This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Republican opposition to Trump
Deleted Request
References
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.
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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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)
- "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)
- 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. ~ RobTalk 08:23, 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. ~ RobTalk 18:06, 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. ~ RobTalk 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)
- 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. ~ RobTalk 20:31, 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 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). ~ RobTalk 06:06, 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. ~ RobTalk 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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))
- COATRACK. This would be in violation of several Wikipedia policies. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:26, 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))
- Jesus. WP:NPOV. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- So WP:SYNTH then. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 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))
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Well, not the PLO as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- This additional commentary is WP:undue and unnecessary for understanding.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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? Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a trivial factoid and not relevant to the campaign.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 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. Neutralitytalk 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). Neutralitytalk 22:47, 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 03:35, 25 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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." Neutralitytalk 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? Neutralitytalk 22:47, 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)
- I would be OK with changing "most" to "many" or "some." Neutralitytalk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see support for the use of "most" based on the source.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 03:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I propose this trimmed version of the content:
- 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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? Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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). Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 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)
- 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). Neutralitytalk 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
Let's see if we can narrow the scope of issues under dispute. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
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)? Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 22:47, 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. Neutralitytalk 17:58, 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. Neutralitytalk 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.
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))
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Right now the article claims the opposite:
- 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)
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[1] - 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.[2][3][4] Washington-based conservatives have been surprised by the popular support for his rhetoric.[1]
- ^ a b Cassidy, John (February 29, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Transforming the G.O.P. Into a Populist, Nativist Party". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
What is perhaps more surprising, at least to Washington-based conservatives, is how many Republicans are also embracing Trump's populist lines on ending free trade, protecting Social Security, and providing basic health care.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
POLITICO915
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Nicholas Confessore (March 28, 2016). "How the G.O.P. Elite Lost Its Voters to Donald Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
While wages declined and workers grew anxious about retirement, Republicans offered an economic program still centered on tax cuts for the affluent and the curtailing of popular entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.
- ^ Greg Sargent (March 28, 2016). "This one anecdote perfectly explains how Donald Trump is hijacking the GOP". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
- 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
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?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im
2600:1017:B42B:535B:BCDE:A382:E724:7BF3 (talk) 15:51, 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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
|
---|
|
Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive
|
---|
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?utm_term=.ulzPRJJKK#.mb2ymNN88 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
|
---|
|
- 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
|
---|
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
|
---|
|
- 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
|
---|
|
- 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)
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)
- Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 22:00, 5 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 21:50, 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 21:23, 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 20:40, 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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)
- 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)
- 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. Neutralitytalk 21:23, 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)
- I would probably be fine with replacing the word "him" with "his statements." MastCell may have a different view, I'm not sure. Neutralitytalk 21:14, 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)
WikiProject Donald Trump
Editors interested in creating and improving Wikipedia articles related to Donald Trump are welcome to join WikiProject Donald Trump. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Fascism section
I object to the recent inclusion of this section in the article. Some of the content already existed there, but I think the section title, the excessive 3rd party commentary, and the inclusion of a large fascist symbol are inappropriate and undue.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I actually think there is justification for something like this in the "historical analogies" section, since the comparison has been made quite often by numerous observers, not all of them partisan. I do think the section on the hand-raising pledge is excessive, with way too much detail, and could possibly be omitted entirely. Let's wait to hear what others think before removing it, however. (I already removed a section called "Tyranny" which IMO was not sufficiently supported by multiple sources.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think it should be removed. Please keep this article NPOV.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was on my way to remove the fascist symbol, but somebody has removed the whole section. OK, let's discuss it. I think there are enough neutral sources to include it, but let's hear what others have to say. Since it is strongly negative, we would need a "firm consensus" to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- There should not be a "Fascism" section and certainly no symbols of that movement. Some of the content is relevant to his campaign, but need to presented in balance fashing. For example, this...
- "One expert admits Trump's speeches and rallies do resemble "... the rallies of fascist leaders who pantomimed the wishes of their followers and let them fill in the text," but that Trump himself is mostly "... a demagogue who voices contempt for basic principles of liberal democracy, offers simple explanations of complex issues, and draws on racism, religious bigotry, and extreme nationalism to 'make America great again.'""
- ... is not a reasonable representation of the totality of sources that compare Trump's rhetoric with that of Fascist leaders of the past.- MrX 18:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- There should not be a "Fascism" section and certainly no symbols of that movement. Some of the content is relevant to his campaign, but need to presented in balance fashing. For example, this...
- I was on my way to remove the fascist symbol, but somebody has removed the whole section. OK, let's discuss it. I think there are enough neutral sources to include it, but let's hear what others have to say. Since it is strongly negative, we would need a "firm consensus" to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think it should be removed. Please keep this article NPOV.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there should be a "Fascism" section because of exactly the reasons MelanieN laid out. --GHcool (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed; it's not like it's only been mentioned in passing a couple of times. Numerous articles from numerous sources have drawn parallels, and to not include a section on it would be the non-NPOV route. It would look like editors were trying to repress any negative information from being included in the article. I feel MelanieN is offering a fair and balanced approach. Rockypedia (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In my mind, this is a difficult question. I think it’s obvious that a fascist image should not be used. I think there should be no reference to an ex-wallpaper hanger. On the hand-raising pledge, I don’t think the “hand-raising” part should be mentioned at all if there weren’t repeated requests that attendees pledge allegiance to him. If there are repeated incidents, yes it should be mentioned. On comparisons to fascist attitudes, there appear to be a large number in respected press. WP:NPOV indicates that they should be included. Objective3000 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed Fascism section
I read through the Vox reference in some detail. I'd like to propose the following abbreviated section on fascism. Since many people have drawn the parallel, I think the scholarly opinions by fascism experts are important to include. Nonetheless, I welcome alternative proposals and candid comments.--Nowa (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning resemble fascism.[1][2][3][4] Fascism scholars, however, have said that the Trump campaign is not fascist since it does not seek the violent overthrow of democracy and its replacement with a state dedicated to war preparation where only the state has value and not the individual.[5]
- ^ Neiwert, David (14 January 2016). "Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He Is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path". Huffington Post.
- ^ Dreyfuss, Bob (14 March 2016). "Trump's Storm Troopers and the Possibility of American Fascism". The Nation.
- ^ Stark, Holger (17 May 2016). "An Exhausted Democracy: Donald Trump and the New American Nationalism". Spiegel Online International.
- ^ Kagan, Robert (18 May 2016). "This is how fascism comes to America". Washington Post.
- ^ Matthews, Dylan (May 19, 2016). "I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said". Vox. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
- I think that's good and balanced, but the end of the sentence is too convoluted, hard to follow. How about just "...does not seek the violent overthrow of democracy," which gets to the heart of the matter? --MelanieN (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree. Per WP:WEASEL, we cannot say some commentators without saying who they are. Then, per WP:WEIGHT, we need to provide the correct balance between the "commentators" and the "fascism experts." Obviously expert opinion has far greater weight than the commentators. Also, the only commentator provided that actually calls Trump a fascist is Robert Kagan, who said in 2003, “Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty.”[14] Elsewhere Kagan called Trump a Napoleon. A balanced statement would say that the neoconservatives are rallying around Hillary Clinton. TFD (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- We don't have to name the commentators since we have cites. I don't see how WP:WEASEL applies at all. That said, I favor Neutrality's proposed version below (with slight revisions). It's a little lengthier, it does attribute the viewpoints, and it offer a few different viewpoint.- MrX 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the sources provided don't support the assertions that Trump's personality and political positions resemble fascism. Also, I don't believe we should rely on left-leaning sources to substantiate subjective statements with such strong, negative connotations.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The old version
- A variation of the two-sentence version that was stable until a few days ago (before all the adding and removing) seems superior to me:
- Columbia University professor emeritus Robert O. Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader.[1] However, Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, do not consider Trump a neo-fascist, classifying him instead as a right-wing populist.[2]
- ^ Patt Morrison, Robert O. Paxton talks fascism and Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times (March 9, 2016).
