you already know. Number 2, trump is likel\y the literal reincarnation of Adolf Hitler in a new earthly vessel. Think about it. Hilter dies under shadiwy, mysterious circumstances in 1944. Exactly 9 months later, to the day, Donald Trump is born to a pair of Volkish German peasants. Coincidence? Unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly slept with Ivana and Melania, and they're Eastern European, so that makes him an Eastern European Sleeper, I guess...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The "New" Donald Trump?

Friends, why no mention of the 'New' Donald Trump, who has dialed down on the racism and misogyny, who has vowed to be "kinder, gentler, less Hitlerian", in order to "play the part" of someone presidential? Trump is a man of multiple personalities, a man who wears masks; our readers must know

We are not a gaggle of geese that honk at every flutter of a leaf. But as, and if, it will be added. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is kind of like someone talking about painting their house; even hiring a painter, but it's stays the same color. I suppose at some point there could be a section about efforts to change his public image. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Removal of NPOV violations regarding Michelle Fields Case

The paragraphs about the Michelle Fields Case I think are a violation of Neutral Point of View with quotes being used to slam Trump and doesn't tell facts from the surveillance video like it was written when the incident happened. The decision not to charge Lewandowski is stated much later in the section but tells no mention why. I have decided to improve the section removing the quotes slamming Trump, combining the 2 paragraphs, and updating the information. My edit was undone so I have decided to bring it up for discussion here with a couple differences from that edit notably adding Fields and Shapiro leaving Breitbart.

Here it is now:

After a Jupiter, Florida, news conference on March 8, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, is reported to have accosted Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields "...moving her out of the way and nearly bringing her down to the ground" and caused bruising to her arm. On March 11, Kurt Bardella, the company spokesman and longtime public relations consultant for Breitbart News, resigned his position due to Breitbart's lack of support for their reporter. Other Breitbart staff members have resigned in support of the reporter. Fields has filed a police report. The National Press Club subsequently released a statement expressing alarm about "the increasing attacks and threats against journalists covering the United States presidential campaign, particularly after multiple unsettling reports from Donald Trump events" and urged presidential campaigns to respect the freedom of the press.

---

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was charged with battery for the physical assault of reporter Michelle Fields. Trump advised Lewandowski to “never settle the case” and accused Fields of changing her story once the video of the incident surfaced. On April 13, it was reported that a Florida prosecutor had decided not to prosecute Lewandowski.

Here is what I am proposing:

After a Jupiter, Florida, news conference on March 8, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, pulled then Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields away from Trump after noticing Fields grabbing at Trump. Fields alleged that "I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance." Trump initially denied the incident happening but later acknowledged it after video evidence surfaced proving contrary to it and the tone of Field's allegations, Trump saying "She was grabbing me. Am I supposed to press charges against her?". Fields along with fellow reporter Ben Shapiro citing Breitbart's treatment of the incident left Breitbart. On March 29 Lewendowski was charged with physical battery, but on April 13 it was reported that a Florida prosecutor had decided not to prosecute Lewandowski. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it could be reduced more. Instead of a narrative tone, it should just summarize what happened, leaving out quotes. A reporter accused Lewandowski of assaulting her, but the video recording did not bear it out and no charges were laid. Do we need to know anything more? TFD (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the language being used to describe the proposed changes that looks more like just an excuse for paragraph blanking. The paragraph isn't a "hit piece", and the wording was worked out in talk page previously. Plus, the "new" paragraph reads basically like a Trump campaign announcement, and uses Wikipedia's voice to make one of the Trump campaign's false statements (to wit, "after noticing Fields grabbing at Trump").

If you really want to continue I suggest an RfC rather than POV-pushing like this. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016

I feel that it would be necessary to make an edit to the page for Trump's 2016 campaign. As Ted Cruz has suspended his campaign, I feel that it is very neccessary to change "is one of three remaining" to "is one of two remaining". This edit was done on the Kasich 2016 page, and it should be done on the Trump 2016 page. Sincerely, BlackChecker6 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reworded the led to reflect that Trump has been declared the presumptive nominee by the RNC. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

POV pusing Infobox title

@Primefac: and any subsequent editors who find themselves supporting Wikipedia content which is clearly politically bias and pushes a point of view. I would expect that an experienced editor might be able to identify something so blatant as "Donald J. Trump for President" being contained as a standalone statement within Wikipedia is an unambiguous violation of WP:5P2. It is by no means written with a neutral point of view and it is not an appropriate tone for information on Wikipedia. I would like to hear a single argument as to how this statement is not a violation of WP:5P2 before further reverts. However per WP:IAR and Primefac's history of initiating edit wars with me, I will revert back once on the basis that I strongly believe that Wikipedia should maintain an impartial tone however beyond that I will make no further reverts until consensus can be reached. Olowe2011 ^Talk 18:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

For the third opinion guy or girl (or third gender)

• Note I have not created this section because I am talking to myself. It's for the reference of the third opinion that I have requested for this issue.

