Talk:Make America Great Again/Archive 1

Archive 1

What About Reagan?

I know that this is a redirect. But why Trump's campaign and not to the original? This was Reagan's campaign slogan. It's like if Mitt Romney bought the rights to Yes We Can and is redirected to him and not Obama. I think this should be redirected to Reagan's campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Background

The citations mention that Reagan and the others using it implied a supposed return to a time when the United States were great, "good old times"-style. Any indication on what period Reagan was glorifying or was that left deliberately vague? Dimadick (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually around the Obama administration. Especially during this 2016 election. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Add a picture of Reagan

All current pictures are of Trump's campaign slogan. I propose we add a picture of one of Reagan's buttons.

http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000014/18692_lg.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Make Donald Drumpf Again?

Hi all, an IP removed the section describing John Olliver's parody of Donald's adoption of this phrase. As a pop culture reference directly related to this phrase and its current champion, I believe it should stay in. Does anyone know of any specific policy that would indicate its inclusion one way or another? Lizzius (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly noteworthy and relevant for the reason you identify. Wide media coverage, appropriate weight in article. Neutrality^talk 03:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

MAHA

@Patar knight: in special:diff/750736324 mentioned Make America Hate Again was present on this article but I don't see it mentioned. Was it removed in the last couple weeks? Ranze (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It was. Trivia section was removed in this edit. Before that, the content you're referring to was in the article for several months, but only primary sources were ever cited. Politrukki (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not true, that diff shows that some of the sources was were to reliable outlets such Time Magazine, the Globe and Mail, etc. I've restored the section but only with entries that have reliable sourcing. I've also prose-ified it as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edits look pretty fine, many thanks! Two points:
1. You misunderstood my comment, which was specifically referring to "Make America hate again" bullet point. One of the sources, which you have also included in the new version, used in another bullet point was actually added by me.
2. I reviewed the sources you provided in your RFD comment, but I was able to find "Make America hate again" phrase only in two sources. In five cases the phrase was exclusively included in a headline. If the result in RFD is "retarget to Make America Great Again", then "MAHA" should be mentioned here briefly, but only if the source actually mentions MAHA. Please note that headlines are not generally considered reliable sources for content. For instance The New York Times could be cited to say that "Make America Hate Again" phrase was a headline in a NYT op-ed, but that kind of content alone would be useless trivia. Politrukki (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin Schulz

Why was the use of a similar slogan by Martin Schulz removed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(Let's) Make America Great Again

Is it worth noting that before Donald Trump appropriated (and trademarked) the slogan, it was always "Let's make America great again" when Reagan used it in 1980? Jon Stewart raised this point. See: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/watch-jon-stewarts-hilarious-smackdown-of-donald-trump-is-his-best-yet/ 174.2.222.208 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well this is interesting, it looks like it was taken away from the article and here I am learning about it in the talk section in 2017. I also notice it in Reagan's logo, some difference should be noted between his and Trumps. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump's Section and Picture Should be Banner

Reagan did not use the slogan in a ubiquitous manner as Donald J. Trump did. The slogan is widely associated with him; if you asked most people what you thought of when hearing "make America great again," they'd say "Donald Trump."24.45.168.33 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on this part, he was the one to popularize "Make America Great Again" , Reagan's slogan was "Let's Make America Great Again". Any other thoughts? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

1927 Mussolini speech.

In 1927, arguably Mussolini made a speech to Americans where he said "Make America Great". Should that be added here?ShimonChai (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, That definitely doesn't belong here. The article is about 'Make America Great AGAIN' , picking and choosing words and then adding it to this space doesn't make sense, at least to me. I'm also pretty sure he didn't speak English. This article is also clearly about the slogan Trump popularized. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Peer Review

The article is clear and organized. On a difficult topic to remain neutral, the others do a good job of citing reliable sources and stating facts not opinion. They have a clear layout and their is no argument, just an explanation of what MAGA is. Gracemorgan192 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Social media usage relating to #maga

