Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

RfC: Should information on the John Miller incident be included in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is general consensus that the text should not necessarily have its own section header on its own merits. While there is consensus for adding some information regarding this news item, the current text did not have consensus. To (grossly) generalise: While the references (such as The Washington Post) may have noted this information, the text in question does not show what the references state as to why they noted this information, so as written this appears to the reader as "trivia". So, while keeping policy (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:OR, etc.) in mind, there is no prejudice against starting a new RfC to determine what that text should be, and which section it should be grouped under (including the possibility of a whole new section, if deemed appropriate). Note: The arbcom restriction noted at the top of this page still applies, so initially boldly adding such text would likely be seen as disruptive and likely trigger sanction. - jc37 09:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

---

See the title and also this diff for the potential text, although it could certainly be changed. I don't want to get into specifics of the text at this point. The broad question is whether we should include a subsection on the John Miller incident. ~ Rob^Talk 08:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Multiple editors have removed the information as a BLP violation (inaccurate because it is obviously well-sourced) or WP:NOTNEWS (inaccurate because this is clearly relevant to the presidential campaign). I think the John Miller incident should be included in the presidential campaign article because it's become an issue. It's been covered by CNN, The Hollywood Reporter, People, The Washington Post, Salon, The New Yorker, Gawker, and The Wall Street Journal, to name a few. That list is by no means exhaustive, and it clearly indicates inclusion is warranted, in my opinion. ~ Rob^Talk 08:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: More biased nonsense opinion pieces being used as "sources". One can just as easily say, "Trump has never been terribly adamant about denying that he often made calls to reporters posing as someone else", and then cite the Fisher/Hobson article as "fact"?! Or, "Trump has gotten away with a lot, of course, and he will surely remain brazen during this flap" from the other "source"? What a whitewash. It's popular and fun to gang up on unpopular subjects. Yay. But eroding sources in favor of opinion pieces masquerading as "news"? Pathetic. Doc talk 08:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I will post here what I posted on my talk page in response to these being called "opinion pieces", since it is false: The Washington Post article was in their Politics section, not an editorial section. The author is a senior editor and journalist, not an opinion writer. The New Yorker article is written by John Cassidy, a staff writer who writes a column for their politics section. Again, does not write opinion pieces. ~ Rob^Talk 08:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "As I’ve noted in previous posts, there is plenty of material in both Trump’s personal life and his business career that bears inspection." These are John Cassidy's very words from that source. Does this sound like a traditional news report? Do you really think this is a good source to use with a contentious BLP subject? Doc talk 08:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Alright, that's fair enough, although The New Yorker is presenting it as news. What is your beef with the Washington Post piece I linked above? Can you point out any indication that it is an opinion piece? I've read through the entire thing and it seems to stick entirely to the facts. I can agree that we could use better sources, but I seriously question whether anyone can argue at this point that all information regarding this major news event should be removed entirely. ~ Rob^Talk 09:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "My "beef"? Read the first sentence! "The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian." What "news" article starts like that? Are you trying to be funny or something? Can you even tell the difference between a news item and an opinion piece? Is "Trumpian" an actual "thing" now? I'm astonished. And I can 100% guarantee that you are biased against the subject. Doc talk 09:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You're suggesting we purge all information from the encyclopedia about what has become an actual issue in this election. The only POV I'm pushing is the POV that the encyclopedia should include verified information from reliable sources on an issue of the election that was worth mention in almost every reliable source that covers US politics. I don't think it's biased to say that Trump's tone is confident, bordering on cocky, or that his voice is recognizable. Hell, I think the man himself would embrace that. His confidence is part of his appeal to voters. If you believe you have more neutral sources for this, I welcome you to post them, and I'm happy to use them, but it makes no sense to completely censor an issue that's being covered widely. You may also wish to view the CNN piece I linked above or even the Fox News piece. ~ Rob^Talk 10:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That last report is succinct in its summary. "On NBC's "Today" show Friday, Trump denied being the voice on the phone. He said: "I don't know anything about it." But he apparently owned up to it at the time, describing the Miller call as a "joke gone awry," said the Post." Super. It's just another trivial "slow news day" Trump non-controversy. I'm not going to make a big deal about it, unlike the media. Go to town. Doc talk 10:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Given the BLP concerns, I'll wait for the RfC to conclude. I don't think there are any, but you brought up BLP, so WP:BLPRESTORE suggests waiting. It's also easier in the long-run to get this settled, since everything even remotely non-positive on this article eventually gets challenged by other editors. ~ Rob^Talk 10:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The Fox News report is going to be the least biased here because it's just reporting the facts. I like that the AP source is listed at the bottom. I wish we could re-title the section with an "Alleged", take out the opinion pieces as the sources, and use the Fox/AP source. Wishful thinking... Doc talk 10:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: It seems to be a trivial story that has received transient coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

support Jack Upland, it's not trivial, it even got premiere segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver this week.

• Support - Incident has widespread coverage by WP:RS, WP:V sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I know it's getting coverage, but I don't see any particular relevance to the 2016 campaign. If anything, it seems Trump leaked this info, possibly to distract from his not releasing his tax returns. This article can't be bogged down by every single 24-hour news cycle story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The alternative that I considered was John Miller (pseudonym) or similar, but that will almost inevitably get dragged to AfD as per WP:NOTNEWS with the consensus to merge somewhere. Probably here. ~ Rob^Talk 18:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I think that it would be nominated for sure. It could be worth a line on Trump's biography. Possibly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been a story for months, @Muboshgu: here's coverage from March. link. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And here's a Vice story - from November 2015. link. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it hasn't been covered @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz:, (see that in my initial comment I said "I know it's getting coverage"), I said it isn't directly relevant to this campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean, the reality is that all the sources talk about it in the context of the campaign, which is why I think it should go here. We could argue about whether it's a real campaign issue (it's not, even if it is hilarious), but the reliable sources are treating it as a campaign issue. If you check all the sources here, I think all of them are in the politics section, and every single one talks heavily about his campaign. ~ Rob^Talk 20:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read some (not all) of the sources presented in this section, and I don't really interpret it as being discussed "in the context of the campaign" beyond the fact that he's in a campaign and these recordings have resurfaced during the campaign. We can be more discerning than this. Comedy shows are mocking him, but nobody is attacking him specifically for this, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support with caveats. A modest mention (the current text is two sentences) does not seem disproportionate in the context of a long article). I do not think it needs its own subheader, but I am not hung up on it. I would definitely modify the cites to rely on straight-news pieces (e.g., this from the Washington Post) rather than opinion pieces. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose doesn't need own section and is basically a flash in pan from 25 years ago. Not notable. (in addition, per BRD and notice on contentious material, the RFC has to pass before it's added.) --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You're looking for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, not BRD. BRD isn't policy (unfortunately). ~ Rob^Talk 06:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I'm looking at the ArbCom sanctions that require clear consensus before this type of material is added. BLP is narrower than this arbcom decision. -DHeyward (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a fun little story, one of many we've seen throughout the campaign. Without enduring notability it falls under WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support A "fun little story"? It's a classic illustration, as pointed out by the reporter involved, of Trump's penchant for prevarication. Yes, it's "one of many we've seen throughout the campaign", but it's a prime example. And it's bizarre. Has any other presidential nominee ever pulled a stunt like this? I doubt it. With all the coverage it's getting, it needs to be in the article -- presented in a straightforward, factual manner, as it was before its recent removal.DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sourcing aside, it is WP:TRIVIA and not relevant to the page about Trump's presidential campaign. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, WP:TRIVIA does not apply: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Also for the record, the documentation of behavior by a POTUS candidate unlike anything ever seen before in POTUS candidates is anything but "trivial". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, WP:TRIVIA may not apply here but how does is an accusation from 1991, which Trump denies, relevant to his presidential campaign page? Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Because his denial is demonstrably false (no statute of limitations on lying), and because it's disturbing behavior in someone who aspires to run the "free world". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Because reliable sources have covered it in connection with his campaign. One of the most basic principles of Wikipedia is that we follow what reliable sources say. ~ Rob^Talk 08:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Right! So how about let's put it back in, yes? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Called by bot. This story is well sourced and media outlets discuss it in relevance to the campaign. A short two sentences should cover it and it doesn't need it's own section, that would be undue weight. Just mention that (from my scan of the sources) he did it, admitted it around the time it happened but when it was raised during the campaign denied it. SPACKlick (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's something much more noteworthy to include, by far. The recent violent protests by anti-Trump groups in New Mexico and California. It's got major coverage:

• "Aside from Albuquerque, some of the most violent incidents followed or preceded campaign events in Costa Mesa, California, in April and in Chicago in March."[1]
• "The scene outside Albuquerque's convention center was chaotic as police ushered protesters away from Trump's event and into the nearby streets."[2]
• "Albuquerque attorney Doug Antoon said rocks were flying through the convention center windows as he was leaving Tuesday night. Glass was breaking and landing near his feet. "This was not a protest, this was a riot. These are hate groups," he said of the demonstrators."[3]

Where is the coverage for this stuff? You can even say Trump called all the protesters "thugs" and "criminals"! That's the mainstream spin. Doc talk 09:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This may very well belong in the article. But, it is off-topic for this thread, the quote from a random person calling it a "riot" should not even be on the talk page, and your comment about "mainstream spin" shows bias. Objective3000 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "the quote from a random person calling it a "riot" should not even be on the talk page"? Why on earth is that quote not allowed on the talk page? There's no "safe zone" that protects us from alleged "hate speech" here. Doc talk 10:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"White House compares anti-Trump rioters to tea party protesters"[4]

"Protesters Riot at Trump Rally, Possible Shots Fired"[5]

"Trump victory road paved by New Mexico rioters: Cal Thomas"[6](yes, this one's an opinion piece, but they are okay to use for sources. *cough*) Doc talk 05:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Breibart, Washington Times, Cal Thomas -- can you find any less encyclopedic sources? And this is still completely irrelevant to this RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the LA Times ok? No overt conservative bias according to the article, quite largely circulated. Seems "encyclopedic" enough a source. "Protesters clash with police outside Trump rally in Albuquerque; authorities call it a riot".[7] Doc talk 10:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose What a stupid and mundane thing to add to an article. It has absolutely no bearing on this topic whatsoever. There is nothing about the campaign in that statement at all, even if sourced.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As already pointed out more than once, reliable sources have covered it in connection with his campaign. One of the most basic principles of Wikipedia is that we follow what reliable sources say. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think this would be more fitting in the Donald Trump article. Objective3000 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per DoctorJoE. Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This was the hot topic in coverage of his campaign by media outlets for almost a week and is therefore a significant chapter of his campaign. It's relevant to his campaign because of what it suggests: that Trump is willing to be deceitful to further his self-interests and that he's willing to lie to protect his image. This incident helps to illuminate the character of the candidate and trying to get rid of it, especially as a BLP violation, is a whitewash. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:55, 27 June 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.