- ^ Matthews, Dylan (May 19, 2016). "I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said". Vox. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
- I specifically have three concerns with the Nowa version above: (1) I think "commentators" is a little vague; that can encompass scholarly commentators, journalists, and political commentators; (2) I think it is misleading to state that "scholars reject the idea that he's a fascist" without also stating that some scholars have said that he uses "fascist themes and styles" (in the words of Paxton); and (3) I think it is undesirable to say what scholars think he is not (i.e., a neofascist) without also including what scholars think he is (i.e., a right-wing populist). I would also be OK with combining on Nowa's first sentence with the two sentences above. Neutralitytalk 15:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your personal beliefs (as others have reminded you numerous times) are irrelevant and unhelpful here. If you advance no meaningful policy-based reasons for why something should be included or excluded, you can't be surprised if others don't take your remarks very seriously. Neutralitytalk 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The new and lengthy version
I would like to have a four-paragraph section on fascism: First, a general reference to the three run-of-the-mill commentators, followed by a lengthy quote by Robert Kagan, as his column is the one that has gained the most online attention so far (also documented in the draft below); then, a short list-like naming of and referencing to Bernstein, Reich and Mulcair; and finally, two paragraphs on the experts, who seem to contradict each other a bit (as most experts do).
- – The drafts suggested above by User: Nowa and User: Neutrality are too short and will not suffice, I say.
- – I think it would be both relevant and visually stimulating for the readers to include a fascist symbol as an image in the section. The swastika would probably be over the top, but I deem the fasces appropriate for the purpose. Didn't Trump retweet a Mussolini quote by the end of February this year? There is plenty of relevance, I say.
- – By now, we seem to have reached a consensus that a section on fascism does merit an inclusion – only, we need to discuss the proper length of it...
Fascism, new and lengthy version
Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent.[1][2][3] In May 2016, neoconservative historian and columnist Robert Kagan wrote a column where he argued that Trump's lack of a coherent ideology, compensated for by his popular appeal of a strongman who can be entrusted the fate of a nation, is a phenomenon earlier known as 'fascism'; but times have changed since the first part of the 20th century, and the U.S. is not continental Europe, Kagan concludes:
“ | This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes ... but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.[4] | ” |
Kagan's column gained some interest in the media.[5][6][7]
Journalist and author Carl Bernstein has argued that Trump is 'a neo-fascist' representing "... a kind of American fascism that we haven't seen before..."[8] Professor Robert Reich, political commentator and author, has labeled Trump 'a fascist', whose "... verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims ... follow the older fascist script."[9] In Canada, leader of the New Democratic Party Tom Mulcair has labeled Trump 'a fascist', as Trump appeals to "the lowest feelings in human nature;" Mulcair is reported not to be the only establishment politician in Canada who has taken aim at Trump.[10]
Columbia University professor emeritus Robert Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader.[11] Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.[12]
One expert admits Trump's speeches and rallies do resemble "... the rallies of fascist leaders who pantomimed the wishes of their followers and let them fill in the text," but that Trump himself is mostly "... a demagogue who voices contempt for basic principles of liberal democracy, offers simple explanations of complex issues, and draws on racism, religious bigotry, and extreme nationalism to 'make America great again.'"[13]
- ^ Neiwert, David (14 January 2016). "Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He Is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path". Huffington Post.
- ^ Dreyfuss, Bob (14 March 2016). "Trump's Storm Troopers and the Possibility of American Fascism". The Nation.
- ^ Stark, Holger (17 May 2016). "An Exhausted Democracy: Donald Trump and the New American Nationalism". Spiegel Online International.
- ^ Kagan, Robert (18 May 2016). "This is how fascism comes to America". Washington Post.
- ^ Engel, Pamela (19 May 2016). "Prominent neoconservative on Trump: 'This is how fascism comes to America'". Business Insider.
- ^ Baker, Peter (28 May 2016). "Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism". New York Times.
- ^ Bouie, Jamelle (3 June 2016). "How Should America Resist a Fascist?". Slate.
- ^ Amato, John (13 March 2016). "Carl Bernstein: Donald Trump Is An American 'Neo-Fascist'". Crooks and Liars.
- ^ Reich, Robert (8 March 2016). "The American Fascist". Personal Blog.
- ^ Kassam, Ashifa (31 March 2016). "Canadian party leader Thomas Mulcair calls Donald Trump a 'fascist'". The Guardian.
- ^ Patt Morrison, Robert O. Paxton talks fascism and Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times (March 9, 2016).
- ^ Matthews, Dylan (May 19, 2016). "I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said". Vox. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
- ^ Herf, Jeffrey (7 March 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Fascist?". The American Interest.
End of draft. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Except for the last paragraph, I think this is pretty good, but not quite as tight as the version proposed by Neutrality below.- MrX 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed compromise amalgamation of three earlier suggestions
I oppose including any sort of image or symbol or having a separate section exclusively about or entitled "fascism." I also would prefer to name commentators, rather than referring vaguely to "One expert..." as Gaeanautes's proposal does at one point. I also think four or so sentences is a fair and appropriate size limitation. What about a compromise amalgamation of the proposed versions (shorter than Gaeanautes' version, but slightly longer than Nowa's or mine):
- Several commentators, including Carl Bernstein, Robert Reich, and Tom Mulcair, have called Trump a neofascist,[1][2][3] while others such as David Neiwert, Bob Dreyfuss, and Robert Kagan argue that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning resemble or evoke fascism.[4][5][6] Historian Jeffrey Hart, for example, argues that Trump is not a fascist but that "his campaign brings to mind dangerous echoes from the past."[7]
- Columbia University professor emeritus Robert O. Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader.[8] However, Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, do not consider Trump a neo-fascist, classifying him instead as a right-wing populist.[9]
- ^ Transcript, Reliable Sources, CNN (March 13, 2016).
- ^ Reich, Robert (8 March 2016). "The American Fascist".
- ^ Kassam, Ashifa (31 March 2016). "Canadian party leader Thomas Mulcair calls Donald Trump a 'fascist'". The Guardian.
- ^ Neiwert, David (14 January 2016). "Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He Is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path". Huffington Post.
- ^ Dreyfuss, Bob (14 March 2016). "Trump's Storm Troopers and the Possibility of American Fascism". The Nation.
- ^ Kagan, Robert (18 May 2016). "This is how fascism comes to America". Washington Post.
This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes ... but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.
- ^ Herf, Jeffrey (7 March 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Fascist?". The American Interest.
- ^ Patt Morrison, Robert O. Paxton talks fascism and Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times (March 9, 2016).
- ^ Matthews, Dylan (May 19, 2016). "I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said". Vox. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
There is also an interesting piece by Italian writer Gianni Riotta ("I Know Fascists; Donald Trump Is No Fascist"), who has firsthand experience of actual fascism, tin the Atlantic that we could conceivably cite. Riotta argues that although Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric, his demagoguery, and his populist appeals to citizens’ economic anxieties certainly borrow from the fascist playbook," he is not a fascist because he holds some socially liberal positions and has "no clear plan of any kind." Read through it, and maybe it'll be useful.