Just as a note the disagreeing party appears to be Primefac as he indicates in his article reverts here Olowe2011 ^Talk 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the documentation of {{Infobox U.S. federal election campaign}}, which is used in this article, |committee= is the "name of campaign's authorized committee, as listed with the FEC. Drop candidate's first name, "2008", or "Inc."), if preferred." I looked at Trump's official website, and it is indeed "Donald J. Trump for President." Primefac (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: That isn't an arguement as to why this does not violate WP:5P2. The template instructions do not constitute a policy nor do they contridict the exiting ones. How is the term "Donald J. Trump for President" in line with keeping Wikipedia non-bias and impartial? Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. The template asks for the name of the campaign committee. It isn't asking for the article title. Saying "Donald Trumps' presidential campaign is run by the 'Donald J. Trump for President' committee" is not biased, it's fact. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Primefac: I will take some time for this one given the importance and scale of the issue we are talking about. Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a political advertisement and shouldn't read like one either. Should this be a slogan it should be indicated as such, however to be so bold on the page and constitute an infobox title takes what is a political statement and projects it as a bias one sided opinion. This is wrong. I have never in my life (and should hope that I will never) find a credible written Encyclopedia other than Wikipedia that has information on an election campaign with it's infobox titled "Trump/Hilary ect for President." Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is it POV to give the factual name of their campaigns? Does anybody think that "Hillary for America" or "Trump for President" in the infobox represents some sort of endorsement from Wikipedia? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't exactly make it appear that its simply the "campaign name." It states in a bold title like format that x for President. For the uninvoved Wikipedia reader it could in fact read as an endorsement from Wikipedia, it's not exactly made clear it's something other. Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that not all Wikipedia readers are American or should be expected to know what Committees even are. It should at least say its a committee name rather than boldly state that candidate x for President. It's comical but also a serious POV push. The whole reason they come up with them sorts of committee names is to endorse their candidate for election for presdient. And its displayed here in raw form. Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• It could be changed to "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.", the official title as listed at the bottom of the campaign website. IP75 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @IP75: That really doesn't resolve the issue. It still isn't clear enough for the reader to know it's a committee name unless it specifically states committee and is in line with the rest of the information text then it shouldn't be there as it's misleading at best. Olowe2011 ^Talk 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theories

There is a discussion about Trump and fringe theories at the main Donald Trump article, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This also concerns the conspiracy theories section which was deleted from this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That section remains in this article, I merely reverted my expansion of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposing to remove tags

The number of tags on the page of a major Presidential candidate is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I propose to remove all tags, and discuss the issues actively here. At present, lack of active discussion - not to mention the tag-free pages of Sanders and Clinton - gives the appearance of WP:TAGBOMBING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Tags are mostly useful for calling attention to issues in less-frequently watched pages in hopes of attracting the attention of an editor who could fix them. This page, by contrast, has no lack of page watchers. I would agree that the best course is to remove the tags and discuss issues as specifically as possible here at talk. Neutrality^talk 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. (boldly).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Enquirer

@Stephan Schulz: This edit has removed a lot of material with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 719234022 by Anythingyouwant (talk) NatEnq as a source in a BLP? Really?". The removed material is as follows:

“ In April 2016, the National Enquirer ran a story suggesting that Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, the father of Ted Cruz, knew JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and worked with Oswald in New Orleans a few months before the assassination.[A] Trump publicly discussed this Enquirer story on May 3, 2016 saying to Brian Kilmeade of Fox News that "His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous".[B][C] On May 4, 2016 (a few hours after Cruz lost the Indiana primary and withdrew his candidacy) Trump said of the Enquirer's theory, "Of course I don’t believe that".[B] Kilmeade has since expressed regret for not following up on Trump's May 3 comment during that interview.[D] ”

[A] Bump, Philip. "The 50-year-old mystery behind that photo of Lee Harvey Oswald", Washington Post (May 3, 2016).
[B]Blake, Aaron. "Donald Trump’s day of many contradictions", Washington Post (May 5, 2016).
[C]"DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW ON FOX & FRIENDS | FOX NEWS (5/3/2016)" (YouTube).
[D]"Fox Host Regrets Not Pressing Trump When He Linked Cruz's Dad To Oswald", Talking Points Memo (May 5, 2016).