I plan to create a subsection titled Social Media Usage under the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign section and will add: Donald Trump took the campaign slogan to social media (primarily Twitter), using the hashtag #makeamericagreatagain and its abbreviation #maga. Many found Trump's frequent use of social media to be unprofessional; however, Trump defended himself by tweeting "My use of social media is not Presidential - it’s MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" on July 1st, 2017 (Graham). In the first half of 2017 alone, Trump has repeated his slogan on Twitter 33 times (Whitehouse). In an article for Bloomberg, Whitehouse noted "A regression analysis suggests the phrase adds (very roughly) 51,000 to a post's retweet-and-favorite count, which is a big deal given that the average Trump tweet attracts a total of 107,000" (Whitehouse). Trump attributed social media to his victory when he said "I won the 2016 election with interviews, speeches, and social media" (Rosen). According to RiteTag, the estimated hourly statistics for #maga on Twitter alone include: 1046 unique tweets, 6,300,000 hashtag exposure, and 3600 retweets with 12% of #maga tweets including images, 59% including links, and 52% including mentions (RiteTag). Note: these figures would be even greater if all derivatives of the slogan across all social media platforms were taken into account. Trump's Twitter handle is @realDonaldTrump, and his account had 40.5M followers as of October 2017.

Works Cited: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/01/modern-day-presidential-donald-trump-defends-use- social-media/ https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-21/-make-america-great-again-is-trump-s-magic- twitter-mantra http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/01/donald-trump-modern-day-presidential/ https://ritetag.com/hashtag-stats/maga

Andrewmcfar (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the quote “Some people think that the slogan is so well written that it helped him win the presidency.” You should be more descriptive in referencing the actual person who said it instead of “Some” person. You also say that “many argue that [the slogan] is racially charged”. At this point, your statement becomes vague with the word “many” and even becomes biased with the juxtaposition that “some people” think it’s well written and “many people” think it’s racially charged. I read the article you referenced and that’s certainly not what it conveys— maybe many people IN THE ARTICLE believe that it’s racially charged but to make a generalization that it’s “many people” is incorrect. Even though with statements that come from Trump’s mouth it’s easy to feel inherently opposed to what he says, the opinions which people have on what he says should be given an equal platform. Gathering and laying out every single opinion on the slogan without vague quantifiers like “some people” think this and “many people” think this is essential for this quote. Huntersgordon (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. However, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say I used the quotes "some people think that the slogan is so well written that it helped him win the presidency" and that "many argue that [the slogan] is racially charged". Could you please explain where you found these instances. Andrewmcfar (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You should cite "Many found Trump's use... unprofessional." I agree with Huntersgordon that you generally need more evidence for your summaries, and more specific instances. Great additions in terms of numbers and statistics though; that does add a lot to this article which wasn't there before. Jarzofjam (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Olivia Hauger) I like what you are planning to add to this section of Make America Great Again. The addition to social media in Trump's campaign will be important. It will be crucial to stay with no bias. I think being more specific when you use vague verbiage would benefit your article. Try to avoid words like many and some. You have some good sources and information to use but figuring how to work it in smoother with more informant will be key. Also, the description lacks overall significance of the moment. Remember to discuss the "so what" and stay neutral. Okhauger (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

feedback from cleary

This article is great and definitely needed on Wikipedia. Very clearly written and good neutral tone. Add more content and images is first line of advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clearychizmar (talk • contribs) 08:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep America Great!