Tagging those who have weighed in above: @Nowa:, @Gaeanautes:, @MelanieN:, @GHcool:, @CFredkin:, @MrX:, @Rockypedia:, @Objective3000:. Neutralitytalk 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks very good. It presents several noteworthy viewpoints. We should also include Riotta's expert view, and we should also consider expanding it slightly to explain to readers why Carl Bernstein, Robert Reich, and Tom Mulcair call Trump a neofascist.- MrX 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the sources provided don't support the assertions that Trump's personality and political positions resemble fascism. Also, I don't believe we should rely on left-leaning sources to substantiate subjective statements with such strong, negative connotations.CFredkin (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- The assertion made isn't "Trump is X or Y." The assertion is "This set of notable commentators and figures argues that Trump is X, while this other set argues that Trump is Y." We are not making contentious characterizations in our own voice; rather, we are representing what the broad sweep of sources say. Their opinions could be wise or unwise, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this place mad? Has Wikipedia went from an online encyclopedia to nothing more than a place that echos SJW's views on everything such as in this case how Trump is like Hitler? I say leave it out completely!!! It's a complete violation of NPOV!!! Entire article needs a rewrite telling a timeline of what has happened in the campaign not what others think of it, maybe I should propose a lengthy section on the Clinton page telling how others view it, sure dozens would oppose it there!!!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hush now, ShadowDragon343. @Neutrality: Trying to cram this much material into only one paragraph renders the text difficult to read, I say. I think we should settle for at least two paragraphs. It is relevant to have an Italian perspective on Trump, so Riotta's piece is welcome indeed. Please note that the historian to be referenced is Jeffrey Herf, and not Jeffrey Hart. Also note that Tom Mulcair is not a commentator (strictly speaking), but a politician. A third note: Only Bernstein has termed Trump 'a neo-fascist', I have not come across the 'neo-' prefix anywhere else online. Experienced editors know that when too much referential text is crammed into too little space, inaccuracies may arise. This much said, I think we are beginning to approach a consensus... Gaeanautes (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the catches, this is all quite good. We could change "neofascist" to "fascist or neofascist," and we could drop "commentators" and describe each person individually: journalist and writer Carl Bernstein, professor and commentator Robert Reich, and Canadian politician Tom Mulcair. As for Riotta, we could include the following:
- Italian writer Gianni Riotta, who experienced fascism firsthand during the Italian Years of Lead, argues that Trump is not a fascist. Riotta writes that while Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric" and "demagoguery...borrow from the fascist playbook," Trump is "fundamentally, a blustering political opportunist courting votes in a democratic system" without the intent to "kill democracy and install a dictatorship" that characterizes fascism.
- Comments appreciated. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the catches, this is all quite good. We could change "neofascist" to "fascist or neofascist," and we could drop "commentators" and describe each person individually: journalist and writer Carl Bernstein, professor and commentator Robert Reich, and Canadian politician Tom Mulcair. As for Riotta, we could include the following:
- ShadowDragon343 Please focus on objectively improving content and not assailing editors, or Wikipedia as whole. If you believe the proposed content violates WP:NPOV, please lay out your reasoning so that it can be given consideration. Multiple exclamation marks don't really bolster your arguments.- MrX 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here are some suggestions to improve the article and relating to this. Get rid of the Trump University section. It has more to do with Trumps extensive legal history as owner of a private company and not his campaign for a public office, it's better at the article about Trump himself or his company. The section on white nationalists supporting Trump having it's own section places a one-sided negative image of Trump as racist and all based on a nonexistant endorsement that was not made (only praise). Parts can be shrunk and relocated into the campaign history as some of it was notable. And finally keep comparisons to fascism off it, it's too far from what Wikipedia's guidelines would allow as NPOV. Fascism is a far right ideology that Trump doesn't necessarily fit into because he has stances on some issues that don't match up to it. He is often described as a national populist which has it's differences and such a section on fascism would be redundant when what would be more fitting is a section comparing his rise to similar populist movements like Brexit and politicians such as Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders. Also Gaeanautes this is a Talk page, there is no need to tell others to "hush".ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hush now, ShadowDragon343 — again! You are going wildly off-topic. Have you read any of the other posts around here? Have you even read the headline of the current section? For your information, it is 'Proposed compromise amalgamation of three earlier suggestions'. Now, please stop your irrelevant ranting about this and that and everything! Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here are some suggestions to improve the article and relating to this. Get rid of the Trump University section. It has more to do with Trumps extensive legal history as owner of a private company and not his campaign for a public office, it's better at the article about Trump himself or his company. The section on white nationalists supporting Trump having it's own section places a one-sided negative image of Trump as racist and all based on a nonexistant endorsement that was not made (only praise). Parts can be shrunk and relocated into the campaign history as some of it was notable. And finally keep comparisons to fascism off it, it's too far from what Wikipedia's guidelines would allow as NPOV. Fascism is a far right ideology that Trump doesn't necessarily fit into because he has stances on some issues that don't match up to it. He is often described as a national populist which has it's differences and such a section on fascism would be redundant when what would be more fitting is a section comparing his rise to similar populist movements like Brexit and politicians such as Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders. Also Gaeanautes this is a Talk page, there is no need to tell others to "hush".ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - will concede to the most succinct paragraph (like first proposed): This is getting out of hand. This article is not strictly about critics of Donald Trump. I am willing to concede a very small paragraph but that's it. Anything more is a Coatracking attempt to describe Trump as a fascist. Its tangential that left-leaning, or anti-Trump right-leaning, or barely-known figures constantly call him a fascist. If editors kept trying to describe Hillary Clinton as a "criminal" on her page, because a bunch of anti-Clinton sources brought it up, you would all immediately vote in favor of removing it. This is not the place for you all to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just because you don't like Trump. Hell, Trump's not even MY pick, but this battleground behavior and obvious bias sure is making me scrutinize this page more. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- These figures are not "barely known." Jeffrey Herf is a very well-known academic (whom Irving Kristol, not exactly a figure of the left, called a distinguished intellectual historian" in 2014). Carl Bernstein is famous for his role in exposing Watergate and is probably among the most well-known living reporters on the planet. Robert O. Paxton, Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne are leading scholars of fascism.
- I think it is unreasonable to say that it would be "too much" to summarize this back-and-forth between a large number of quite noteworthy scholars and others in four or five sentences—comprising maybe 0.5% of the text of a quite lengthy article. To ignore it completely or substantially, even though the issue has been discussed at a high level by the left and the right and those is between, would not serve our readers. Neutralitytalk 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because the terms "fascism" or "fascist" have extremely negative connotations and can also be applied inaccurately, we need to be extremely careful with sourcing. I don't believe politicians and journalists themselves are necessarily reliable when using these terms. As I stated above, I also don't believe we should be using left-leaning sources to source this content.CFredkin (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Journalists and scholars are clearly reliable sources for their own opinions as published in the usual outlets. You may disagree with the substance of what they say, but that is immaterial. We are required to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint...." (WP:NPOV). Again, this is not material that we are present in wiki's own voice. This is content that is specifically attributed to noteworthy individuals, in-text.
- Is your position that one or more of the viewpoints represented are "insignificant"? Neutralitytalk 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @CFredkin: Many of Trump's articulated views do indeed have extremely negative connotations, but that's not our problem per WP:DUEWEIGHT. While I do believe that comments from political opponents should be given negligible weight, analyses by journalists and scholars are exactly the types of sources that we have to use to construct this article.- MrX 19:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. However in this case, we're not discussing Trump's explicit statements, but other people's interpretations of them. And a big part of what we're doing here as editors is assessing the notability of those editors and whether they're qualified to make that assessment.CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: Nice of you to pick up on my earlier comments. Your piece on Riotta is enlightening. It should be obvious for you – and everybody else – by now that we need at least two paragraphs on all of the material discussed, and perhaps even three. Also a fine rebuttal of DaltonCastle's latest utterances. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @CFredkin: I think you are much too concerned with the 'negative connotations' evoked by fascism. Please note that the current article is about Trump's campaign, not the connotations evoked by fascism. As to the alleged left-leaning sources you seem to be so concerned about: How many of those do you count out of the grand total, and who are they exactly? And why don't you go looking for any right-leaning sources that may help counterbalancing the left-leaning ones? Perhaps you should be a little more constructive on this, thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This news piece in the New York Times—Peter Baker, Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism (May 28, 2016)—has the following language which we might want to quote or paraphrase:
- "Trump's campaign has engendered impassioned debate about the nature of his appeal and warnings from critics on the left and the right about the potential rise of fascism in the United States....To supporters, such comparisons are deeply unfair smear tactics used to tar conservatives and scare voters."
I would be curious to hear thoughts on this. The second sentence, I think, could be added to this article to reflect the view of Trump's supporters. This might (I hope) assauge concerns and facilitate moving forward with a version we all could live with. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: Excellent quote from New York Times. I suppose even CFredkin, ShadowDragon343 and DaltonCastle could learn to live with it. Whoops, I just violated the WP:AVOIDBEINGSARCASTIC guideline, shame on me :-) Gaeanautes (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Gaeanautes: I would advise that you change your tone. I've noticed several little quips you've made at users you disagree with. Are you trying to make me deliberately dismiss your arguments? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@DaltonCastle: My humblest apologies to you. It was just my odd way of saying "Bye, folks – I'm off for the weekend". It won't happen again. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
*Support I support this version. Short and to the point.--Nowa (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nowa: What about the discussions following the version itself? User Neutrality, who presented the version, later made some subsequent suggestions to it. I have worked on and summed up these suggestions in draft #5 below. I think we should avoid getting stuck on earlier material here. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Presenting draft #5
I have now worked out a fifth draft on the 'Fascism' section to present; but first, some explanatory notes are called for:
- – The text on Tom Mulcair has been cut back a little.