Support for terrorism

Shouldn't the article mention that Trump funded the Provisional IRA? (165.120.184.91 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

Can you provide a source to confirm? Meatsgains (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

He attended a fundraiser for Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Provisional IRA, in 1995 at the height of its bombing campaign: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/video-donald-trump-attends-sinn-fein-fundraiser-amid-antiira-terror-protests-in-1995-34272622.html (165.120.184.91 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

What does that have to do with his candidacy? Let's file this under WP:Undue, as well as WP:COATRACK. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It shows he cannot talk about terrorism when he funded it for years. (165.120.157.67 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

So WP:SYNTH then. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. WP:NPOV. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that Trump has criticized terrorism throughout his campaign, it is very vital that the article should note he funded terrorism. (165.120.157.67 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

COATRACK. This would be in violation of several Wikipedia policies. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The IRA is internationally regarded as a terrorist group, including by the US government, and Trump funded it for years. (165.120.157.67 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

Where are you getting that he funded it or that it was for years? He doesn't even fund his own campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a coatrack. And it is stronger than any Obama/Ayers link involving terrorism. But, simply attending one fundraiser in his own city two decades back is WP:UNDUE. Objective3000 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that it was just before the IRA bombed Canary Wharf I think it should definitely be mentioned. (109.159.10.229 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

It should not be included. This is inflammatory and has nothing to do with his current positions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Factual, reliably-sourced information should not be excluded from Wikipedia because it happens to be inflammatory or for pretty much any other reason. Policy is pretty clear about this. According to WP:Preserve: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider....Moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article". Information about the fundraiser is obviously out of place here because context would require too much space, but it might well be appropriate here. Wikipedia is (supposedly) not censored, and it's rarely our proper role to protect readers from information that reliable sources have seen fit to publish, especially when a Wikipedia editor would like to include it in the encyclopedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about a campaign. Unless there are significant reliable sources showing this is related to the campaign, it doesn't belong here. It might, however, belong in DT's bio considering there are significant RS covering the event and his role at it.--Nowa (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the most appropriate place for it is at Ireland–United_States_relations#The_Troubles because otherwise it would be out of historical context. And that's where it's now included.[8] The event was in November 1995. There had been an IRA ceasefire in August 1994, and Bill Clinton lifted the ban on official contacts and received Adams at the White House in March 1995, though at that time the paramilitaries had not agreed to disarm. US Senator George Mitchell was also active as an intermediary in 1995.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not relevant unless it becomes part of the campaign. The fundraiser was not for the Provos, but for Sinn Féin, whose leader, Gerry Adams had been invited to the White House and was in negotiations with the government of the UK to end the conflict in Northern Ireland. The event did not occur at the "height of [the Provos]'s bombing campaign" but during a ceasefire which was later unexpectedly broken by the Canary Wharf bombing. TFD (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant to the Donald Trump article. It's relevant for Trump's past political positions. Arafat was invited to the Whitehouse, but that doesn't mean that Americans started funding the PLO.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Americans started funding the PLO before Arafat was invited to the White House, although funding substantially increased after his visit. (See the U.S. Congressional report "U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians". TFD (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, not the PLO as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically most of the money went to the Palestine Authority which is legally distinct from the PLO, just as Sinn Fein is legally distinct from the IRA. OTOH, here is a report from the World Bank called, "INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION PROGRAM DOCUMENT FOR A PROPOSED GRANT IN THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO USD40 MILLION TO THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION (FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY)." TFD (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sinn Fein has always been the political wing of the IRA. The ceasefire was not fully in effect in 1995. This should be added both to the campaign article and to the article on Trump himself. (213.122.144.44 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC))

I find it a little ironic that Trump, as a Presbyterian, would be supporting Sinn Fein. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In 1995 there was extremely violent riots in Belfast and elsewhere, so I don't think the ceasefire was in effect. (165.120.184.147 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC))

Large-scale removal of content - some issues to flag

DaltonCastle has removed a large amount of content from the article — and I agree with much of it (probably 65-70% of the removals), which did need to be condensed. On some occasions, however, I think that the cutting was overzealous, and I've put back some content that I think is highly noteworthy, although in most cases I've modified the content to shrink it down.

• Reaction to Trump's remarks re: immigration: It is important to briefly mention the basis on which people "condemn[ed] Trump's remarks and his policy-stances." I agree with shrinking this down, but added four words ("as offensive or inflammatory") to give an idea of the tenor of the reaction.

This additional commentary is WP:undue and unnecessary for understanding.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is necessary for understanding because it briefly describes the basis and depth of the opposition. Neutrality^talk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's net worth: DaltonCastle took out the italicized content in this sentence: "Shortly afterwards, Trump's campaign released a statement claiming his net worth to be over US$10 billion, but Forbes estimates that it is US$4 billion." I can't possibly see the justification for this. The content adds context, and without it, the reader is left with the campaign's statement at face value.

What's the point? It's just a claim by the magazine and does not severely affect the article except in the implication "he actually isn't a very good businessman". It's not a proven fact and adds nothing crucial to the article other than another (among a host of) loaded statement. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very important, in my mind, because we cannot include Trump's claim of his own net worth without noting that independent estimates place his net worth far below his claims. To exclude Forbes (or some other estimate) leaves the reader with a false impression. Note that this issue has been extensively discussed in the media. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• McCain reaction to Trump's remarks about him: DaltonCastle eliminated McCain's reaction entirely. I agree that the previous paragraph was unnecessarily lengthy, but I think it is noteworthy to briefly mention McCain's response. I've added a single sentence (with cites) to that effect: "McCain called upon Trump to apologize to former American prisoners of war and 'the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict'; Trump declined to issue any apology.

I could concede to this partially. But there are still some weasel words in there. How about just "McCain called upon Trump to apologize for his comments, although Trump refused to do so."? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I still think it's best to identify the group of people that McCain called upon Trump to apologize to (not McCain personally, but POWs). But if it would advance the discussion, I could accept that wording. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's July 6 statement that the Mexican government is "forcing their most unwanted people into the United States"—"in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."—this was removed, but I think it is highly relevant; this statement was at the core of the controversy surrounding Trump's remarks. It is short and frames the controversy well.

It's already present elsewhere on the article. You don't need it in there more than once. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you point me where? Are you referring to the "announcement" section? Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• H-2B visa program/Trump's use of guest workers at Mar-a-Lago: I agree that the text of this was poorly integrated before, but I think eliminating it entirely is uncalled for, as it received significant press attention and it is very well-sourced. I have restored this, but reworded to tie it specifically to the immigrant controversy.

This is a trivial factoid and not relevant to the campaign.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. This fact has received extensive coverage within the context of the campaign. In addition to the Reuters article, this fact has been the subject of articles (not passing mentions, but articles) from the New York Times (a front-page article, page A1), CNN Money, New York magazine, The Palm Beach Post, Fortune magazine, Politifact. The Politifact cite specifically notes that this has become a campaign issue. This reporting has also received attention from opinion writers and others, which I won't cite in the interests of brevity but will do if desired. Given this national attention, there is little justification for not including a single sentence on this point. Neutrality^talk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, its covered multiple times within the article; this is unnecessary. Also, just because its in the media does not make it notable for this article (especially double coverage). Also, Politifact is not some golden wisdom handed down from upon high. It also, realistically is not related to "Donald Trump's presidential campaign". Maybe his page, about his company, but its a tangent of a tangent here. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is it covered elsewhere in the article? If you point me to the spot, I will take a look. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Polling on support/opposition for the wall: This was eliminated, and understandably so; it was not well-integrated into the article, was tied to a single poll, and was poorly cited (Newsmax). I think a brief mention of the polarized public reaction to this specific proposal, however, is noteworthy, and have re-integrated it into the article as a single sentence with two new cites: Among the American public, reactions to Trump's border-wall proposal was deeply polarized by party, with a large majority of Republicans opposing the proposal and a large majority of Democrats against it; overall, a September 2015 poll showed 48% of U.S. adults supporting Trump's proposal, while a March 2016 poll showed 34% of U.S. adults supporting it. This language seems straightforward and entirely due-weight.

Similarly this is not relevant to the campaign. It would be more appropriate for inclusion in an article on Mexican immigration.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly relevant to the campaign because this is Trump's signature proposal, one which he created and on which he has laid great emphasis. Given the extensive coverage from the sources, all of which was directly framed in context of Trump's campaign specifically, it makes little or no sense to eliminate it. Neutrality^talk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This one I can't recall off the top of my head, but I would assume it is already covered at least more than once in the article. If it is, this should go completely. If its not, even still it should be trimmed I think. Perhaps: "...a large majority of both the Republican and the Democratic parties oppose the proposal; overall, a September 2015 poll showed 48% of U.S. adults supporting Trump's proposal, while a March 2016 poll showed 34% of U.S. adults supporting it."DaltonCastle (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That version is pretty much the same length as mine, is it not? (I also caught a typo - most Republicans support the proposal - I've already made it). Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Elimination of descriptors such as "far-right" before French National Front (FN). This is not understandable to me. The sources use these descriptors, I believe, and everyone acknowledges that the FN is far right. The descriptor takes up very little space, yet conveys valuable information to the reader, who should not have to click on a link to get a very basic description of the party.