I've redirected Keep America Great! to here for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Make America Great Again → Make America great again – The first usage (by Ronald Reagan as a candidate) used the proposed capitalization (see the image of the poster in the article). The more common present usage is all caps: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN; accordingly, since there has not been a consistent capitalization over time, we should follow normal Wikipedia case in the title. Note that there are other campaign slogan articles, such as Read my lips: no new taxes, that follow the proposed capitalization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, even with n-grams ending in 2008 the slogan, used by Reagan, appears to have been consistently upper-cased in sources. So the Reagan-use argument seems not to fit the proposed title. Another indicator of common-name upper-casing are its initials, which have become a familiar substitute for the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for this move. The most common capitalization is the current one. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Most COMMONly known with the capitalization.LM2000 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CAPS, in several sections. Especially the first principle of the guideline, to not capitalize things that are not consistently capitalized in reliable sources; second per MOS:DOCTCAPS: we do not capitalize things just because certain camps feel very strongly about them and rally behind them.
  Also per WP:CONSISTENCY policy; see the vast majority of articles in Category:Catchphrases, including Category:Political catchphrases and Category:American political catchphrases. The few that are capitalize should be examined for likely additional RMs that need to happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support—no-brainer. And RandyKryn, you did adapt your ngram search to exclude titles, didn't you. Tony (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• The initial letter of a presidential campaign slogan is usually capitalized, and I didn't exclude it as much as just not think otherwise or use the full Reagan slogan which starts with "Let's..." (which is not used as the name of this page). The n-gram below shows that upper case became the most prevalent as the years progressed, and in 2008 was trending and gaining even more ground on the lower-cased version. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Nobody has shown a reason for the current caps. Randy's n-gram omits the obvious alternative: here it is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Didn't think of it because of its current rarity and that the name of this page doesn't begin with the Reagan usage of "Let's...". Your n-gram shows upper-case ahead of the lower-case and rising, and it's safe to say that if n-grams existed in 2019 that upper-case would be far and away the choice (in your version the sentence case in the article would have to show it as "make American great again" which is, of course, not the common style. mAga?). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Per MOS:CAPS. It's straight forward.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was straight forward, but clearly other people don't see it that way. Wikipedia follows reliable sources for facts, but like every other outlet, we have our own style manual. The Manual of Style describes, among other things, how things are capitalized on Wikipedia. If this were the title of a movie or an organization, we would capitalize each word. It's a phrase though; it's not the title of something. Our guidance says articles are capitalized in sentence case. Why wouldn't we do that here?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a straight forward upper casing. Sources, as pointed out, consistently show upper casing. Remember, the title isn't about Reagan's saying which includes 'Let's...' and then lower casing, but reflects the common name for the current well known slogan which, even in 2008 n-grams, was the clear styling. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Reliable Source use. The fact is that news sources consistently do capitalize this slogan. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - shall I go on? I didn’t find a single source doing it in caps-and-lower-case. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RS. We follow reliable sources. I repeat: we follow reliable sources. Red Slash 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• support The heart of MOS:CAPS and so on is that this is a neutral means of rendering the phrase cum slogan. Note how a newspaper outlet titles a related story, Prabowo wants to 'make Indonesia great again', and how they address the slogan morphing to other political statements. When a source addresses the phrase on the hat of someone who assaulted their own staff, for an apposite example above, they are careful to place the exact phrase in quotation marks; the appearance on ngrams has no bearing on wikipedia's npov. cygnis insignis 05:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. On its own, "Make America Great Again" appears to be the common form. It appears the non-capitalized form largely pops up in the form of phrases like "Donald Trump wants to make America great again", which imo is not especially relevant for titling. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Our MOS suggests that is irrelevant. If it were the case that allcaps and a string of exclamation points is the most 'common form', which it may actually be, no one would be proposing that as the title of this article (are they?). cygnis insignis 16:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

We use the common form as used by Reliable Sources. All caps (without any exclamation points) is how it appears on a hat; I think we might describe that as a primary source. No one is proposing that. At Wikipedia we follow Reliable Sources, which uniformly say Make America Great Again - whether or not it is enclosed in quotation marks. See my sampling below. I couldn't find a single source that cited his slogan as Make America great again. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am always on guard against recentism, but was the phrase encyclopedically notable before Trump? After perusing the actual citations in this Google ngram, most of the books in previous eras seem to be polemics or quotes from speeches using the phrase, but none seem to reflect on it as a encyclopedic phenomenon (nb WP:WORDISSUBJECT). If the rise of Trump made it notable, recent sources should weigh more heavily. —  AjaxSmack  18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  As I recall from other sources and according to the article, yes, it was notable before Trump. For what that is worth, but it worth checking the claims made in the article are accurate. cygnis insignis 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  If it was notable before Trump, how come this article wasn't created until 2015? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  I would be guessing, but as you are curious: By the time wikipedia was created, people generally thought demagoguery was a thing of the past … until about 2015. A little playful debate, not really what the discussion is about. Is the article wrong in part, it was not notable before Trump? cygnis insignis 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  BTW note that in our article Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, we have been capitalizing his slogan as "Make America Great Again" from the day it was announced. And so have the sources. "In the speech, Trump drew attention to domestic issues such as illegal immigration, offshoring of American jobs, the U.S. national debt, and Islamic terrorism, in a campaign strongly emphasized by the slogan "Make America Great Again".[76]" -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  That my be appropriate, in a quotation, but the page is, of course, about the phrase/slogan/signoff/chant from an outside perspective. If the campaign was refusing to pay for webspace that used sentence case, instead of the preferred allcaps, the discussion regarding that would have substance. cygnis insignis 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAPS. CThomas³ (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I had the impression that campaign slogans (as opposed to just catch phrases) are generally capitalized. So I took a look at List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans. I rest my case. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Very few of the entries on that list are sourced, so I would be cautious in drawing conclusions from it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• No caution needed. Left, right, or center, U.S. presidential campaign slogans are usually upper-cased. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This goes against my argument above, but mottos are also often in title case. Maybe something should be carved out in the MoS, because I don't think there's any exception for slogans or mottos now. I'd argue against it, but perhaps we should have the discussion.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lets-Make-America-Great-Again-Reagan3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Roger Stone usage to connect Reagan and Trump campaigns and establish precedence