I don't see the Enquirer listed as a source here. Google News lists tens of thousands of articles about this controversy,[4] and those hits aren't from the Enquirer either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's still based on the Enquirer article. Let's wait for two weeks to see if it isn't buried under more information garbage and forgotten. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but if we have Wikipedia articles that mention Hitler, Charles Manson, etc. then I don't see the problem mentioning the Enquirer. Anyway, this article already mentions the Enquirer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have restored a slightly modified version of the original formulation of this content (two sentences), cited only to the NY Times, Washington Post, and this Newsweek piece by a scholar of conspiracy theories at the University of Miami. As far as I can tell, nobody has objected to this - and in fact it looks like three different editors (including myself) have reverted to this version. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the fringe theory that Cruz's father was involved with Oswald and/or the JFK assassination, I have restored this reliably-sourced Trump quote: ""Of course I don’t believe that".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Alt right

I think that Alt-right should be mentioned in the "support base" section. As the article on alt right states, one of the defining characteristics of alt right is their support for Donald Trump's campaign, and this should be recognized here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingebot (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

First I ever heard of it, and I read nearly every political article in the major US papers and listen to all the Sunday talk shows and nearly 24/7 to C-Span. It the name gains currency it will show up in those places. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read our article. They may support Trump, but I doubt Trump supports them, if he has ever heard of them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Many would argue his equivocation in the Tapper/KKK interview was an attempt to not turn them off. | MK17b | (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters

The following section has just been restored:

“ Pulitzer-winning columnist Kathleen Parker and others have likened Trump to Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, the nativist demagogue in Sinclair Lewis' 1935 political novel It Can't Happen Here.[493][494][495][496] Dwight Garner and other commentators have compared him to Willie Stark, the central character in Robert Penn Warren's 1946 novel All the King's Men.[497][498][499] Ted Cruz commented that "we are looking potentially at the Biff Tannen presidency", referencing the Back to the Future villain purportedly based on Trump.[500] ”

This had recently been deleted with the following edit summary: "This 'fictional characters' section is petty..why not have an article compare Hillary to the Wicked Witch of the West?"[5]

The edit summary restoring the section says: "making this section shorter would be fine, but wholesale deletion does not seem called for".[6]

In my opinion, this material is extremely trivial and unserious, and ought to be deleted wholesale, and not restored wholesale. Mockery is typical on the campaign trail, unfortunately, but we ought to avoid it here. Next thing I suppose we'll have caricatures instead of realistic photographs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this section is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and should be eliminated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would cut the last two sentences, but keep the first sentence (Buzz Windrip) based on the number/prevalence of references among sources of note.

I am tagging the editor who first added these to alert her: @Rosekelleher:. Neutrality^talk 01:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well then I'll ping the editor who first deleted it. @MagicatthemovieS: Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial and should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jones

This article says, "Trump appeared during the campaign on the radio program of well-known conspiracy theorist Alex Jones." I object to this. It's fine to describe what Trump said during that radio program, but just saying he appeared is trivial. Lots of people have appeared on the Jones show, including Rand Paul. Merely saying Trump appeared on the show of a conspiracy theorist is classic guilt by association, and WP:BLP says very clearly: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC) @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly not "guilt by association" because that addresses "claims" - the fact that Trump appeared on Jones' show, by contrast, is a statement of fact. And Trump's appearance on the show is so unusual that his mere appearance is noteworthy (which is why the NY Times mentioned it).

Nevertheless, I've modified the material to describe what Trump said during that radio program, as you suggested (namely, that he praised Jones). I've added a cite to a CNN piece to that effect, alongside the NY Times piece. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times has mentioned a lot of things about Trump's campaign, far more than we can include in this BLP. So we must discern what's encyclopedic. Trump said this on the Jones show: "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down". Is that it? I am unaware that Trump praised any of Jones's conspiracy theories during that visit to the show. So, as far as I can tell, it's not encyclopedic material at all, and I continue to object to it. Our implied claim is that Trump sympathizes with Jones's conspiracy theories. That may be true, but we are not supposed to infer it from mere association with Jones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A clear case of guilt by association (unless he said a lot more than is quoted here). And an good example of the problems with an article that is overstuffed with trivia and very short on serious journalism. It should be dropped.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I will try to find some additional source that may go into more detail. Neutrality^talk 14:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Autism