If you are opening this door, then it will be totally acceptable to add "far-left" and "socialist" descriptors to those who oppose him. That's the neutral thing to do. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this article describe reactions to Trump among such foreign leaders? If so, and if you can find third-party descriptors for foreign political parties that have discussed Trump, and those are included in the article, I would not oppose it. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to apply descriptors, we should do it for both the right and the left, and there's no reason why it should be limited to foreign officials and entities.CFredkin (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We should follow the sources. If the source use a descriptor and it is helpful to the reader, I support including it. I don't support playing "hide the ball" with our readers. Neutrality^talk 03:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's Jersey City remarks (about "Muslims celebrating on 9/11"): This was removed entirely, as I can tell, but I cannot see why. This was a major statement that Trump made repeatedly, and he invoked it as justification for one of his signature policies. This segment is well-sourced and (as I have readjusted it) takes up a total of two sentences. This seems well-justified and proportionate to me.

There are Far more reasons why Trump supports the proposal, other than the most inflammatory one. Even if this stays it should be severely trimmed. The fact-check part is also a tangential coatrack. Lots of people made that mistake, not just Trump. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a key reason for why he supports this proposal, and he's repeated it a number of times. And if we repeat the claim, we can't ignore the lack of the basis for the claim. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this can be further trimmed as undue.CFredkin (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• House of Commons debate: I agree with shrinking this section, but as edited by DaltonCastle, it gives no indication of what the Commons actually said. I think it is rational to include a clause along the lines of "while most in the House condemned Trump's remarks and described them as "crazy" and "offensive," most were opposed to intervening in the electoral process of another country, and a vote was not taken" rather than the abrupt " ended without a vote."

I don't see support for the use of "most" based on the source.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be OK with changing "most" to "many" or "some." Neutrality^talk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is tangential that MPs called Trump crazy or offensive. That did not affect their decision, nor does it affect Trump's campaign. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The MPs' reactions seems unusual and historic to me, since nothing like this has ever happened before. Isn't it worth the half-sentence? Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• In the religion section:
  • DC removed the sentence on Trump's interactions with religious communities on the campaign trail. I don't object to moving this from the main text, but this seems significant enough for a footnote, and I've added it.
  • On the quotes from the Atlantic and the NY Times: I don't object to the removal of these from the main text, either, but I've moved them to be included as part of the citations.
  • The modification of the Pope Francis material, I think, is the most objectionable change. The revision by DC revises the text to say that the pope "attacked Trump"—which is an overstatement of what in fact happened—and removes Trump's response to the pope as well as the Vatican's clarification. Given the pope's stature as a religious leader, the fact that the dispute involved Trump's signature proposal, and the major media coverage of this episode, I cannot agree the three well-sourced, carefully written sentences are too much.
  • Baylor: I don't object to cutting the textual sentences, but the cite should remain because it supports the broader contention.

I, also, have to object. The lengthy quote by the Pope is just one long weasel word that comes off as a Coatrack, influencing religious and religion-friendly readers to think about how bad Trump really is. That's not neutral. It's also too much weight for such an isolated event. My trimming solved all the issues. It would be the neutral thing to do. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that "the Pope attacked Trump," as your revision had it. The Pope-Trump interaction gained extensive coverage, and both figures are tremendously influential globally. I am open to some trimming, not to summing this up as "the Pope attacked Trump," without any context. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose this trimmed version of the content:

Conversely, some Christian religious leaders have critiqued Trump. After finishing a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border, Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church, in response to a question about Trump's border-wall proposal said: "A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.

CFredkin (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with this with an additional sentence about Trump's reaction, something like Trump responded by calling Francis' criticism "disgraceful." This is a key part of the exchange and is historically significant, as the front-page NY Times story Donald Trump Fires Back at Sharp Rebuke by Pope Francis noted: "most audacious attack yet on a revered public figure ... Politicians rarely rebuke the Vatican so forcefully..." If we include this crucial part, I would accept your proposed language. Neutrality^talk 03:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• In the section about women:
  • DaltonCastle removed "twice the gender gap of the 2012 presidential election." I can't understand this, either. This gives historical context about the gender gap. Most readers will not know if a gender gap is normal in U.S. elections, and if so how much of a gap is typical; this short, well-sourced phrase gives a baseline. I've restored it.
  • DC changed the sentence comments about women that have been variously described as "belittling" and "disparaging" to simply "comments about women." This gives less information to the reader, and I cannot see how this is an improvement.

His campaign is not about women's issues. Many women have praised Trump. But instead of adding in sentences about that, the simpler way to restore neutrality is to simply cut down this section, as it gives far too much weight to a non-essential facet of the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's relationship with women is a major theme of the campaign (see, e.g., here, but there are dozens or hundreds of high-quality secondary-source articles). To ignore the historic gender gap means that our article is not comprehensive. I would not object to an addition of a sentence of support for Trump among women, for example from this Washington Post article about Trump's support among Tea Party women, written by a professor who is an expert on women in the Tea Party movement (the professor wrote a recent book, published by NYU Press, on the topic). The sentence could be along the lines of While Trump has encountered opposition from many conservative women, Trump performed "relatively well among Republican women" in the primaries and has a number of "high-profile female supporters," including Sarah Palin, Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter. Would something like this assuage your concerns? Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this can be trimmed as undue.CFredkin (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• The elimination of the following sentence regarding Trump's remarks on Judge Curiel: "Legal experts have criticized Trump's comments, and the Washington Post described them as "racially tinged." I cannot see the justification for removing this well-sourced content either. This was a major episode in the campaign, and this sentence reflects a major strain of reaction from experts.

Readers don't need legal experts or the WP to interpret Trump's comments in this case.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What readers "need" is not the standard for inclusion — the standard is what the reliable set of secondary sources says as a whole. There's absolutely no reason to exclude what a wide variety of legal experts have said, or how the vast majority of the press has characterized his remarks. I can easily cite a half-dozen or more characterizations—from news accounts, not opinion pieces—that are similar to what the Washington Post has said: e.g., "racially charged criticism" (NPR), "racially based attacks" (Politico). Neutrality^talk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

And I could cite plenty of sources that say calling those statements "racially tinged" is inaccurate. That's a coatrack. It is literally a negative opinion about Trump presented as fact. Besides, there is already mention all over the article suggestive of the same. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have news (not opinion, but news) sources saying that Trump's statements did not a racial tinge? What we have presented is not a "negative opinion," but in fact a widely accepted characterization of what actually was said. When multiple high-quality secondary sources describe something all in the same or similar terms, we can't disregard it. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if we can narrow the scope of issues under dispute. Neutrality^talk 02:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There were other reverts you made that you did not add to the discussion. Do you have concerns there or can we proceed? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Never mind. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

This content is much less relevant than content that has been removed as "unimportant factoid" from the corresponding article for Clinton.CFredkin (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Trump's campaign. If you have objections on the Clinton article, raise them at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Neutrality^talk 02:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The articles should be treated the same. I am not active on the other page, but I can imagine that if these sort of edits made their way on their they wouldn't last long. We need to restore neutrality. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The removing editor has not replied to my comments of three days ago outlining my problems with these edits, which introduced inaccuracies (and in some cases re-introduced typos that I had corrected). In addition, the removing editor has made several further edits that are highly problematic:

• Removed this analysis as an "editorial" — this is a news report, not an editorial, and is based on empirical data which received wide attention;

It was one report from a biased source. Now, fine, yea I get that a sources stance does not affect its reliability, but in this instance, it adds nothing of value to the article other than a coatrack. "Trump is a liar" roughly. Imagine if that ended up on Hillary's campaign page. It would be removed immediately based on neutrality. Also, do you really want to open up this door? Scenarios have arisen where fact-checkers were themselves fact-checked and proven wrong. It's just a POV statement. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is inappropriate.CFredkin (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• These revisions deletes Trump's quote about Megyn Kelly ("blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever") and replaces it with "Trump likened her to a defeated boxer..." This seems obviously improper to me. The controversy centered on Trump's words themselves and the implications of them. This edit essentially strips all the context from the reader and adopts, in wiki's own voice, Trump's own interpretation of his comment. It's blatantly POV.

The "implications of the words" were created by other's than Trump. He was alluding to a boxing match between them. That aside, you really think there should be this much weight for a Twitter scuffle. Also the over-quotation gives room for weasel wording. Trump was not implying physical violence against her; he was saying he defeated her in the debate. We would be wise to restore neutrality to the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This received extensive coverage and was a huge episode in his campaign, with reverberations much later. This may have began as a "Twitter scuffle" but it's gone in a different direction. As far as the quotation issue, directly quoting in many circumstances actually reduces the danger of selective interpretation. I agree that we have quoted too much in the article in the past -- and I have agreed with a number of your edits that reduced quotation and excess verbiage. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I very strongly feel that particularly on this article, large-scale removal of well-sourced information should be discussed. We should try to narrow the range of content under dispute, discussing each segment individually if we have to. This is laborious, but it is also courteous and directed by policy. I would like some third-party editors to weigh in here, if they have a moment (@MelanieN:, others)? Neutrality^talk 16:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the bias here should be toward inclusion of content. This article is closely related to a WP:BLP and I think similar conservatism should apply.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as we're canvassing, I'll request that user:anythingyouwant take a look here as well.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"conservatism" does not mean the wholesale removal of context and content and its replacement with factually inaccurate text. A "conservative" approach requires reflecting what the mainstream sources have said. Neutrality^talk 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There was no factually incorrect text added. That statement is factually incorrect. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We followed the Bold part of BRD just fine. There are substantial problems with the article regarding neutrality. We have now cleared the air and completed all the steps. I'd be happen to explain more about my original edits restored neutrality, and why we should reimplement at least most of them. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement about the pope "attacking Trump"—when in fact the Vatican expressly explained that the pope was not attacking Trump directly, but merely saying that his signature border-wall proposal does not comport with Christian teachings—was the inaccuracy that I was alluding to. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality, sorry for being late to the party, i've been active elsewhere. There is so much to go over that this is going to be difficult to summarize succinctly. Can I ask, on a personal level, that we keep these posts more brief? The first item: there was nothing "factually incorrect" added. Just because it has received coverage does not mean it necessarily needs to be in the article. There is so much in here that is already tangential and borders on a POV, which therefore borders on a Coatrack. This article is supposed to be about "Donald Trump's Campaign", not "Reasons Donald Trump's campaign is controversial". I am not advocating for zero mention of any of it, but there is WAY too much weight. I believe your reversion was in error.