As is, this article, reads as unfinished pointilism: many isolated uses of a slogan, which, together, look hazily like all American politics. In fact, we're talking about a fairly narrow set of actors, all in conversation with one another. To make one connection, I had included Roger Stone's dual role in the Reagan and Trump campaigns. This has the additional benefit of establishing usage of the precise Trump slogan "Make America Great Again" (rather than "Let's make America great again") prior to the date that Trump understandably, but mythically, cites. Here's what I wrote:

On September 16, 2011, Roger Stone, Trump's longtime political advisor and a veteran of Reagan's 1980 campaign, first tweeted the slogan: "Make America Great Again --TRUMP HUCKABEE 2012 #nomormons". Two months later, in December 2011, Trump made a statement ...

A top-tier editor cut this, commenting "primary source from... well, Roger Stone, basically." I appreciate the hesitance. Stone's presence and words are jarring by design. However, the whole article is composed of primary sources. I would like to reincorporate the passage, but would also appreciate suggestions for improvement or exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unendin (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

America Again: Re-becoming The Greatness We Never Weren't

Satirical book written by Stephen Colbert (2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.24.153 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Here, Mav214 re-added this to the lead:

However, others have refuted this, explaining that the slogan refers to "making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American."

References

I earlier removed it here saying that "readers' comment are not reliable source or even due". I reverted the addition saying that "reader's comments are not reliable; it was not the author of the article saying that, or even the same author attributing the quote to an accredit expert, which would have held much more weight. "Frep readers" and users are not a reliable source and hold no weight; the comment that actually says the quoted part also says "People are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win.")

But they reverted me saying "Vandalism" [sic]. As I wrote here:

[T]his had nothing to do on whether the Detroit Free Press is an unreliable source and everything to do with the fact the quoted part was literally written by an user in the comments. It was not the author of the article saying that, or even the same author attributing the quote to an accredit expert, which would have held much more weight. Frep readers and users are not a reliable sources and hold no weight. The full quoted part actually says that "[m]y definition of 'Make America Great Again' is making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American. Nobody complained when Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton used the exact phrase in speeches they gave years ago. People are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win. You don't have to love your government but support your country, be a Patriot." The definition of MAGA according to "Freep readers" and users are not reliable and hold no weight.

So that we write "However, others have refuted this" is misleading, for who are those others? They certainly are not journalists or other accredited experts but the readers of a local newspaper; and refuted is certainly weasely. Again, if I searched the names of those in the comments, I would find nothing because they are not journalists or accredited experts but users and readers. The removal of this seems a no brainer, unless I have missed something. Davide King (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, thank you for engaging in a formal discussion this time. I fail to see where your lack of trust in the author, editor, and publication comes from. Yes, I understand a reader is not an "expert" but primary information rarely comes from experts, especially on political and economic issues. This quote wasn't just forced in like a comment section, you can trust that the publication did check the validity of the quote. Issues like these are taking the pulse of the citizens it impacts. For example, the economy is simply a measure of the general population's view of their current prosperity. There's no one expert or definition. In fact, there is a saying that "one economist said the economy will go up, and the other said it will go down. Both agreed". This is an abstract topic that has many facets to it, so the general polling of regular people is very valid. Your removal of this content is not about improving the Wikipedia page. It is about censoring a legitimate and widely accepted belief that unfortunately contradicts yours. You are welcome to add more to this section if you have a legitimate, valid source and commentary. However, removing valid and accepted content from a Wikipedia page is very inappropriate.