- – The material about Jeffrey Herf has now been cut back and Herf himself thrown in with the rest of the fascism scholars who classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.
- – The inputs from Neutrality above have been of good use to me — thanks! I have rewritten and included the paragraphs on Riotta and the NYT article in the current draft.
- – I disagree with users MrX and Neutrality that no image or symbol of fascism should be included in the article. The section on Various earlier figures... already features an image of Trump shaking hands with former President Reagan. It is dull for the human eye to glance at text, all text. An image here and there provides some visual variety for readers, I say. Editors who believe that a genre image of fascism is irrelevant should get informed about the recent neo-Nazi pledge in Sacramento to protect Trump supporters at the coming RNC, please read this Daily Beast article and look at this Ring of Fire photo before objecting to the image below.
So, here goes:
Fascism
Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent.[1][2][3] In May 2016, neoconservative historian and columnist Robert Kagan wrote a column where he argued that Trump's lack of a coherent ideology, compensated for by his popular appeal of a strongman who can be entrusted the fate of a nation, is a phenomenon earlier known as 'fascism'; but times have changed since the first part of the 20th century, and the U.S. is not continental Europe, Kagan concludes:
“ | This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes ... but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.[4] | ” |
Kagan's column gained some interest in the media.[5][6][7]
Journalist and author Carl Bernstein has argued that Trump is 'a neo-fascist' representing "... a kind of American fascism that we haven't seen before..."[8] Professor Robert Reich, political commentator and author, has labeled Trump 'a fascist', whose "... verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims ... follow the older fascist script."[9] In Canada, leader of the New Democratic Party Tom Mulcair has labeled Trump 'a fascist', as Trump appeals to "the lowest feelings in human nature."[10]
Professor emeritus Robert Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader.[11] Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin, Stanley G. Payne and Jeffrey Herf, all classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.[12][13]
Italian journalist Gianni Riotta, who had first-hand experience of Italian neo-fascism during the Years of Lead in the 1970s, argues that Trump is not a fascist. Riotta admits that while Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric" and "demagoguery ... certainly borrow from the fascist playbook," Trump is "fundamentally, a blustering political opportunist courting votes in a democratic system" without the intent to "kill democracy and install a dictatorship" that characterizes fascism.[14]
According to The New York Times, comparing Trump's campaign to fascism is regarded by his supporters as "... deeply unfair smear tactics used to tar conservatives and scare voters," while not acknowledging "... widespread popular anger at the failure of both parties to confront the nation's challenges."[6]
References
- ^ Neiwert, David (14 January 2016). "Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He Is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path". Huffington Post.
- ^ Dreyfuss, Bob (14 March 2016). "Trump's Storm Troopers and the Possibility of American Fascism". The Nation.
- ^ Stark, Holger (17 May 2016). "An Exhausted Democracy: Donald Trump and the New American Nationalism". Spiegel Online International.
- ^ Kagan, Robert (18 May 2016). "This is how fascism comes to America". Washington Post.
- ^ Engel, Pamela (19 May 2016). "Prominent neoconservative on Trump: 'This is how fascism comes to America'". Business Insider.
- ^ a b Baker, Peter (28 May 2016). "Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism". New York Times.
- ^ Bouie, Jamelle (3 June 2016). "How Should America Resist a Fascist?". Slate.
- ^ Amato, John (13 March 2016). "Carl Bernstein: Donald Trump Is An American 'Neo-Fascist'". Crooks and Liars.
- ^ Reich, Robert (8 March 2016). "The American Fascist". Personal Blog.
- ^ Kassam, Ashifa (31 March 2016). "Canadian party leader Thomas Mulcair calls Donald Trump a 'fascist'". The Guardian.
- ^ Patt Morrison, Robert O. Paxton talks fascism and Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times (March 9, 2016).
- ^ Matthews, Dylan (May 19, 2016). "I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said". Vox. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
- ^ Herf, Jeffrey (7 March 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Fascist?". The American Interest.
- ^ Riotta, Gianni (16 January 2016). "I Know Fascists; Donald Trump Is No Fascist". The Atlantic.
End of draft. End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Admits" (as in "Riotta admits") is not a good word to use (see WP:CLAIM). I would replace it with "writes" (a more neutral word). I would get rid of the "see also" - unnecessary since it is already linked in the text. In the last paragraph, I would also change "while not acknowledging" to "that fails to acknowledge" (a bit more clear). I also maintain that we don't need an image. Other than that, I'm OK with using this draft, subject of course to editing in the normal course of article improvement. I do think we need something in the article, and as long as it is well-sourced and balanced it doesn't need to be absolutely perfect. I think Kagan text in particular can be tightened. Neutralitytalk 15:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your fine comments. I will take them into account in the sixth draft along with the comments from other users I expect will turn up soon... Gaeanautes (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Admits" (as in "Riotta admits") is not a good word to use (see WP:CLAIM). I would replace it with "writes" (a more neutral word). I would get rid of the "see also" - unnecessary since it is already linked in the text. In the last paragraph, I would also change "while not acknowledging" to "that fails to acknowledge" (a bit more clear). I also maintain that we don't need an image. Other than that, I'm OK with using this draft, subject of course to editing in the normal course of article improvement. I do think we need something in the article, and as long as it is well-sourced and balanced it doesn't need to be absolutely perfect. I think Kagan text in particular can be tightened. Neutralitytalk 15:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
*Oppose in favor of Talk:Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Proposed_compromise_amalgamation_of_three_earlier_suggestions This version seems too long to me. In my opinion the basic point to be made in this article is that many political commentators have seen parallels between the Trump campaign and fascism. Fascism experts, however, has said this isn't fascism. I think too much explanation drowns out that basic message. Too much discussion also drowns out the basic message. I wouldn't mind seeing any one of the above versions go into the article. I also recognize that whatever goes in will be subject to additional editing.Nowa (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nowa: I'll cut back on the Kagan part of the text in the next draft, as already proposed by User Neutrality above and agreed with by me. I agree with you what the basic message of the section is. The only paragraph not dealing with the basic message is the last one, documenting that Trump supporters deem it 'deeply unfair smear tactics' to label Trump a fascist. But I think this is an important point to have as the conclusion of the section. Gaeanautes (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It has now been two weeks since I presented the draft #5 on 'Fascism' above, and only two users — namely Neutrality and Nowa — have reacted to it so far. I'll wait two-three more weeks from now on before I present my intended draft #6 below. In the meantime, users are more than welcome to discuss draft #5 here, or — even better — to present their own version of a draft #6; the text is not entirely my baby anyway. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"Criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
The lede currently states: "...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'". The actual quote from Trump in the source(s) is: "They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
The statement in the lede was originally inserted with the qualifier "predominantly". My concern with this qualifier is that according to a dictionary, "predominantly" means "mainly" or "mostly", which I think overstates his reference to "many". I removed "predominantly", which had the effect of implying that he was referring to all illegal immigrants from Mexico (which I think is even less accurate). This was my attempt to make the statement closer to Trump's actual quote (which uses the qualifier "many"). However that has been reverted.
I believe the current version in the article is inaccurate and contentious. I'm requesting further discussion on this.CFredkin (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cherry picking. I falsely "corrected" it but had to reverse myself after checking the sources.--TMCk (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, we use what he said in June, not later in July.--TMCk (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not following your statements. Can you elaborate?CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- See my edit summary here.--TMCk (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not following your statements. Can you elaborate?CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the actual initial quote:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
--TMCk (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the actual initial quote:
- For clarity, you posted Trump's quote from June above. Here's his quote from July, which the content currently in the article is based on:
“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- For clarity, you posted Trump's quote from June above. Here's his quote from July, which the content currently in the article is based on:
RfC: Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored?