No problem, I understand. I regret that we have to have this lengthy "wall of text," but you removed a very large amount of content, and I felt obligated to explain my views with specificity.

I am completely fine with excluding minor and trivial controversies. But part and parcel of Trump's campaign are the many, many accompanying controversies; these have to be woven into the story. Neutrality^talk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the article where at least two of us appear to be in agreement.CFredkin (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Funded terrorism?

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.

---

Is it true that Trump funded terrorism for decades? Because if so then this has to be mentioned in the article. He openly attended an IRA fundraiser in November 1995. See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12042955/Donald-Trump-attended-New-York-Sinn-Fein-dinner-before-IRA-London-terror-attack.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-attended-sinn-f-in-fundraiser-months-before-ira-attacked-london-a6767601.html (213.122.144.72 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 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.

Delegates

Another editor tagged this section for neutrality, which I tend to agree with. As a step toward addressing the issue, I've eliminated some content which is sourced to local papers and seems like trivia.CFredkin (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit. I removed an editorial piece that was effectively useless. My main concern with the rest of the section is that it basically reads "Trump has controversial, white supremacist supporters... oh and some members of the LGBT community". That's not neutral, nor is is due weight. What about countless others who support him who are not white supremacists? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Presumably his delegates for the most part match the demographics of his supporters, which are already described in this article. Perhaps this section is unnecessary?CFredkin (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree but I think that will get some heavy resistance. But if you want to proceed I will support you. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree, both sections you blanked were well-sourced facts. --SI 05:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

They were, by definition, opinions. It's also not simply about being sourced. It's about WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump plans to slash taxes on the ultra-wealthy; how can it be that this article fails to mention this salient fact in the lead?

How can it be that there is no mention of the centerpiece of Donald J. Trump's campaign, his promise to slash taxes on thousands of hard-working, ultra-wealthy, high-net-worth individuals? According to many analysts, the Trump tax plan would save the Trump family alone nearly 2 billion in taxes. Is this article a piece of paid campaign advocacy, or an encylopedia article? Many analysts suggest that the Trump tax plan would spark a depression that would make 1929 Weimar Germany look like mere child's play. Some sources for my good friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-debt_us_57701efbe4b0dbb1bbbae2c9 http://crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-fiscal-guide-2016-election http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-tax-plan-would-save-his-family-billions-2015-08-18 http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/may/20/jennifer-shilling/top-01-would-be-big-winner-under-donald-trumps-tax/ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/17/Experts-Weigh-Donald-Trump-s-Tax-Plan-and-Find-It-Wanting http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B42B:535B:E939:D54D:D2DF:247D (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The current article is about Trump's campaigning activities. Trump's positions on taxes, spending, and budget are already covered in the Political positions of Donald Trump article. A general link from the current article to 'Political positions' appears in the Donald Trump series infobox by the near top (just below the campaign infobox), but I have now added a link to Trump's political positions in the See also section for extra convenience. Much of the material documented in the current article is unfavorable to Trump, so I don't understand how anybody can get the impression that the article may be 'a piece of paid campaign advocacy.' Gaeanautes (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

i was being somewhat hyperbolic. But considering how negative most sources have been on Trump, I am suprised at how sanguine this article is.2600:1017:B42B:535B:BCDE:A382:E724:7BF3 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Right now the article claims the opposite:
  "Trump's populist political positions which favor protecting Social Security and Medicare while increasing taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers differ from those of establishment Republican positions which favor tax cuts and reform of entitlements."
  --TMCk (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

hi, Tracy. according to the sources I linked to, I agree that that sentence is at best half true. Trump does appear to favor protecting Social Security and Medicare, but also appears to favor cutting taxes on the top tax brackets, and the estate tax, and investment taxes. This is why the taxpolicy institute claims Trump would massively increase the deficit, unlike traditional Republicans, who usually propose to pay for their tax cuts.2600:1017:B42B:535B:BCDE:A382:E724:7BF3 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Aren't the Mexicans paying for this? On a little more serious note, this and related articles really could use some more attention from editors disinterested in the subject. The latter is of course the problem (and a fallacy).--TMCk (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

About this sentence - "Trump's populist political positions which favor protecting Social Security and Medicare while increasing taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers" - I think it must be talking about a proposal to end the remarkable tax break that hedge fund managers currently get, where their income is not taxed as ordinary income, but at a lower rate. Maybe Trump at some point talked about wanting to end that. But if he did, I can't find it in the references to that sentence. And it's also true that his platform proposes enormous tax CUTS for everybody but especially the wealthiest. And we would need to know what is meant by "protecting Social Security and Medicare", which everybody claims to do but the devil is in the details. Anyhow, these - SS and M and hedge fund taxes - are not the points on which he differs from establishment Republicans; free trade is a much clearer point of disagreement (he is against it and favors protectionism, while the establishment loves free trade). We really need to rethink that whole paragraph. Including the baffling claim that he has a populist position on health care. I'll think about it overnight, meanwhile be glad to hear what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I propose to dump this whole paragraph (the first paragraph of the "conservative community" section). The "hedge fund managers" thing is not supported by the references, and Trump has actually called for massive tax cuts for all taxpayers but especially the wealthy. "Protecting Social Security and Medicare" is weasel language that can mean anything. I propose to replace that paragraph as follows:

  Trump's positions - populist, nativist, protectionist, and semi-isolationist - differ in many ways from traditional conservatism. He opposes many free trade deals and military interventionist policies that conservatives support. He opposes cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits. And he insists that Washington is "broken" and can only be fixed by an outsider. Washington-based conservatives have been surprised by the popular support for his rhetoric.

• Comments? I am open to revisions but something like this needs to be done fairly soon. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with you that the existing paragraph needs to be dumped. Your own text proposal works much better. However, I have some suggestions for improvement:

- I would like an emphasis on the fact that Trump's positions are 'right-wing populist' (the article itself is part of the 'Populism' series, as revealed by the infobox by the top). In effect, the first sentence in the paragraph should read: "Trump's right-wing populist positions — nativist, protectionist and semi-isolationist — ..."

- I think the last word in the paragraph is misleading: "Washington-based conservatives have been surprised by the popular support for his rhetoric." It is not 'rhetoric', it is 'positions'. At any rate, the word 'rhetoric' does not even appear in the sourced article — which is all the more surprising, considering how much rhetoric Trump does pour out relentlessly :-D

- I think the section headline should be changed from "Conservative movement" to "Conservatism versus right-wing populism". This better reflects the section text as a whole by now.

That's all from me on this. Don't wait too long before putting the text in the article where it belongs :-) Gaeanautes (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll take your first two suggestions. I think the subsection heading is better as it is, because it fits better into the main section heading "People and groups". --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes: I see you changed it to "Conservative community in divide". I don't agree with that. The section is about various communities; almost all of them are "in divide", that is, some pro Trump and some con; there is no need to add that phrase to just one of them. The main section is called "people and groups" and I think simply defining what community you are talking about is preferable to trying to summarize how that community feels in the subsection title. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Point taken. I have now reverted my edit. Thank you for the correction. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

American Busines Leaders Warren Buffet, Eric Schmidt, Reed Hastings, Sheryl Sandburg: Trump would destroy America

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/23/netflix-ceo-says-trump-would-destroy-much-of-what-is-great-about-america.html

Major news, as the heads of America's top corporations, such as Facebook, Alphabet, Google, Berkshire Hathaway, Netflix and others come together to tell Americans that Trump "would destroy much of what is great about America." Please, someone add this as a much needed counterpoint to the non-neutral claims that Trump is somehow qualified for the presidency because of his rich fund of experience in setting up fraudulent universities, and selling Trump-branded steaks, ties, and cologne (made in China, pronounced JI-na in the Trump idolect.)

Someone, please add.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/23/netflix-ceo-says-trump-would-destroy-much-of-what-is-great-about-america.htmlA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.71.149 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hm, yes – I suppose we could create a new sub-section in the 'People and groups' section called 'Business leaders' or 'Business community'; but I think we need more than one statement and one article to give it enough encyclopedic ('wikipedic') weight. So, feel free to return with some extra material on the issue when available. Maybe I'll even start looking myself... Gaeanautes (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I have returned with a few more sources on the signedstatement by 56 business leaders, including Buffet, Schmidt, sandburg, et al.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/23/current-and-former-business-leaders-endorse-clinton-call-trump-unqualified/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/06/23/current-and-former-business-leaders-endorse-clinton-call-trump-unqualified/iu5Qhe7mzX8KQ42nvGupGN/story.html
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/reed-hastings-slams-donald-trump-1201802091/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/business-leaders-endorse-clinton_us_576c0b84e4b0b489bb0c9e91
There should be still more out therr on the business leaders statement, which I do think is noteworthy, considering how notable most of these people are.
Unrelatedly,, there is also some good coverage of Trump rallies in this TNR piece, which may be of interest for our readers:
https://newrepublic.com/article/134329/american-horror-story
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/06/nc-trump-rally-account-scariest-thing
2600:1017:B42B:535B:BCDE:A382:E724:7BF3 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