In regards to my wording, this was already sorted out and I do not wish to rehash that argument, my stance was that the Voice of America journalist was in fact a "critic" and it is only one person with that stance. I conceded to settle on "journalist". There was even a weasel-worded "among others" that you seem to have conveniently disregarded. Would your stance be different if it was a user saying "Trump just is using this phrase as a dog whistle to rally the racists of the racist United States" that would probably also be a legitimate stance that's worth including right? Would it be invalid because a reader stated it or does it still hold a fair amount of truth to it? This is about balance and please accept that there are views that differ from your own. Mav214 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Mav214, no, "if it was a user saying 'Trump just is using this phrase as a dog whistle to rally the racists of the racist United States'", that too would not be appropriate because 'users' or 'readers' are not reliable sources. If it was an actual journalist saying the quoted part ("making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American"), it was one thing; if it is a user saying that, which seems to be validated by the reader's opinion that "[p]eople are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win" (an actual journalist would never use words such as those), then it fails to meet reliability and weight. You say that "[i]n regards to my wording, this was already sorted out and I do not wish to rehash that argument" but I see no discussion on this talk page regarding this, hence there is no consensus to have that wording in the first place and the onus is on you to justify that; if you can find actual journalists from reliable sources disagreeing with VOA, then it can be added. If it is just a comment from a user, it is undue and fail to meet reliability. I am sure a third party and admin such as JzG could easily solve this on whether it should stay or it should go. Davide King (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In the end, the piece is analytical journalism which constitutes a valid source. I have had a discussion with Guy and I welcome his input. I would like it if you chose a more centrist source as his political stances contain unapologetically liberally biases. I challenge you to step outside your political comfort zone and see both sides of the coin here. If you are so confident, bring in a conservative moderator to prove your point. As far as the source goes, The Detroit Free Press is a valid publication. All sources they use are checked and validated, even if they are opinionated. If you truly believe that the editors at the Detroit Free Press are so incompetent that they would allow false information into a publication then we will never come to a solution. I know you are caught up on the latter portion of the quote (which is why it wasn't included). But the portion used is an accurate and valid representation of a large segment of the American sentiment toward the phrase. Mav214 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Mav214, it does not constitute a valid source because it is simply reporting the readers' comments from the previous article. We write in the lead that "[h]owever, others have refuted this, explaining that the slogan refers to "making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American." But that is not an accurate summary because who are those others (the Trump supporters that comment in the previous article that the Detroit Free Press cited in the next article?) and how is that refuting it? We need much better and stronger sources to make the argument it has been refuted. Also, I never claimed or meant to say that "[i]f you truly believe that the editors at the Detroit Free Press are so incompetent that they would allow false information into a publication then we will never come to a solution." You seem not to have get that the point of that article is reporting comments from the previous one and readers' comment are not reliable sources, nor can we use them for such an extraordinary claim that it has been refuted.

Note that the editors of the article never make that case, they are simply reporting the readers' comments. You write that "I challenge you to step outside your political comfort zone and see both sides of the coin here. If you are so confident, bring in a conservative moderator to prove your point." But I am not the one who states in their user page "I have found that there is a noticeable slant towards the leftist point of view. My goal is to fight the censorship of right-wing points of view and keep this great site neutral." But Wikipedia's goal is not to right great wrongs, which is what you seem to be here for, especially regarding this issue; nor is it to give false balance to both sides. Finally, you write that "I would like it if you chose a more centrist source as his political stances contain unapologetically liberally biases." But JzG, as far as I know, is a member of the Liberal Democrats, which is a centrist party, even though it is to the left of the Democrats. And from what I have seen, at least from here, they prefer centrist and least biased sources such as the Associated Press and Reuters. So that their political stances contain "unapologetically liberally biases" seems nonsense.