The lead of the article contained this sentence: Trump's most polarizing and widely reported statements have been about issues of immigration and border security, especially his proposed deportation of all illegal immigrants, the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, a temporary ban on alien Muslims entering the U.S.,[1] and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."[2][3]
References
|
---|
References
|
An editor removed: "and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.""
Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored? - MrX 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
- Yes - This has been covered in dozens of sources, and continues to be covered more than a year after he said it. WP:NPOV requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This is both prominent and enduring, and can't possibly be removed for WP:BLP reasons because they are Trump's actual words.- MrX 20:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include as already discussed before here and here. Additionally I suggest removing the disruptive editor who keeps removing this.--TMCk (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include - Covered by every major news source, a significant part of his campaign, emphasized by his talking about crime victims of immigrants, and his own words. Objective3000 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude, with qualification - As stated in the section above, the actual statement attributed to Trump is "They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”. The disputed statement in the RfC does not accurately reflect Trump's statement as it doesn't include the qualification I highlighted ("in many cases"). I've proposed a version of the content to address this, but apparently that is unacceptable. So if we're not going to accurately reflect Trump's statement, then I think it should be excluded.CFredkin (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Quite honestly, I think it's a blatant BLP violation to cherry pick only part of Trump's statement for inclusion in the lede of the article for pete's sake.CFredkin (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Would you mind listening to the audio of his actual words here, starting at time index 0:27, and tell me where you hear the words "in many cases"?- MrX 22:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Um, that's not the quote being discussed here.CFredkin (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC) That would seem to be pretty obvious.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Trump said: "They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." That's where the characterization came from. The specific words in discussion are Trump's doubling down on the exact same stated viewpoint.- MrX 22:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. That's not true. From the same WP source provided above:
- Yes it is. Trump said: "They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." That's where the characterization came from. The specific words in discussion are Trump's doubling down on the exact same stated viewpoint.- MrX 22:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Um, that's not the quote being discussed here.CFredkin (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC) That would seem to be pretty obvious.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015
“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
–Trump, statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015CFredkin (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (re. CFredkin, again) You leave the "etc." out (as I already proposed earlier) and what's left is a paraphrasing of the initial speech in June that actually triggered the controversy. His response to the response happened weeks later and has no importance here.--TMCk (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- If the problem that CFredkin has is that the quote omits "in some case", then we can simple not use a quote at all and remove the "etc". No matter how you slice this though, Trump did characterize illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as criminals, drug dealers, rapists. Quotes are not needed.- MrX 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- As stated above you can't take a fragment of a statement by someone, leave out a qualifier (i.e. "in many cases") that significantly affects the interpretation of the statement, and include it in an article (much less a BLP). The reference to quotation marks is a red herring.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- He clearly states that "criminals, drug dealers, rapists" are being "sent" by the Mexican gov't, without a wit of evidence that the Mexican gov't is sending a single person, other than diplomats. He ignores the well-established studies by the FBI that immigrants create less crime than natural-born citizens. This remains a major part f his campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- As stated above you can't take a fragment of a statement by someone, leave out a qualifier (i.e. "in many cases") that significantly affects the interpretation of the statement, and include it in an article (much less a BLP). The reference to quotation marks is a red herring.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- If the problem that CFredkin has is that the quote omits "in some case", then we can simple not use a quote at all and remove the "etc". No matter how you slice this though, Trump did characterize illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as criminals, drug dealers, rapists. Quotes are not needed.- MrX 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (re. CFredkin, again) You leave the "etc." out (as I already proposed earlier) and what's left is a paraphrasing of the initial speech in June that actually triggered the controversy. His response to the response happened weeks later and has no importance here.--TMCk (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include This is one of the most notable aspects of the Trump campaign per multiple RS and is consistent with the first quote. The first quote appears to be more notable than the second quote, if only in terms of Google searches. first quote 42,000 citations Second quote 7,960 citations--Nowa (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: isn't it already in the page further down? Controversy aside, it is not the most notable aspect of Trump's campaign. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Trump did not say that all illegal immigrants were ""criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." He said that some of them were "nice people." However outraged we are by his comments, we must report them accurately and reliably source any interpretation of them. TFD (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the quote is "some I assume are good people" That's actually not a statement that some illegal immigrants are good people. The main thrust of the statement is that illegal immigrants as a whole are bad people, not like us. "Some, I assume, are good people" rhetorically emphasizes that basic message.--Nowa (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- That falls under WP:OR. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DaltonCastle: No, DaltonCastle, User: Nowa's post is not WP:OR. Instead, Nowa is sticking to the source — that is, trying to adequately summarize what the source is saying. WP:OR is when there is no reliable source to refer to, or to summarize — which is obviously not the case here. Refer to WP:OR, please inform yourself about guidelines before throwing more allegations on the table. My own opinion on the subject matter is that Trump's vague qualifier — 'some, I assume, are good people' — is intended merely to fend off allegations about racism; and this opinion of mine does not amount to OR, as there is a verifiable source to be summarized and made sense out of. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you say something is your opinion it is by definition OR. Notice in an example provided in the policy, it says, "The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion...." Your opinion may be right, wrong or the only conclusion a reasonable person could draw, but it is still your opinion. TFD (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @TFD: No, this is incorrect. You are refering to an example concerning synthesizing material which is irrelevant here. We are presently concerned with sticking to the source, that is, 'carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning or implication'. Editors obviously disagree about how to summarize and rephrase, as the current discussions show. User: Nowa, myself and others have offered views on how best to summarize and rephrase the material, and this does not amount to OR, I submit. Refer to WP:OR once again. However, I welcome this meta-discussion of what reliable editing is. My point is that we need to abandon the narrow-minded practice of labeling any opinion stated by an editor on a talk page as OR, and — even worse — to unfairly dismiss the opinion as OR without further ado. User DaltonCastle and User TFD will have to consider the error of their ways and correct themselves accordingly, I say. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the quote is "some I assume are good people" That's actually not a statement that some illegal immigrants are good people. The main thrust of the statement is that illegal immigrants as a whole are bad people, not like us. "Some, I assume, are good people" rhetorically emphasizes that basic message.--Nowa (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include As has been pointed out already, there was tremendous coverage of those words exactly as they already in the article. Whoever removed them without discussing it first should be sanctioned by an admin. It's a ridiculous pro-Trump POV to take that quote out; complete whitewashing attempt. Rockypedia (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include Very strongly support they be included. This is so obvious that we should not need to have a RfC on it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include The comments during his announcement set the tone for his entire campaign.LM2000 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include It was the opening statement of his campaign, and he repeated it since. It definitely belongs in the lead. But the wording could be improved a bit, taking into account the complaints of User: TFD and especially User: CFredkin that Trump did add "... that some of them were nice people." Hence, my suggestion reads: "... and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as mostly "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."" The single word 'mostly' put before the quotation itself neatly converts Trump's own vague qualifier into a concise encyclopedic account, I say. Now, let us not get too nitpicking about all this. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include - the opening statement of his campaign, repeated many times, extremely widespread coverage even in the context of a media-soaked campaign. Certainly lead-worthy. Would do our readers a disservice to omit. (It is pretty disappointing to see editors fighting tooth and nail on what really should be non-contentious). Neutralitytalk 14:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. So let's include his complete sentence, and not some cherry-picked fragment of it.