COATRACK. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of these business leaders are Democrats. But if we mention that some business leaders are moving from Republican to back Clinton, we need to provide other views of their reasons, per weight. For example Henry Paulson, who bailed out the banks, is backing Clinton because he fears Trump will not cut social security, medicare or medicaid.[9] TFD (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Would a section like this also be the place to mention the large number of corporations which normally contribute to the costs of the Republican National Convention but have decided not to do so this year? --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is information on this at 2016 Republican National Convention (not saying it shouldn't also be here, just FYI). See second paragraph of the "Attendance and officials skipping convention" sub-heading. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have now created a 'Business community' section, documenting the collective statement from the business leaders. On the other hand, I am NOT going to touch the material provided from New Republic and Crooks and Liars. Anybody can do some Trump-bashing, but it is of no encyclopedic interest unless it grows to huge amounts in the nearer future — and even then it should be documented only carefully. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @ User: MelanieN and User: Safehaven86: I have added a 'See also' reference by the top of the section, and a new paragraph by the end. That should do the trick. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a little uneasy about this passage: "According to the statement, Trump had failed to present concrete policies, and he himself was an unqualified opportunist who lacked sound judgment in most matters." Can we find direct quotes so we can put quotation marks around things like "unqualified opportunist", rather than paraphrasing? --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I also think we should mention that the statement was released by the Clinton campaign.CFredkin (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reminder that content on Wikipedia needs to be sourced (and neutrally written).CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC) BTW, I am referring primarily to the last para of the section here.CFredkin (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) I did find this in the accompanying statements: "Donald Trump has failed to put forth concrete and realistic policies to help the American people and grow the economy". So that much is citable. But most of the statements are devoted to endorsing Clinton rather than bashing Trump. The anti-Trump comments include "would set our Nation on a very dark path" and "Donald Trump’s continued praise of authoritarian figures and support for dangerous and erratic policies". But I did not find anything about being unqualified, or opportunist, or lacking sound judgment, and I think we need to remove or modify those things unless we can find support for them in the references. For that matter, "According to the statement" is also incorrect; there was no general statement from the 60 of them, just individual comments. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also there's this: "Trump would destroy much of what is great about America." And here is where "opportunist" came from: "The American people need an advocate, not an opportunist.” " --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed this sentence: "According to the statement, Trump had failed to present concrete policies, and he himself was an unqualified opportunist who lacked sound judgment in most matters. Instead, the group endorsed Clinton's campaign." - while we work on it here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• How about something like this instead? "Accompanying comments included claims that Trump "has failed to put forth concrete and realistic policies to help the American people and grow the economy," that he "would set our Nation on a very dark path," and that he supports "dangerous and erratic policies". " --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Alternative which I like better, because it focuses on the comments that have gotten the most coverage by third parties: "Accompanying comments included claims that Trump "has failed to put forth concrete and realistic policies to help the American people and grow the economy," that he "would set our Nation on a very dark path," and that he "would destroy much of what is great about America." --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have put this version into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

I want to call out a particularly egregious misuse of sources here. The source in question, "Netflix CEO says 'Trump would destroy much of what is great about America'" (CNBC), focuses on criticism of Trump by a host of major business leaders. But CFredkin instead cites the source to write: "Trump has been endorsed by a number of members of the business community..." I mean, why not just hang out a sign that says "I have no respect for the content or context of reliable sources, except insofar as I can use them to advance my political agenda"? This is extremely poor editing, and I've reworded the sentence so that it reflects the content of the source. More generally, we should probably review the article to ensure that sources are being used to convey their actual content, and not cherry-picked or misused in this manner. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to list business leaders who oppose him, we absolutely need to list business leaders who support him too. Maybe with better references. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Up to you guys. I don't know that there's a need to list either supporters or detractors in the business community by name. My objection was based on misusing the source in question. If it's used, then it needs to be used honestly. If it's not used, I'm fine with that too. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The source you mention above does say "Some in the business community have backed Trump including billionaires like investor Carl Icahn, Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone and distressed asset investor Wilbur Ross," so I'm not sure how it fails WP:V. The fact that the source also verifies other content, specifically about Trump's opponents, doesn't seem to me to negate the fact that it also verifies specific content about his supporters. It's not like we're not documenting his lack of support in the business community here, we have three paragraphs on that: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Business community. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The source documents that Trump's reception by the business community has been largely, but not entirely, negative. To cherry-pick only the few positive sentences about Trump, and to ignore both the vast majority of the source's content and its overall message, is a poor editing practice, because it flips the meaning of the source on its head. I don't know how to explain this more clearly. Do you really see no problem with using a source entitled "Netflix CEO says 'Trump would destroy much of what is great about America'" to write the phrase "Trump has been endorsed by a number of members of the business community..."? MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a better, more neutral source listing who has endorsed him, please go ahead and use it to replace the source you object to. Meanwhile I have added a comment from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the business community is "cautious" about both Trump and Clinton. That's about as neutral as you can get. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Melanie. If you don't like the source, feel free to remove it. The article has numerous other sources that verify the content, perhaps with titles more to your liking. See "Donald Trump nabs billionaire GOP backer T. Boone Pickens", "Silicon Valley Titan Peter Thiel Is Backing Donald Trump". Safehaven86 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative Community" commentator section

The last paragraph of the "Conservative community" subsection - the one about conservative commentators - is a mess. I did a little rearranging, but I think it needs a complete rewrite - and in the spirit of the Discretionary Sanctions, I'd like to work out the new wording here. IMO the paragraph gives way too much space to minor figures like John Feehery, and it doesn't even mention Bill Kristol's search for an independent alternative candidate, or the #NeverTrump movement. I'm inclined to eliminate John Feehery entirely; he is not a well known commentator; the only reason he is here at all is that his feud with Kristol was cited in one article (NYT). Surely we can find more prominent and more straightforward examples of Trump supporters in the commenariat. As for Bill Kristol, far more important than any of his quotes or feuds is the fact that he has been trying very hard to find an independent candidate to run against Trump. Also, should that section say something about the #NeverTrump movement, or is it covered elsewhere in the article?

Ah, I found it; it's here: Stop Trump movement. We should just link to it in this section.--MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on some wording to propose, but I'd like some general input here while I do. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For starters, here's a sentence I suggest adding: William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, has been strongly critical of Trump and carried on a very public search for an independent candidate to run against Trump and Clinton in the general election, citing a "patriotic obligation to try and offer the American people a third way." [10][11]] --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm also thinking we should stick to conservatives whose primary role and job is as commentators - not Newt Gingrich, not John Feehery. On the pro-Trump side we already have Rush Limbaugh, with almost a paragraph of his own. We should add Sean Hannity. Who else? Maybe David Horowitz? On the anti-Trump side, we have Bill Kristol (focusing on his independent candidate search, not minor feuds with other people). George Will is also already in the article. Is that enough to provide a survey of conservative commentator feelings? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive
On the pro-Trump side, I would suggest David Duke, or perhaps Don Black, both of whom have been extremely effusive in singing the praises of Trump.63.143.203.202 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not in this section. They are not "commentators", nor are they "conservative" in the general sense of the word. I assume they are listed somewhere as endorsers of Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

Your point is fair enough that men suggested above above are not "conservatives." If you'd like another anti-Trump conservative commentator, I would suggest David Brooks at the Times, who has been refreshingly unequivocal in his denunciations of Trump, suggesting he portends doom for the Republican party, and pointing out how uncanny is the resemblance between Trump's rallies and Hitler's Nuremberg rallies. But as for my initial suggestion, it is not so that their notable endorsements have been listed anywhere within this fine encylopedia. Indeed, it would appear that the Trump worshippers around here have meticulously guarded against any mention within this article (or the endorsements or political positions or main Trump article) of the highly publicized fact that Trump has been gleefully and enthusiastically endorsed by at least 11 American "hate groups", according to the Southern Poverty Law Center-- including Stormfront, the Ku Klux Klan, the Daily Stormer, the American Nazi Party (i.e. essentially all of them.) Every major paper in the country has run a story about how Trump has awakened a new generation of white nationalists through his campaign, and has in many cases revitalized their long-declining memberships, by giving a mainstream advocacy of views which are at least similar enough to theirs as to receive their ringing endorsements. Yet such facts, which are well-established and notable enough to have been repeatedly covered in the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, the National Review, Mother Jones, SLPC and countless other publications across the political spectrum are claimed to be "smears" or "coat-racks" by the intensely partisan writers here. How is Trump's support among white nationalists not worthy of a section within this article? Certainly an outsize amount of the news coverage Trump has generated has revolved around his appeal to White nationalists, and their large numbers among his voters and at his rallies. I will post below some very reliable, and non-libelous sources that I'd like to request someone add to the article, referencing the above claims. Just because Trump's appeal to the white nationalist community reflects poorly on Trump in the eyes of most does not mean mentioning his enthusiastic support among such individuals is a BLP violation or a "smear" or a coatrack, since the topic has received a tremendous amount of mainstream, notable, reliable coverage, is verifiably true, and is of enduring encylopedic interest to our readers. In fact, once Trump loses, this is likely to be the most historically notable thing about Trump's campaign, and why people may have interest in this article in a year or two's time. Here you are: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-supremacists.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/21/how-donald-trump-is-breathing-life-into-americas-dying-white-supremacist-movement/ http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-ln-donald-trump-white-nationalist-delegate-20160510-story.html http://www.npr.org/2015/09/03/437195328/how-white-nationalist-groups-found-their-candidate-in-donald-trump http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-nazi-tweets-of-trump-god-emperor.html https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/433215/donald-trump-white-supremacist-supporters http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-nationalists-support-donald-trump/story?id=37524610 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/02/donald-trumps-son-calls-interview-with-white-nationalist-inadvertent/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/10/donald-trumps-delegate-ineptitude-stumbles-into-white-nationalism/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/donald-trump-delegate-white-nationalist/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/26/us/brawl-at-california-rally/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/stabbed-california-capitol-40147414 http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-updates-white-nationalist-group-that-rallied-in-1467223503-htmlstory.html http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-far-rights-plans-for-the-g-o-p-convention http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/donald-trump-white-nationalist-afp-delegate-california http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-nationalists-see-advancement-through-donald-trumps-candidacy-1463523858 https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/28/trump-sacramento-and-future-white-nationalism-interview-matthew-heimbach http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/white-nationalists-trump-delegates http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-american-renaissance-2016-conference http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/portraits-american-renaissance-conference-trump-supporters http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/10/donald-trump-has-another-brush-with-a-white-nationalist/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-white-supremacists_us_55dce43ee4b08cd3359dc41a http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article86317537.html http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-s-message-heartens-white-nationalists-701868099909 http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/26/us/brawl-at-california-rally/ http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/30/the-intellectual-case-for-trump-i-why-the-white-nationalist-support/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-white-nationalists_us_56dd99c2e4b0ffe6f8e9ee7c https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inside-a-white-nationalist-conference-energized-by-trumps-ri References I'd suggest we at least add a sentence to the lede such as the following: "Trump's candidacy has been enthusiastically supported by white nationalists and white supremacists, some of whom have been selected as delegates by the Trump campaign. Often, these groups claim that the Trump campaign has revitalized their movement , bringing massive increases in membership to these organizations with the attention Trump has drawn to their signature issues." What do you think? 63.143.201.75 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not in the lede. We could talk about a section in the "people and groups". --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive
I'd also like to request that someone add a section to this article entitled "Trump's support among White Nationalists". Given all the coverage this has generated, we would be remiss to not add a section on the topic. 63.143.200.218 (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There should be a short section for the Stop Trump Movement, and possibly Never Trump. They are not the same thing.- MrX 19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Request accepted here. Thanks for the mass of material offered. I'll start working on a 'White supremacists' sub-section in the 'People and groups' section. Contrary to User: MelanieN, I think there should be some mention of the subject in the lead section as well. I don't know why this has not already been done. The bold allegation that "Trump worshippers around here have meticulously guarded against any mention" of white supremacist support in the present article is obviously running counter to the Wikipedia principle of neutrality. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