They seem to be one of the most neutral users, hence why I hope they can give us a third opinion to solve this issue. Because it is not going anywhere, although I appreciate your respectfulness and kindness. I thank you for it and I hope you do not see my responses as being too harsh. It is nothing personal but unless someone else can verify whether the given source is simply reporting readers' comments, rather than accredited experts or journalists, I believe it is not a valide source and the wording should be removed from the less, unless better sourcing is found.

If you want us to report in the lead that some conservatives and Trump supports do not believe that it is a "racist code" or "dog whistle", that would be fine; I believe there are reliable sources that report that, but until then, the sentence in the lead is undue and biased, especially the use of "refuted" and it is not clear who are those "others"; if it is other journalists is one thing, but it is my impression the source is quoting readers, not journalists. So a better or more accurate wording would be that "Some readers of the Detroit Free Press have rejected this view, with one commenting that the slogan refers to "making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American." This is a more accurate summary but it also highlights even more why it is undue and not lead worthy. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, so those disagreeing with the view the slogan is a "racist code" should be put first in the body and sourced to reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and can't be framed as "refuted" (people really do need to learn the difference between refutation and repudiation). One random article summarising a vox pop is clearly not in any way a serious challenge to the analysis presented.

IMO, there are two things rolled into one: it's part "mythical golden age" fallacy and part yearning for the days when you could use racial slurs with impunity and didn't have to acknowledge that gay people existed. But that's just my opinion.

But I am definitely not neutral (I don't think anyone is right now). I did go to a deeply conservative school, founded over a thousand years ago, but having been brought up with a mix of Christian and humanist values I am pretty progressive: people matter, regardless of their economic status. I am completely unable to understand how anybody who claims to be "pro-life" can support capital punishment or allowing people to die bankrupt when they run out of money to pay for medical care in the richest country in the world. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edit history, they are relatively inexperienced and have never been given a welcome template which is full of useful information. I left them one, so hopefully this would avoid much of misunderstanding. Graywalls (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to a more neutral sound and a new source. I hope this will be a fair middle ground we can agree on. Mav214 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Mav214, that is better, thank you. But if we can not get actual journalists or other experts and all we get is only readers' comments, I do not see how that is due or lead worthy. If there was such a widespread notion that journalists have responded to, surely it would have been reported in more than just "readers' comments" report, JzG? Or do you think I am being too restrictive and asking too much? In "Column: MAGA hats and blackface are different forms of expression, but they share a certain unfortunate DNA", which is referenced in this new source Mav214 substituted the previous one with, opinion columnist Robin Abcarian states that "[w]earing a Make America Great Again hat is not necessarily an overt expression of racism." But then she immediately adds and clarifies that "[i]f you wear one, it’s a pretty good indication that you share, admire or appreciate President Trump’s racist views about Mexicans, Muslims and border walls." I simply could not find actual journalists quoted in reliable sources saying that MAGA is not a racist code or dog whistle. We may add that some conservatives and Trump supporters do not think MAGA is racist, but we still need reliable sources reporting that to establish it is due other than "readers' comments". Again, the quote now in the lead ("Wearing a MAGA hat is not evidence of racism. It is evidence of respect and appreciation of the remarkable improvements to this country that have resulted from the policies of President Trump") is attributed to "Robert M. Rosenthal, Burbank". I do not feel the need for the quote; we may simply say that others disagree, which brings us to the point that I could find no journalist or expert reported in reliable sources contradicting or disagreeing with what the initial journalist at VOA said, hence it is undue for the lead. Perhaps I am missing something but I see no reason to have it in the lead, especially when there is no support in the body either while we have an Accusations of racism section. Davide King (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

EDITOR READ PLEASE

Please add some text about his 2020 presidential campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.145.210 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done It's not much but I did add a sentence about his continued usage of the phrase in this election.LM2000 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to title new section

Actual version on page:

The Detroit Free Press and the Los Angeles Times reported how several of their readers rejected this characterization as evidence of racism.

First version as reassembled in brain:

The Detroit Free Press and the Los Angeles Times reported as evidence of racism how several of their readers rejected this characterization.

Second version as reassembled in brain:

The Detroit Free Press and the Los Angeles Times reported how several of their readers rejected this characterization as being evidence of racism.

Third version as reassembled in brain:

The Detroit Free Press and the Los Angeles Times reported the rejection of this characterization by several of their readers as being evidence of racism.