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- CFredkin, quoting long statements in full is a rather un-encyclopedic exercise, especially in the lead section. Have you considered my suggestion for a re-wording above? Gaeanautes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gaeanautes: I appreciate your good faith proposal. However "mostly" has a different meaning than "many". I don't believe this version, which uses Trump's actual language, is any longer: "...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as, in many cases, being 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'"CFredkin (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- CFredkin: Good enough for me. Will this settle the issue for you once and for all...? Gaeanautes (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. In fact, I attempted to add this language to the article. It was reverted. I initiated the Talk discussion in the section above and removed the content (per WP:BLP), until consensus could be achieved about the content.CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with basing the lede on the second "in many cases..." quote. He certainly said it, but the initial quote is the notable one that has set the tone for his campaign.--Nowa (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nowa: But Trump's initial quote is too long, "... they're not sending the best. They're not sending you. [do.] ..." It's inappropriate for an encyclopedic account, especially in the lead. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. What I'm coming around to is that maybe "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." should not be in quotes. Simply state that Trump has characterized Mexican illegal immigrants as a whole as criminals, drug dealers and rapists.--Nowa (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, and that makes it a paraphrase of the initial speech which triggered the response. To put it in quotation marks was the only minor mistake by MastCell in their edit. Insisting on a "softened" quote that was made weeks later is dishonest cherry picking, misleading and disruptive.--TMCk (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. What I'm coming around to is that maybe "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." should not be in quotes. Simply state that Trump has characterized Mexican illegal immigrants as a whole as criminals, drug dealers and rapists.--Nowa (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- The proposed language isn't based on his initial quote (as stated above).CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. So I think your basic point is that if we are going to have a quote, then it should be in context, and the context of that quote was that it referred to "in many cases" and not illegal immigrants from Mexico as a whole. Correct?--Nowa (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Bingo.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- --TMCk and CFredkin does this more accurately capture what you want the lede to say? ...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants from Mexico as generally being criminals, drug dealers and rapists. (i.e. a paraphrase, not a quote)--Nowa (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why can't we use Trump's own words (i.e. "many")?CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's actually what I suggested before the RFC was started but someone was not happy with it and removed the whole darn thing, again. "Generally" is actually a good addition.--TMCk (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- --TMCk and CFredkin does this more accurately capture what you want the lede to say? ...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants from Mexico as generally being criminals, drug dealers and rapists. (i.e. a paraphrase, not a quote)--Nowa (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Bingo.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. So I think your basic point is that if we are going to have a quote, then it should be in context, and the context of that quote was that it referred to "in many cases" and not illegal immigrants from Mexico as a whole. Correct?--Nowa (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User: Nowa's proposal for the wording made above. Since Nowa's post is unsigned(?), I'll repeat the proposal here for convenience: '... and his characterizations of illegal immigrants from Mexico as generally being criminals, drug dealers and rapists.' A paraphrase is appropriate, I say. I suppose we could substitute the word 'generally' with either 'in many cases' (as User: CFredkin has proposed earlier on); or with 'mostly' (my own previous proposal). So, I think we have now narrowed down the discussion to this: Is it going to be 'generally', 'in many cases' or 'mostly' in the italicized sentence above? Is there a slight chance we can reach a consensus on this soon? Gaeanautes (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include, MrX's audio above makes it clear that when challenged by TV news he repeated, the only qualifier in that instance is "some I assume are good people" additionally he makes it clear that Mexico etc are 'sending these people'.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include, with qualification. The statement is so massively controversial, and so widely covered, that I don't see that we have any choice but to include it in the lede. We need to be careful, though; if we're quoting, then we should accurately reproduce the whole quote, and if we're paraphrasing, then it shouldn't go in quotes. There seems to be some uncertainty about which quote is being used: AFAIK, the June 16 speech is the one that got a lot of attention, and should be the one used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked Sockpuppet
Yes However, we shouldn't be making up our own context. We should objectively report what he had said. Searcher11 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC) - Yes The words reflect what he said and continues to say. Pmacdee (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include but Qualify - (summoned by bot). I think User:CFredkin, User:Vanamonde93 and User:Searcher11 are making a worthwhile point. The proposed wording suggests that Trump implied all illegal immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, rapists". Strictly speaking, that doesn't appear to be what he said. I'd use the following wording to more accurately reflect Trumps quote.
- his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
- Ultimately, if we're going to relay potentially inflammatory quotes, we should work hard to make sure we relay them as accurately as possible. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Include the wording suggested by NickCT above. (I assumed this is already in the text of the article somewhere, but for some reason we seem to have banished all of his political positions from the text.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems we have finally reached a consensus on this issue. Consequently, I have now restored Trump's comment along the lines proposed by User:NickCT above. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@CFredkin: Thank you for the correction and for conforming to the talk page consensus. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
4 Reliably Sourced Proposals for New Sections for Article that the Article misses
Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive
|
---|
1) US Chamber of commerce claims Trump election would cost U.S. 3.5 million jobs due to tarriffs, trade wars http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/us-chamber-of-commerce-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=business&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Business%20Day&pgtype=article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 2) Trump's Alma Matter, Wharton College takes unprecedented step of condemnation of alumnus http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/wharton-donald-trump.html?_r=0 Also, make sure the article reflects that Trump attended Wharton as an undergraduate only, and that Trump has no graduate education, unlike all prior presidents (hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 3) Supreme Court Justice condemns Trump, plans to flee country and claim political asylum in New Zealand http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 4) Trump's Climate Change Denialism (this is the most embarassing omission from the article presently I would say) According to widely reported and discussed public comments by candidate Trump, climate change is a "chinese hoax." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/science/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy-kevin-cramer.html http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/22/this-is-the-only-type-of-climate-change-donald-trump-believes-in/ http://fpif.org/trumps-climate-change-denial-already-complicating-paris-climate-deal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands
Are there any editors who are interested in helping to expand the Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed Text for Lead
(Redacted) comments by blocked user per WP:EVADE.
- Can we go ahead and strike this as WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
New Trump-Pence Logo
Would logo from website be okay to use in Wikipedia? Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. It is on his official website. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see that they quickly yanked that widely-ridiculed logo. Have they replaced it with another one? --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the "copulating" one?--TMCk (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind. Found a source.--TMCk (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
PAC
Closing this discussion which has gotten personal; let's start over and stick to discussing article content.
|
---|
User:Rockypedia So you agree that this edit doesn't belong in the Stop Trump section, but you restore it there anyway. What's the rationale for that?CFredkin (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Donald Trump's tax returns
Mr. Trump's campaign is at a very historic point. No Republican (or Democratic ...? ) candidate for President has advanced to the convention without producing a single tax document since the Nixon/Agnew ticket. Nixon produced his tax returns after the election to prove his honesty, resulting in his famous "I am not a crook!" statement. Well, Nixon under-paid his taxes and Agnew was convicted of tax evasion. As a direct result [1], disclosure of tax returns PRIOR to the convention has become the de-facto standard for all candidates. Trump's refusal is treading new ground particularly in the wake of all of his financial misadventures. This issue should receive greater disclosure than lumping it in with other "Controversies". This isn't equivalent to something Trump said that someone may disagree with. This could remove him from elected office, as it did with Agnew, since many people are advocating electing him President WITHOUT documentation that he has not committed tax fraud or under-payment. Very different from the other controversies.
I advocate adding information regarding this significant issue in the lead paragraphs For this Article. The tax evasion issue is in Agnew's lead paragraphs and disclosure of tax returns have been a de-factor standard [2] because of Agnew.
Please note that I had added this previously and it was removed.