Gaeanautes, first of all, this is a talk page. Thus my claim that Trump worshippers have scrubbed the page of mention of white supremacists cannot, by definition, run counter to NPOV. NPOV is a principle for writing articles (articles must be neutral). I don't even understand what it would mean to have a policy that says talk pages must be neutral. How would this work-- am I supposed to myself lack opinions on the article's content in order to be neutral enough to discuss it? Now, I will concede that my comment was rather hyperbolic and something of an exaggeration meant to bring attention to a deficiency in the article. I thus apologize if my reference to "Trump worshippers" offended you, and will promise to stick to the article content from hereout. That being said, I stand by the underlying point about content, though poorly expressed: It is unacceptable to have such little coverage of the enthusaiastic endorsements of, support for, and rich web of connections between, Donald Trump and organizations dedicated to white supremacy, such as the Klan, Stormfront, the Daily Stormer, the American Freedom Party, American Renaissance, etc. Hopefully, we can both put my aside where it belongs (aside) and focus on how we can best put this notable material into the article. As I suspect, this may be the most interesting aspect of the article for scholars, historians, and readers within a few years time, presuming Trump loses, in the way that the George Wallace campaign is now remembered for his positions on segregation and support among white supremacist organizations, rather than any of his other forgotten political views. 63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree there should be a paragraph in the "people and groups" section, roughly the same size and amount of detail the other groups (i.e., a paragraph or two). I disagree about the lede. Unless we are going to name in the lede EVERY group that supports him - and right now none are mentioned there - it would be massively WP:UNDUE as well as WP:POV to call attention to just the White supremacists in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And if they aren't listed at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, somebody should add them.--MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

Hi Melanie. Regarding the P.S: Definitely none of the endorsements from leaders of the, shall we say, controversial groups mentioned above are listed in the Trump endorsement page. To my mind, this makes said page read like a campaign advertisement, since only the endorsements which the campaign is proud of are allowed to be listed. I tried to add, some time back, the single sentence, "David Duke, former Louisiana State Senator, Reform Party Presidential Candidate, and Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan." I included a couple linked sources to Duke's endorsement in which he tells his followers "Voting against Trump would be treason to your white heritage" as well as other such strongly worded statements. Editors quickly removed the addition on spurious grounds, claiming this was "not an endorsement", a baffling assertion. That is one of the most strongly worded political endorsements I have ever heard; if this is not an endorsement, then what is? I can provide some references in a moment to Duke's and Black's endorsements, who are probably the only two with public notability sufficient to warrant their inclusion. 63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) As for the question of the lede, I don't care particularly much if mention of the White supremacist/nationalist/separatist support for Trump goes in the lede. I suggested so initially because it is my belief that Wikipedia policy states that "all significant controversies MUST be mentioned in the lede." People seem to widely ignore this policy, however. I would be satisfied to at least see the material included in the article, as I find it puzzling that a topic on which I can find at least 100 unique articles from the nations top newspapers, magazines, and media outlets receives only an oblique, tangential mention in this article--- as if the ONLY notable issue involving Trump and supremacists was the David Duke disavowal gaffe, and the bare mention of Taylor, without any context. Further, these incidents themselves are laughably misrepresented and editorialized to make Trump look better than simple mention of the facts. Why not, in discussing the Trump-Duke-Tapper furor, simply quote Trump's own words and let the reader decide what they constitute, rather than judging them a "terse disavowal"? This is what Trump actually said: "I don't know anything about David Duke. okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know, did he endorse me or what's going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about. …I don't know any -- honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I have ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him." Much of the issue here is that these statements were objectively and unequivocally disproven, as Trump and Duke ran against each other for the Reform party nomination in 2000, at which time Trump said the following: ""Well, you've got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party," Trump said on Feb. 14, 2000. So this whole section needs to be re-written to show that Trump pretended not to know who Duke was, saying "I don't know anything about David Duke...And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about" when 15 years earlier he had stated publicly "Well you've got David Duke just joined-- a big racist, a problem." 63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Furthermore, there are far more relevant Trump-Supremacy issues than these. For example (but by no means the only things worthy of mention): The Trump riot in Sacremento, where white supremacists and Trump supporters stabbed 10 counter-protestors 63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) The White Nationalist delegate issue. Originally this was blamed as an "error" and promises were made that the supremacist delegates had been removed. However, none were actually removed prior to the deadline. Moreover, the groups themselves claim to have many more supremacist delegates "hidden" that have not reveealed their identities. Even if the claims of further delegates are false, this issue is notable enough for inclusion. 63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) More on the American Renaissance Conference support for Trump. This group has been strongly evangelizing for Trump since the beginning of the campaign, and has scheduled notable conferences centered on the theme that Trump is the "last chance for a president that would be good for white people", and is the only way for the "white race" (scarequotes are mine) to avoid "minority status in our own country."63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) This is but an apertif to whet your appetite for the material still to come. Still, I believe my point has been sufficiently demonstrated that an expansion of the "Jared Taylor and David Duke" section is in order. And that section should be renamed, since most readers will not necessarily know these men by names. At the least, I'd suggest the organizations that these men represent, "American Renaissance Conference and the Ku Klux Klan"; or preferably, I would suggest something like "Support for the Trump campaign among White separatists/nationalists/supremacists" (I don't quite know what these individuals prefer to be called.)63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) References

I think a "White Supremacist" section in addition to the existing "Jared Taylor and David Duke" section would be WP:Undue.CFredkin (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. I missed that section because it is under "controversies". (And so much for the allegation above that "Trump worshippers around here have meticulously guarded against any mention" of this subject. More evidence that we should AGF and not jump to conclusions.) I would suggest that section be renamed "White separatist groups" or some such thing and moved to the "people and groups" section. @Gaeanautes: please note this material before you spend a lot of time trying to write a section from scratch. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

Melanie, as you will see above, I was well aware of this "section." Some points against it: First, it grossly misrepresents the events it describes, taking Trump's official version of events on faith. Assume good faith applies to the editors doing the writing; with politicians being written about, we need not assume their public claims are true, but must verify them. As I showed above, Trump's version of events is demonstrably false, and has been shown to be such by independent fact-checking organizations, yet we are allowing the disproven version to stand here. Second, it fails to mention a vast number of related points of controversy-- the notable recent American Renaissance conference, the American Freedom party's Trump delegates, none of whom were actually removed despite promises by Trump (or as the party is sometimes known, the American Nazi party), Duke's comments about Trump "voting against Trump would be treason to your white heritage, the California neo-Nazi riot at which white nationalists for Trump stabbed 10 people (there are several similar incidents we could put together here), the surge inm popularity of white nationalism since the Trump campaign began, etc. There is much more here than the cursory mention of Jared Taylor and David Duke, with little to no explanation of who these men, or their organizations are. There is just no way anyone can think that "section" (it is really just a couple of sentences) provides sufficient coverage of this issue. This would also be a good place to include mention of Trump's role in spreading the racist "birther" canard about Obama, as this is how Trump originally became a hero to these individuals, so aggreived at having a president with black skin. Without mentioning the birther issue, we've not given readers appropriate context.63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Why not just expand the manifestly insufficient present section?63.143.206.232 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Also OK. Whatever people here think about where it should go. But one place or the other, not both. Personally I think it would be more punchy if made into a section about White separatist/ White supremacist/ White nationalist (we need to decide what name to use) groups, rather than a "controversy" about how so-and-so said such-and-such. Many readers here might not recognize those names or realize what they represent. Not all readers here are Americans, and not all Americans are old enough for the name David Duke to mean anything. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. re "manifestly insufficient": It should not be expanded to the point of overwhelming the article, or providing much more detailed coverage than all the other groups we are talking about. This is merely one facet of the campaign, out of many. If you think it deserves massive coverage, write a fork article on the subject and see if it survives AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

To 63.143.206.232 and your other IPs, two points: First, you say you were aware of the Taylor/Duke section in "controversies" this article, and yet you still said that "Trump worshippers around here have meticulously guarded against any mention within this article" of the white supremacist support. That is untrue and apparently you knew it was untrue. What does that do for your credibility here? Second, please stop overwhelming this page with paragraphs here and paragraphs there and essays somewhere else, all within the same section. It's impossible to follow and it weakens your points rather than strengthening them. There's no way I, or anyone, is going to pick through this section and find all your additions and respond to them. Sometimes less is more. Your enthusiasm (and the fact that you are so very, very eager to include massive coverage of this subject) is undermining your effectiveness in getting some material added. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

First, I've started a new section below to alleviate your concerns. At least the material and sources will be there for posterity should anyone have the desire to add anything. Second, I already apologized for the "Trump worshippers" remark above, and I admit it was hyperbolic and I regret if it offended you. Still, the section as written really only focuses on the "controversy" of the "did he or didn't he?" Trump-Duke disavowal, rather than the support. Perhaps I slightly overstated things in saying that there was "no mention" of Trump's support among white supremacists, but I would stand by the qualified claim that there is "hardly any mention" or "insufficient mention" of said support. This is the last I will write for today, and if anyone wants to move all this material to the section I created below to keep topics and comments together, I would be appreciative. 63.143.206.232 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have several points to make:

@User:CFredkin I disagree that a new section on 'White supremacists' is WP:Undue. The 'Jared Taylor and David Duke' subsection mostly documents a minor incident about Trump disavowing Duke and the mishap of a poor earpiece. What's the broader encyclopedic relevance of this? It's trivial material that could be deleted altogether for all I care. I think the mass of material posted by IP#63.143.206.232 merits a much more extensive exposition on our part. According to my best judgment, we'll (I'll) have to create a new section from scratch on this. Maybe I should post the preliminary text on this talk page due to the sensitive and controversial nature of the subject matter?