My own confusion is not the real problem. The real problem is that every viable reassembly remains vaguely unsatisfactory, even after you figure out which one to believe. With none of these candidates do I feel like the sentence is 100% certain of what it's trying to say. — MaxEnt 22:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Make America Grape Again 7 Sept 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Including inaccurately reported incidents in intro

The following text is currently in the introduction to this article:

The slogan was also at the center of two events originally reported inaccurately in most media outlets, the alleged assault of Jussie Smollett and the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation.

The sources are good now but I still can't quite see why these incidents are so relevant to this article that they should be in the intro; Steveok1 tells me this was discussed already only I can't seem to find where in the talk page that was and so I was hoping they could point me in the right direction. Thanks for any help, ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this sentence on 1/21/2021, and it has been accepted by multiple users in comments since then. From 1/15/2021 to 1/21/2021, I was discussing this paragraph with user Davefelmer, who accepted this sentence as a compromise. I believe this sentence created a sense of balance to the paragraph and the intro. Also as you can see in my edit on 1/16/2021, I had similar discussions with users Davide King and Mav214 in edits from 10/21/2020 to 10/25/2020. I especially think Davide King has been making good faith edits with me, and if you review his edits/comments since October 2020, you can see we have agreed on this particular sentence (the 1/21/2021 sentence was new, but we had agreed on a somewhat similar sentence since October 2020). Also please see section 19 of this "talk" page titled "Lead," which includes discussions between Davide King, Mav 214, and others in October 2020. Finally, I believe this idea belongs in the intro to show the complexities of the slogan with respect to race, but maybe we also need to discuss it more in the article itself too? Steveok1 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrewmcfar. Peer reviewers: Guowei Yang, Jarzofjam, Okhauger, Huntersgordon, Breezelily.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the use of the acronym “MAGA” to refer to Trump supporters missing from article?

MAGA is frequently used as shorthand for Trunp supporters, esepcially the most die-hard supporters (especially by Trump critics), largely due to their frequent wearing of Make America Great Again caps. i could not find mention this and if its indeed missing it should be added as at least a single sentance mention in the article, esepcially in the lead (unless there is a good reason it was ommited). --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

The MAGA article is democrat leaning. It must be edited to reflect what Republicans think. 45.73.111.210 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"what Republicans think" Do they actually have the capacity for thought? Dimadick (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Attacks on MAGA apparel wearing people

Can we add a section about people attacking people wearing maga hats? there has been numerous instances that have been reported by reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.98.20 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is merit for addition of this section. Could you provide the source? Mav214 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

guess not lol. How about attacks BY maga hat wearers on others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Name one. 104.50.89.145 (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your current ad against Govenor De Santist!!

I cannot believe that you would attack such a good example of the Republican Party!! It makes me wonder?????STOP attacking our own views and hopes!!! 2601:640:8580:15B0:105B:9A49:49CB:AE6A (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Your current ad against Govenor De Santist!! */ Reply 2A00:1110:109:ED04:CD80:316C:105C:CE6E (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

Change the sentence: "Multiple journalists, scholars, and commentators have called the slogan racist, regarding it as dog-whistle politics and coded language.[2][3][4][5]" to "Some journalists, scholars, and commentators have expressed that in their opinion, the slogan may be racist, attempting to link it to dog-whistle politics and coded language."

Add, "Others, however, have interpreted the slogan entirely differently, saying it has "vision" to it and that it alludes to stronger economic times, employment opportunities, and security. [2] This wild dichotomy of interpretation both lends to the popularity of Trump's slogan just as much as its infamy, something that David Axelrod, former Chief of Staff to President Obama, credits to the flexibility and simplicity of the message, allowing it to resonate with specific target audiences. [2]" Dsexauer827 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The first suggested change introduces a number of MOS:WEASEL words, which would no longer accurately reflect the definiteness of their conclusions. The second change, a suggested addition, would equate the reported opinions of people who are not journalists, scholars, or commentators, with those who are (for instance, the person reported as having used the term "vision" is an audio engineer). The language also introduces an analysis of the phrase not present in the source: that there is a "wild dichotomy of interpretation" and that the dichotomy "lend to the popularity" of the slogan. Pinchme123 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)