Pmacdee (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can tell that you feel very strongly about this, and you believe it is far more important than other issues. You may well be right, in an absolute sense. But the way we balance the article is according to how much attention the various issues have gotten in Reliable Sources. This issue has gotten enough attention to be a section, which it is. I honestly don't think we can justify putting it in the lede. But let's see what others have to say. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I took at look at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and it has a very similar treatment to this: nothing in the lead, but a section about his reluctance to release the information and the reaction when he did. It isn't clear from the article when he released the returns (before or after the convention) and whether they were complete or not. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Romney was reluctant but did commit BEFORE the convention to release tax returns and released them two months before the election [1][2]. Trump has committed to NOT releasing his returns before the election. This is a big difference and could lead to a serious disruption in our government. Nixon/Agnew should be a lesson to the American public that the tax returns should be available before the election. It demonstrates basic honesty of the candidate. It should be mentioned in the lede (BTW, is the lede the first 4 paragraphs before the the "Contents"?) Those paragraphs mention many of the controversies. Clearly, the tax return issue should be included. None of those controversies could lead to Trump leaving office, but a tax fraud issue could and the American public has zero documentation to make a decision. Pmacdee (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Do we have consensus on adding something about Trump's refusal to produce tax returns to the lede? Pmacdee (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Um, no. I said above that I thought it was NOT justified in the lede. Maybe if some other people would chime in? (P.S. Thanks for asking. Some people would have just gone ahead and claimed consensus even though there wasn't one.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your mentioned that you balance the article is according to how much attention the various issues have gotten in Reliable Sources. I notice the following items in the lede ; "assassination" attempt was (a one day thing in the news), the shutdown of a rally in Chicago (a 2-3 day thing over a weekend), Trump saying that he would like to punch protesters (that happened once or twice). The tax return thing clearly outscores the items I mentioned. I would be happy to prepare a list of references spanning the past year if that is appropriate ( at least for making he decision on this talk page) Since this also has the potential for a significant disruption of his Presidency if he is elected without examining his returns, I claim that the tax return issue should be mentioned. Although I am pretty certain that counting google search returns is not what you mean by "Reliable Source" , google returns only 600k references to 'donald trump punch in the face' and over 4 million for 'donald trump tax returns' or 'donald trump chicago rally'. Is there a way to get others to review this request? Nothing personal, I just disagree with you.Pmacdee (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Um, no. I said above that I thought it was NOT justified in the lede. Maybe if some other people would chime in? (P.S. Thanks for asking. Some people would have just gone ahead and claimed consensus even though there wasn't one.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Do we have consensus on adding something about Trump's refusal to produce tax returns to the lede? Pmacdee (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The significance of any aspect of a subject is determined by its coverage in reliable sources, not by how significant we think it is. In this case, it is the frequency with which CNN, The New York Times, Sunday morning talk shows, etc., discuss the returns relative to other issues. No reliable sources have suggested the returns are fraudulent and it is unlikely that their public release would enable us to determine if they were. IRS auditors are in a better position to make that call. Agnew indeed was convicted of tax fraud, but it was failing to report bribes received. Unless one knew that Agnew had received bribes, which is an offense and something that Trump has never been in position to do, the tax returns would not have shown the fraud. TFD (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the description of the significance criteria. Can you provide the data on the frequency of the coverage for a few of the the topics that appear in the lede so that I can demonstrate the importance of the tax return issue? I did not suggest that Trump's returns were fraudulent, it is merely the risk of such a situation re-occurring is significant when no documentation is provided. However, one editor did make reference to the fact that Trump's refusal is an electoral "bomb" in this Article, so I guess reliable sources have been identified. Thanks for discussing this with me and providing the data so that I can demonstrate the importance of the tax return issue in the lede.2605:E000:141F:8028:9976:3E8F:D58B:C58A (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that some of the stuff in the lede may be relatively unimportant, but other stuff exists. We are discussing the tax issue on its own merits, not compared to everything else in the lede. And the reference you mention is a claim that the returns themselves could contain an electoral bombshell. Nobody has said that his failure to release them is one. (Personally I think Trump has made a calculated judgment that his failure to release the returns is not going to be determinative in the election - that is, very few people are going to vote against him for that reason - whereas their contents very well might be.) TFD, just for clarity, are you arguing against putting it in the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the description of the significance criteria. Can you provide the data on the frequency of the coverage for a few of the the topics that appear in the lede so that I can demonstrate the importance of the tax return issue? I did not suggest that Trump's returns were fraudulent, it is merely the risk of such a situation re-occurring is significant when no documentation is provided. However, one editor did make reference to the fact that Trump's refusal is an electoral "bomb" in this Article, so I guess reliable sources have been identified. Thanks for discussing this with me and providing the data so that I can demonstrate the importance of the tax return issue in the lede.2605:E000:141F:8028:9976:3E8F:D58B:C58A (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but"other stuff" relates to other articles and not content in the very same where it is of course relevant when comparing due weight for or against inclusion.--TMCk (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Two things; 1) Four dueces said that the lede topics ARE determined by comparison to others topics in the lede (makes sense to me...) and 2) the article that you linked in the Controversy section says exactly that if Trump does not release them and provide sufficient time for the shock/concern/anger to dissipate, he will have a nasty 'October surprise'. Read the first two or three paragraphs. The tax return issue was huge in the first quarter of this year when Trump changed his mind, do you think Clinton is going to ignore that? I am still not understanding why the tax return issue was not in this Article on March when Trump changed his mind. This is a significant and distinctive departure from a 40 year old practice. I hate to be a 'Get off my lawn!' old man, but do you remember what happened to our country with Nixon and Agnew?? I appreciate the great point about Trump making a calculated decision. (Personally, I agree, but think that he made a huge mistake. If there is something in those returns that is worse than not showing them, he should have never run. There are too many people voting, like myself, that lived through Nixon/Agnew) 2605:E000:141F:8028:9976:3E8F:D58B:C58A (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- (It would be helpful if you would remember to sign in before commenting, so that your comments have your signature - although it's pretty clear when an IP is you.) The article actually says “What will you do if the returns come out as part of an October surprise?” - i.e., if Trump doesn't release them but they are "leaked" before the election. The same article urged delegates to abstain from voting until he releases his tax returns; however, no delegates did abstain, indicating that this writer's advice was not taken seriously. Look, I agree with you that this OUGHT to be a big deal for the electorate and the media. But up to now, it hasn't been. If it becomes a bigger issue in the general election campaign, as it very well may, it could escalate to the point of being included in the lead. But up to now, things like the Mexico wall and the Muslim ban have attracted far more media attention than his refusal to follow this traditional action of candidates. For that matter, his comments about the "Mexican" judge also got a huge amount of publicity, as did the widespread criticism of them, but we have not included that in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Two things; 1) Four dueces said that the lede topics ARE determined by comparison to others topics in the lede (makes sense to me...) and 2) the article that you linked in the Controversy section says exactly that if Trump does not release them and provide sufficient time for the shock/concern/anger to dissipate, he will have a nasty 'October surprise'. Read the first two or three paragraphs. The tax return issue was huge in the first quarter of this year when Trump changed his mind, do you think Clinton is going to ignore that? I am still not understanding why the tax return issue was not in this Article on March when Trump changed his mind. This is a significant and distinctive departure from a 40 year old practice. I hate to be a 'Get off my lawn!' old man, but do you remember what happened to our country with Nixon and Agnew?? I appreciate the great point about Trump making a calculated decision. (Personally, I agree, but think that he made a huge mistake. If there is something in those returns that is worse than not showing them, he should have never run. There are too many people voting, like myself, that lived through Nixon/Agnew) 2605:E000:141F:8028:9976:3E8F:D58B:C58A (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but"other stuff" relates to other articles and not content in the very same where it is of course relevant when comparing due weight for or against inclusion.--TMCk (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump pseudonyms
Given the discussion above re: "John Miller", I figured I'd note the creation of the Donald Trump pseudonyms article. All are invited to help expand/improve. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Side bars
For some reason, User:FabulousFerd remove the sidebars template:Populism sidebar and template:US 2016 presidential elections series twice by now. The first time with as argument "remove excessive and unnecessary infoboxes in the lead". The second time with the comment "just the {{Trump Series}} sidebar is enough". In my opinion, both removed sidebars are relevant, so I challenge the removal. The Banner talk 21:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm glad you decided to start a discussion here. Well, like I said, there were many sidebars and they were invading the body of the article. The template:US 2016 presidential elections series, for example, is only relevant when it is in the lead; but it was in the body of the article, in which case it should be related to the section it is in. I think they should be removed, but if anyone else thinks they should stay, then it's OK. FabulousFerd (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me why it should be relevant to the section where it shows up? Can you imagine that the actual place where a sidebar shows up, varies with the size of a screen and the size of the text as chosen by a reader? The Banner talk 21:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- All sidebars to be restored in the lead, I say. We cannot delete relevant material, just because it 'invades the body of the article', as User:FabulousFerd has it. User:The Banner is correct in pointing out that readers should be able to manage the graphical rendering of the article by adjusting the size of their window and font. This should not be an issue for editors to consider. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Trade agreements
I'm not clear on which free trade agreements Trump opposes. A cursory glance at the article showed only:
- a mention in a list in the lede
- one sentence later on
- a link to newspaper article
On the other hand, Trump is quoted as saying he's for "free trade". (It's not clear to me how he's using that phrase.)
Is Trump for higher or lower tariffs on imports, say, from Mexico? Is he definitely planning to take America out of NAFTA?