@63.143.206.232: I'm sorry I came to express myself so poorly about your bold allegation "Trump worshippers around here have meticulously guarded against any mention..." in my earlier post. What I ment was that if your allegation were true, then the editing situation concerning Trump would violate WP guidelines. I did NOT mean to say you should refrain from expressing your opinion or refrain from making such allegation in the first place. At any rate, I was not personally offended by your allegation, since I'm not personally responsible for other editor's work on Wikipedia as a whole. So, the talk process is proceeding fine as far as I am concerned. OK?

@IP#63.143.206.232 (again): I think episodes of violence and riots related to Trump's campaigning should be put in the Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article.

@IP#63.143.206.232 (once again): I agree with User:MelanieN that the style and volume of your posting is overwhelming and disruptive. Always post in chronological order from top to bottom, please. Why don't you create your own WP account so you can do some editing and cut back on the talking? Or just do the last thing mentioned, please.

@User:MelanieN: You are suggesting IP#63.143.206.232 may not be in good faith. I understand your point of view. However, IP#63.143.206.232 argues that the sub-section on 'Jared Taylor and David Duke' is a piece of POV-edition, which may reinforce his allegations about "Trump worshippers". I still assume IP#63.143.206.232 is in good faith, but that he is somewhat overstating his own case. Many people do. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You We can stop assuming good faith. All these IPs have now been exposed as socks of a blocked user. (Thank you, MrX.) So we can use whatever useful links they may have offered, and otherwise shove them to one side and get on with improving the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Material on 'White supremacists'

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

In light of Melanie's point, I've created a new section for discussion of Trump's support among White Supremacists. Please feel free to relocate any previous discussion here, if it is helpful. A suggestion was made that we rename (and expand) the "Jared Taylor/David Duke" section to "White separatist/supremacist/nationalist support for Trump campaign". I agree as few will know who these men are without their organizations. Let me give an argument for why it should be "Supremacists" rather than the alternatives. Firstly, any of the titles are really misnomers anyway, since these groups are nearly always neo-Nazi in their ideology; i.e they are fiercely anti-semitic (this term is itself another misnomer, since "Semites" should include all speakers of Semitic languages, such as Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopian, in addition to Hebrew, but let's leave this aside). But despite these groups being anti-Semitic, the plain fact is that Jews are plainly (most of us, at least) "White", certainly as "White" as other "White Americans," and there is a sizable portion of "White America" that these supposed "nationalists" wish to exclude from their "nation"; therefore, it doesn't really make very much sense to call groups that desire the removal of Jews from America "white separatists" or "white nationalists." "WASP Nationalism" would thus be far more accurate if one really insists on calling these ignoble men "Nationalists" of any sort given the antipathy to Jews, Catholics such as Mexicans, Hispanics, the Pope, and Muslims, irrespective of skin color, in addition to Black Africans. Their hatred knows no bounds. "White supremacists" is, I therefore think, much less misleading, for such reasons, especially since it is more vague and nearly everyone will agree that these groups at least advocate the "supremacy" of whites to non-whites. It is still not exactly accurate, as it obfuscates how much vitriol is directed by these groups at Whites whom they also hate, such as Jews. "Hate groups" would probably be most accurate of all, given the above, as well as the hate and violence towards LGBT Americans. But at the least, we don't really know that all of these groups in all cases advocate an all-white nation, or a "white secession" (though I have read a poll in the Times showing 20 percent of Trump supporters do oppose the emancipation proclamation, and presumably the number is higher among his supremacist supporters), and so I do think supremacist is better as an umbrella term for the 11 or so hate groups that have endorsed Trump, according to the SLPC. Secondly, I thought Wikipedia policy opposed euphemisms. It is known to everyone that white nationalism and separatism are euphemisms introduced by these groups themselves to cast themselves in a more positive light and fairly disingenuously associating themselves with nationalist movements, although "Whites" are a (rather dubious) category that includes members of many Groups that recognize themselves as independent nations, nearly all of which generally want nothing to do with "White nationalists", and some of whom, as I have shown, are actively despised by these same supposed "nationalists." Third, the sources usually call them supremacists, not nationalists. In conclusion, my vote is for calling them Supremacists.63.143.206.232 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @IP#63.143.206.232: I have several points to make to you:

Fine to create a new section. I have now shortened the headline somewhat for convenience. Headlines should always be short.

"Please feel free to relocate any previous discussion here, if it is helpful," you say...? "Why, do it yourself," I reply. You want to co-edit an encyclopedia, but you can't (won't) even clean up your own mess on this talk page?! Come on! Put your posts in chronological order from top to bottom so they mix in a readable and intelligible manner with the posts of other editors, thank you very much.

Your discussion of correct wording is wildly over the top. The subsection to be created should be called 'White supremacists', because there is already a relevant WP article on White supremacy around to describe the groups of people concerned. Always look around in WP beforehand when making such decisions. 'Hate groups' is too inaccurate if you compare the two articles concerned.

I think your posts are too long. In the present case, please don't waste words on white supremacists hating Jews although some or most Jews are white, etc. This discussion has got nothing to do with Trump's presidential campaign, which is, after all, what the current article is about. You are merely tiring your co-editors, including yours truly. Refer to talk page guidelines for further information and enlightenment on this.

Let me repeat my earlier encouragement to you: "Why don't you create your own WP account so you can do some editing and cut back on the talking?" You may be an eager, albeit inexperienced newbie by now, but you may evolve into a seasoned WP editor over time.

That's all for now :-) Regards, Gaeanautes (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My points would be: 1) having more than one section devoted to content on so-called white nationalists would be undue; 2) the section on white nationalists needs to be of due weight; 3) the title "Jared Taylor and David Duke" is probably not optimal. My suggestion would be for the section to be called "White Nationalists", for some or all of the content in the existing section be removed, and for any of the content remaining in the existing section to be included in the White Nationalists section. At this point, I don't have a strong opinion regarding where the section should reside.CFredkin (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter response

This post is not appropriate here. We don't post attack statements by an opponent or their campaign in a candidate's campaign article. There are many statements by Trump attacking Clinton that could be included in her campaign article, but I don't see any there.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed it. (But could you please manage to talk about edits here on their own terms and on the basis of Wikipedia policy, instead of always comparing them to what is and isn't in the Clinton article? That kind of talk makes it seem apparent that your intentions at this article here are purely partisan.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your most recent edits, the ones downplaying the link between Trump's tweet and the white supremacist account that created the image, reinforce the perception that your intentions at this article here are purely partisan. See 1 and 2 Rockypedia (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• User: Rockypedia and I believe that the removal of this material seems arbitrary (he has restored it by now). I think User: CFredkin should feel free to post any Trump attacks on Clinton in the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. I don't see why this should be against Wikipedia guidelines...?

– It has been duly noted that User: MelanieN has asserted that CFredkin's intentions at this article are 'purely partisan', and CFredkin merely replied 'Thanks'. Thank you for being so honest with the rest of us :-0 Gaeanautes (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not accurate. I did not assert anything; I gave him some advice about how NOT to appear partisan, and he replied "Thanks." --MelanieN (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Rockypedia, please be more careful to read the caution at the top of the page when you edit at this article. This article is under discretionary sanctions, which means there are additional rules about how you can post here (to prevent edit warring on such a hot subject). When you restored this sentence, you violated the part of the rules which says you "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article." You could be blocked without warning for that. I am not going to do that, but I am giving you the necessary warning. And I request somebody else (not me so that I do not violate the one-reversion rule) to remove this contentious sentence while we discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it's an inappropriate sentence at all. It's a reaction to the tweeting incident by a prominent staffer of Trump's opposition, it's sourced, it's relevant, and the only reason I can think of that someone would want it removed is if they're pro-Trump and don't want to see negative commentary on his actions on the page (obviously that wouldn't be a good reason). CFredkin said "We don't post attack statements by an opponent or their campaign in a candidate's campaign article" - who's "we"? since when is that Wikipedia policy? I agree that "User: CFredkin should feel free to post any Trump attacks on Clinton in the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article." - as long as they're sourced and relevant.

My apologies to MelanieN for overstepping the discretionary sanctions; I knew an editor could be blocked for edit warring, but I didn't realize that extended to a first edit (reversion) from a new party to the contentious edit; I know more now than I did when I got here. Rockypedia (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Rocky. This article is different from most Wikipedia articles, the rules are much stricter. The same is true of the Hillary Clinton campaign article, and some other articles on especially hot-button subjects. That's why there is a huge orange warning at the top of the edit page.

Back to the subject, about whether to include this sentence: There is not an absolute prohibition on quoting attacks by the candidate's opponent in the article about a campaign. Sometimes a particular attack is noteworthy enough, or draws enough attention on its own, that it should be included. That is a judgment call. In this case, to quote in its entirety a comment from a spokesperson for the other campaign is excessive IMO. That's my opinion, and the opinion of at least one other person here, and that means it needs to be discussed before anything is added. Personally I do think we could expand a little on the article's current vague reference to "social media criticism of the image, some calling it antisemitic", and I'll give some thought to that. For one thing, it wasn't the (predictable?) criticism by the Hillary campaign that has turned this into a huge incident; it was the strong reaction from neutral sources that threw the Trump campaign on the defensive and caused them to revise the image. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are examples of the kind of reactions I think are more notable, because they come from Republicans:

In a rebuke on Tuesday, the House speaker, Paul Ryan, said in a radio interview with Charlie Sykes on WTMJ in Milwaukee, according to The Hill website: “Look, anti-Semitic images, they’ve got no place in a presidential campaign. Candidates should know that.”[12]

“A Star of David, a pile of cash, and suggestions of corruption,” Erick Erickson, a conservative commentator, posted on Twitter. “Donald Trump again plays to the white supremacists.”[13]

I'm not saying we should quote comments like these in full, but abstract the gist. Let me work on that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I find it unencyclopedic to fill an article with quotes. It readers better to summarize what people say. For example we could say that the Clinton campaign accused Trump of showing a pattern of re-tweeting pictures from racist websites. I do not think though that any reliable source would call two re-tweets in four months a pattern, so we should not imply that it is. TFD (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't think any reliable source would call it a pattern?