On the subject of autism, this BLP says only this: "Trump has, for example, promoted the discredited belief that vaccines cause autism.[444][445][448]" as a result of this edit which deleted reliably sourced information that Trump actually supports vaccination, and has taken a stance that could increase vaccination. So, if we cannot be evenhanded about his autism statements, then I think the whole thing should be deleted. Trump has said: "I'm in favor of vaccines; do them over a longer period of time, same amount but just in little sections and I think you're going to see a big impact on autism." The originator of the delayed vaccine schedule was Dr. Robert Sears who acknowledges there is no known medical reason to space out vaccines, but says doing so is a useful tactic for convincing nervous parents to ease into the idea of approving vaccinations, and thus increasing vaccination rates. All of this is in a reference that we now use but neglect: Mahoney, Emily. "Fact Check: Donald Trump's claim on spaced-out vaccines, autism rate", Arizona Republic (October 16, 2015).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is - the issue at hand is that Trump promotes a discredited belief about a link between vaccines and autism (Tweet of his: "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"). It is not a place to discuss his precise preferred vaccine schedule. | MK17b | (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump's position is that people should get vaccinated, and they can get vaccinated without risking autism. Hiding that from our readers would not be NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying that Trump believes people should get vaccinated; and yet still tweeted the discredited claim that vaccinations causes autism; wouldn't that appear to be worse, highly political behavior. Objective3000 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The section is not about Trump's belief on vaccines but his belief or tendency towards conspiracy theories. Therefore getting into his exact proposed vaccination schedule is irrelevant. You wouldn't expect the article to expound on who killed JFK - just the fact that he alluded to a Cruz connection was enough. | MK17b | (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump has said: "I'm in favor of vaccines; do them over a longer period of time...." If our section omits this and misleads readers to think Trump is not in favor of vaccines, then we are failing as Wikipedia writers, and veering toward this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Trump promotes an "alternate" vaccine schedule with zero scientific support and no known medical benefit, based on his erroneous belief that vaccines (as currently administered) cause autism. That much is clear from reliable sources (e.g. [7]). I think we can say as much in one clearly written, properly sourced sentence. In fact, I just did. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Violence and expulsions at rallies

This section is bloated and POV (it does not cover the violence and aggression of anti-Trump activists.) I'm not arguing for elimination, just for radical reduction - which should be easy because independent articles on the topics covered already exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's bloated, and does not conform with WP:Summary style. Also, in case you weren't aware, there's a related RFC above at this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up and reduced section largely by merging into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, which is linked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Proposing rename of this section from the misleading "Violence and expulsions at rallies" to "Protests and expulsions at rallies". Reason is, what violence? There seems to have been merely a couple of punches thrown, and a lot of talk. It is misleading to label a section "violence" when, despite months of predictions of violence, and incitement to violence, there was virtually no actual violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign selects White Nationalist as Delegate in California

Important story here: Trump campaign not only has white nationalists endorsing him, he has selected one of theirs as one of his delegates! I trust everyone will agree that the hard truth here must be told. Please add this encylopedic content at once. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/donald-trump-white-nationalist-afp-delegate-california http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/trump-california-delegate-william-johnson-white-supremacist-article-1.2632104 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/10/trump_nominates_white_supremacist_william_johnson_to_be_california_convention.html http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-camp-blames-database-error-white-supremacist-delegate-list-n571556 http://gawker.com/donald-trump-picks-white-supremacist-to-be-his-delegate-1775848825 http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-ln-donald-trump-white-nationalist-delegate-20160510-story.html http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11652822/donald-trump-delegate-white-nationalist http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/05/10/white-supremacist-chosen-as-trump-delegate-in-ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exciting News (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He has been dropped. Unless the story gets lengthy ongoing coverage, which it could, it should not be added. TFD (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A "database error" has been claimed, which in and of itself speaks to the efficacy of the Trump campaign. Let's let this play itself out a bit more... kencf0618 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep off the page unless the story gains traction again. Meatsgains (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll discuss: Comments about fringe or conspiracy theories:

That's far too much attribution and weight to an isolated event. And the "Obama is in fact a protestant" insert: thanks, we know. Adding that is weasel wording to discredit Trump ever-more. Doing so is a WP:COATRACK, which this page is guilty of in far more instances. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the innuendo and guilt-by-association in this section is inappropriate. Some of the statements made by Trump have, however, gotten enough coverage to be notable and belong on the page. It should be edited for an objective, NPOV tone, and probably shortened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about with no ref. And we must be careful in a BLP. But, Trump consistently makes dramatic statements without evidence -- and we can't ignore that. That would be a whitewash. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry. Section: Comments about fringe or conspiracy theories. added to header.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to provide redundant footnotes saying that Obama is Protestant, especially when none of them mention Trump (resulting in synthesis, original research). It's adequate for us to call this an unfounded notion, and wikilink to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously any encyclopedic treatment of Trump's campaign will explore, in meaningful detail and with reference to high-quality sources, Trump's historically unprecedented use of conspiracy theories. I think that's been the rather firm consensus here.

I am baffled by the "isolated event" and "coatrack" statement made above by DaltonCastle—that simply flies in the fact of all of the high-quality sources we have that speak of Trump's many conspiratorial statements not as a one-off, but as a "almost daily" occurrence in his campaign. These are not daily "horse race" stories, but feature-style, longish pieces that explore Trump's conspiracy theories as a theme of his campaign, including from the New York Times, the Washington Post, a Newsweek analysis written by a University of Miami professors who literally wrote the book on American conspiracy theories).

I agree with the omission of the lengthy footnote about Obama's religious history is unnecessary. Neutrality^talk 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)