NY Times "the latest example of a longtime pattern of racially charged remarks by Mr. Trump"

Washington Post "Republicans saw the episode as part of a broader pattern"

Fortune Magazine "It's a pattern"

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "pattern of Mr. Trump retweeting messages from openly racist individuals"

Politics USA "Trump has retweeted white supremacists 75 times since his campaign began"

Jonathan Greenblatt "It’s a pattern that’s perplexing, troubling and wrong"

The New Republic "pattern where the candidate freely borrows images from the racist far right"

Newsweek "Trump's pattern (strategy?) of outraging people and then blaming the media"

Bloomberg News "the pattern is clear"

There's more, but we get the idea. Rockypedia (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-organized the entry about this tweet so that it is better organized and more concise. And instead of the extended quotes from Corey Lewandowski and the Clinton campaign spokesman, I have summarized them within the one single paragraph. About the "pattern" question mentioned above, which possibly should be a separate section on this talk page: I think a sentence could be added saying many observers described this as part of a pattern of racially charged remarks, but maybe that "pattern of racially charged remarks" information should go in another section of the article rather than this one.--MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with the last edit except for the fact that it completely erases the connection to the people that originated the image - and that connection is a fact that's in every single news source about the image. I hope that was an honest mistake. I'm re-adding it along with the NY Times article reference that seems to be the more evenly balanced coverage of it that I've found. Rockypedia (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was there, in the last sentence. I'm OK with putting it in the first sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to this edit which places the reference to the white supremacist site first in the para. The controversy originated with comparisons of the star in the image to the Star of David. I have requested that the editor involved self-rv, until there is consensus on the issue here. He/she is way over the 1RR policy in effect at the article. CFredkin (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states "controversy originated with comparisons of the star in the image to the Star of David"? Because everything I've read highlights the connection to white supremacists right up front. It's easily the most notable part of the entire episode; I can provide 100 sources for that if you like, but I'm pretty sure you can find them too. If you need help with finding reliable sources, I can help you with that. Just ask. Rockypedia (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Using existing sources: Trump retracts tweet on 7/2 after Star of David comparison. On 7/3, Mic discovers previous use of image on white supremacist site.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, that source doesn't say "controversy originated with comparisons of the star in the image to the Star of David" or anything like it. That's still just your opinion (see WP:OR) The CBS article is merely an article you found that reports the tweet's initial reception. Less than 24 hours later, all sources were reporting the connection to white supremacists. That part of the story was far more notable, and attracted far more attention, than the initial tweet. Rockypedia (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You can reasonably dispute whether the content should be ordered chronologically. But the evidence that the controversy over the tweet started with the Star of David comparisons is incontrovertible.CFredkin (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but that's a different argument than the one you were originally making. Is the controversy notable because the star was a Star of David, or is the controversy notable because it came from a white supremacist source? Given that every article highlighted that connection once the connection was discovered, mere hours after the tweet was initially sent out, the answer seems pretty clear. What reason do you have for wanting to not highlight that connection when every reliable source does? Rockypedia (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In this case the # of headlines seems to be driven by sensationalism, and based on WP:SENSATION I don't think we should be using that as a basis for highlighting that factoid (rather than presenting the situation chronologically).CFredkin (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and to paraphrase one your early posts in this section, your insistence on highlighting the most sensational content in this article reinforces the perception that your intentions at this article here are purely partisan.CFredkin (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A laughable opinion, considering that every single one of your edits for the last several years is pushing a particular point of view. Anyone can pick one of your last 500 edits at random to see this is the case. I'm here to keep Wikipedia neutral. The evidence of your edits, and your deletions from your own talk page, show that you are interested in pushing POV. Rockypedia (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Given your extensive experience with edit warring, with others, it's clear what you're trying to accomplish here. Your previous block for sockpuppetry and your quick deletion of that block from your talk page speaks volumes about your motivations. I'm all for civility and assuming good faith, but your behavior is far, far, beyond that frontier, and when someone attempts to push their point of view on an article talk page by attacking my character and motivation, I have no problem with showcasing how you're the actual problem here. Good day, sir. Rockypedia (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Racism and Ant-Semitism in the Lede

I strongly object to this edit as inappropriate and [WP:undue]].CFredkin (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you believe the edit constitutes undue weight? Numerous mainstream sources discuss Trump's statements in terms of racism and/or anti-Semitism. A selection are provided in the edit, but they just that - a selection from a much wider range of sources making essentially the same points. Even the leaders of Trump's own party have repeatedly called him out, explicitly, for using racist and/or anti-Semitic language and tropes in his campaign. This isn't a partisan talking point - it is a widely covered element of the campaign according to independent (or even pro-Trump) reliable sources. Given this extensive coverage, I don't see how this violates WP:WEIGHT. Quite the opposite: the failure to mention such a widely reported aspect of Trump's campaign, and the use of transparently euphemistic language about "political incorrectness" (when the actual sources talk about racism) is a violation of site policy. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:CFredkin that this should be removed from the lede as it is POV and undue. It can go in the body of the text as long as it is referenced, but not in the lede. I tried to remove it but it won't let me. Who is the administrator who owns this article please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I believe the anti-Trump bias in the lede makes Wikipedia look bad.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed; "controversial" is an opinion: "Many of his remarks have been highly controversial and have helped his campaign garner extensive coverage by the mainstream media.".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Trump's most polarizing and widely reported statements"--please remove "most polarizing". It's only polarizing if you disagree with him, so again, it's an opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And "Trump's campaign rallies have attracted large crowds, as well as public controversy.". No, not controversy.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The lede needs to mention Trump's promise of job creation for unemployed and under-employed Americans.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The lede also needs to mention Trump's support for Israel.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s - with respect, none of these suggestions have any merit. That Trump's rallies and statements are polarizing and controversial is a statement of fact that is key to understanding his campaign. As for what the lead section "should mention": Trump's specific lesser-known campaign promises and positions are not lead worthy; they can be discussed, if anywhere, in the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 20:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's the opposite. We should focus on the facts (his rallies attract huge crowds because people want to find jobs and feel safe again), not the negative opinions of the press.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you don't want to engage on the actual sources and Wikipedia policy, so there's little need to continue this discussion. Go read up on this encyclopedia's actual policies and practices. Neutrality^talk 21:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Neutrality on this. Questions of WP:undue involve judgement to some degree. ZigZig's opinion on this seems as relevant as anyone else's.CFredkin (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ZigZig's engaged in OR here. He's making a bald statement about "why people attend Trump rallies" without citing any source whatsoever. But more to the point, that issue is also entirely irrelevant to the actual content at issue. We should focus the discussion on actual content, not political ramblings. Neutrality^talk 21:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

It's not undue, and as per MastCell I would argue it is required for balance—prior to MastCell's edits, we framed the statements exclusively in Trump's view, when in fact there is a substantial body of sources to the contrary either noting the significance of, or actually articulating a different characterization. Neutrality^talk 20:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Setting aside the undue aspect of the content. The statement ("many mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism and anti-Semitism") mischaracterizes the sources. The sources indicate that the charges of racism and anti-semitism have been applied to his statements. The disputed content applies those charges to Trump himself. There's a difference.CFredkin (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would probably be fine with replacing the word "him" with "his statements." MastCell may have a different view, I'm not sure. Neutrality^talk 21:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. His daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren are Jewish. He's a proud supporter of Israel, and he even wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem (see his AIPAC speech). The attack is totally unfair and nonsensical.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Go find a blog or Internet forum if you wish to opine. We are not a forum. What matters here are what the sources say (the Anti-Defamation League, for example, thinks this matter is highly alarming, not "ridiculous"). The fact that you think it "unfair" is meaningless for our purposes. Neutrality^talk 21:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we need to address this issue here. This is what the talkpage is for. I am interested in removing the anti-Trump bias to improve Wikipedia; otherwise frankly it makes us look bad/not neutral (with a left-wing bias). How can he be antisemitic (sic) if his family is Jewish and he supports Israel?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

His son-in-law, obviously, says he's not.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By checing the sources here I found 4 sources about racism, but only one about anti-semitism. In the article on anti-semitism, Paul Ryan condemns posting of the David star, but also says his understanding is that this was done by staff, not by Trump himself. I don't really think the sources provided back up a claim that many prominent commentators/politicians have accused Trump of deliberately trade in anti-Semitism . My own impression by following the campaign is also that controversies about anti-semitism have primarily occured after "unforced errors", like retweets from bad accounts etc, but not about Trump's own statements, policies or important themes of his campaign. The accusations of racism (and islamophobia/anti-Muslim), on the other side, has often been tied to Trump's own deliberate prolific statements and policies. Otherwise, there is always the point that the lede should summarize content in the body, so maybe work this into the body first (in an extended version). Iselilja (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead  accurately summarizes the reference. It doesn't say that Trump himself is anti-semetic. It says that his campaign appeals anti-semetic people such as white supremacists.  Nowa (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• The material about racist appeals does belong in the article. Trump has repeatedly, and unambiguously made overtures to racist views. I'm somewhat less convinced that his recent anti-Semitic tweet is a part of an ongoing effort on the part of his campaign. Assuming that's the case, the sentence needs to be revised to reflect that it was a one-off.- MrX 21:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Returning to this, it seems that there is substantial support for including some mention of this material. Our current wording suggests that Trump is polarizing because he's above being "politically correct", and that his supporters love him for it. That is, at best, a half-truth, and it definitely doesn't represent available reliable sources proportionately or accurately (rather, it represents the Trump campaign's preferred framing and spin). If we're planning to adhere to WP:WEIGHT, then the current wording does a pretty poor job of that. Mainstream sources, up to and including the leaders of Trump's own party, have repeatedly called some of his statements racist. That's notable, well-sourced, well-documented, and really unprecedented, so to fail to mention it in the article lead violates our content policies. (Worse, we sort-of mention it, but we use Trump-campaign-approved spin rather than actual reliably sourced wording). Given the concerns raised about differentiating "Trump" from "statements made by Trump", I will re-word. I am also comfortable leaving out the anti-Semitism wording - while this issue is amply documented in numerous reliable sources, it does seem less WP:WEIGHTy than the repeated concerns about racism in some of Trump's campaign statements. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)