Or is it just "disadvantageous" deals he opposes? If so, what provisions would he drop or change? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct, the phrasing is unclear. It implies that Trump opposes free trade when in fact he merely opposes some of the so-called free trade agreements although it is not clear which ones or what he would do about them. TFD (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not hard to tell which ones he opposes: a few weeks ago he compared the TPP to "the rape of our country" and called NAFTA “the worst trade deal in the history of the country”.[15] According to the same reference, he says he will either renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from it. He says he will withdraw from TPP, which has not yet been ratified. So that's clear. What isn't clear is in what possible sense he is for "free trade"; he talks more like a protectionist. I'd be OK with deleting that phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, then is it okay if I delete the word free from free trade? I'd like to say that he opposes certain trade agreements. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- The sources cited say free trade, I would stick with what the sources say. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, unc, this issue transcends a minor wording change. The broader question is what Trump's views are, on international trade. Is he for free trade, meaning unilaterally dropping all barriers to imports into the USA - even if other countries don't reciprocate? Is he for "fair trade" (however he defines that term), possible meaning he's for free trade in general - but not with countries that don't "play fair"?
Way too much to be settled by changing "free trade agreements" to "trade agreements", but it still needs to be addressed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rather obvious that he is against free trade as he has repeatedly stated that he would apply tariffs to companies that don't do what he wants. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Long list of sources
Reddit contributors have compiled this list of press coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- This could be useful for editors, but keep in mind it's strongly weighted anti-Trump (remember WP:BLP still applies here), and some of the sources don't quite measure up to Wikipedia's quality standards. Bottom line: research carefully. FallingGravity (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Tweet
Why is there no mention of Trumps proclivity to "tweet". It is a major method of his personal response to the press that he choose to use on an almost daily basis. His use of Twitter is a groundbreaking tactic in the POTUS election cycle. If just for historic reasons it should be mentioned. Buster Seven Talk 13:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can see the dozen or so mentions of twitter in the article and the "Twitter controversies" thread. But no mention of Trumps use of tweeting as an important way to communicate with his followers and detractors "in his own words". He is single-handedly creating a new way to electioneer.
And what about the whole Kizhr Khan episode and Trumps twitter response. Doesn't that deserve mention?Buster Seven Talk 13:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC) - Khan family mentioned Done Buster Seven Talk 22:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Mr. & Mrs. Khan section
I have reduced this section for weight and neutrality and left essentially what was said by both men.[16]. The reader can draw their own conclusions. The editorial type comments from Politico/NPR, etc., create undue weight. This is to avoid someone later coming in and then adding supporting comments in favor of Trump, the subsequent slow edit wars that will occur despite the page restrictions, and all the other drama that entails. This is still about a living person at the end of the day, and WP:BLP guidelines still apply, no matter how emotional/controversial the political press makes this out to be. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mostly legit, although the fact that the criticism came from "the whole political spectrum" needs to be mentioned as that's very significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems best, given this is a BLP, to keep this between the two men. That's just going to invite more rebuttals and the section gets out of proportion. I've added Mr. Khan's statement on MTP when he was asked about Trump's subsequent written statements. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is about his presidential campaign. The fact that he's being criticized by members of his own party is very very significant and notable. Since that can be well sourced, it's not a BLP issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Marek. It would be absurd (and, frankly, inexplicable) for us to omit the fact that he has been criticized by many prominent members of his own party. That's part of the necessary context. And I have no idea what bearing BLP has on this particular point. Neutralitytalk 05:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then it will also necessarily have to include comments from those who disagree with Mr. Khan and are defending Mr. Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you can find some that are not campaign surrogates and are not on the Trump bandwagon, it might be best to present them here before inclusion. Buster Seven Talk 06:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly, nobody except cranks and paid staffers appears to be defending the remarks denigrating the Khan family. See WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE. Neutralitytalk 14:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then it will also necessarily have to include comments from those who disagree with Mr. Khan and are defending Mr. Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems best, given this is a BLP, to keep this between the two men. That's just going to invite more rebuttals and the section gets out of proportion. I've added Mr. Khan's statement on MTP when he was asked about Trump's subsequent written statements. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It's an article about the campaign, so his campaign spokesmen can certainly be quoted here. I don't see anything in WP:RS that says we can't use what Paul Manafort has said for Trump, or what Joel Berensen says for Hillary's side of things on this. That said, Buster Seven makes a good point. It would be best to write up something and present it here first for others to comment and contribute to. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC: "racism" in lede
Should the following highlighted statement be included in the lede to this article?
Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign and has proved to be popular among his supporters,[1] although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.[2]
References
- ^ Itkowitz, Colby (December 9, 2015). "Donald Trump says we're all too politically correct. But is that also a way to limit speech?". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
- ^ See:
- King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
- Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". New York Times.
- Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.
- D'Antonio, Michael (June 7, 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune.
- Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
- Schleifer, Theodore (June 11, 2016). "Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with 'trickle-down racism'". CNN. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
- Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No It appears to violate WP:BLP. This is sensationalism generated by editors of these news outlets and politicians who politically oppose Trump. WP:BLP specifically states:
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."
SW3 5DL (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - there's a ton of sources, another couple tons can be provided and the fact is obviously pertinent to his presidential campaign. As a result, not a BLP issue. Not even close, given the careful wording of the present text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: What reliable sources claim Donald Trump is a racist? What evidence is there that he behaves like a racist? Characterizing his comments as racist is not the same thing as his being a racist. His behavior does not support such a claim. Donald Trump made sure his club in Florida admitted Blacks and Jews when other clubs were still discriminating. That doesn't sound like a guy who seeks to appeal to racist people. When he was running for President with the Green Party back in the 80s, he resigned from the party because David Duke was a member of the party and Trump explicitly said he wouldn't be part of that. His daughter and her family are Jewish. Mitt Romney politically opposes Trump. He's not a racist. And yes, this would be a BLP violation. I think it would be all right to state that some of Trump's comments could be seen as appealing to those with racists tendencies, but it must not suggest that Trump is a racist since a careful reading of his past comments and behaviours do not suggest racism. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: The text being discussed DOES NOT claim Donald Trump is a racist. See strawman fallacy. This is why I explicitly mentioned the "careful wording of the present text". (and, uh, David Duke was not a member of the Green Party. Neither was Donald) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include - this is properly hedged (it's presented not in our own voice, but in the voice of others), carefully worded, and thoroughly referenced. It may be unpleasant to talk about, but as the references plainly indicate, this is a major, sustained, months-long theme/controversy. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney's statements should absolutely seal the deal on this. This is not, in my view, even a close call. Neutralitytalk 05:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This should not say ". . .have viewed him as appealing explicity to racism." They have no proof of that. Rather, it would be acceptable to say '. . .have viewed his comments as appealing to those with racist tendencies." Using 'explicitly' accuses Trump of intending all along to discriminate and seeking like-minded followers. There are no reliable sources to support that. Mitt Romney, who does not hide his scathing hatred for Trump, saying it doesn't make it so. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, include - to reiterate, his statements have been described as "racist" by GOP House Leader Paul Ryan, former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and a myriad of other Republicans (as well as Democrats and mainstream RS observers). It is a central component of his electoral appeal -- he launched his campaign with racial generalizations about Mexican immigrants, after all, and has attacked an Indiana-born judge on the basis of his Mexican heritage -- and it is obviously a trait he takes pride in and has defended, arguing that he opposes "politically correct" speech. The additional clause is necessary, in order to contextualized what Trump claims as a campaign against "political correctness", and I find no objection to its NPOV wording as currently proposed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Include.- for the reasons given by other editors. The almost year-long societal conversations and hundreds of media dialogues and reports have mostly centered on Trumps racist thinking and his damning comments. We didn't get here alone. We know him by what we see....and hear. Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No: this isn't an attack page about the campaign. It's an article simply about the campaign. Criticisms like that do not belong in the lead. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I might agree if it were a normal campaign. But it is not. Attacking ones opponents and any naysayers is the #1 tactic of the campaign. Outliers (other races) have been the #1 target. The fact that they (tactics and targets) have been repeatedly used since the beginning of the campaign to the present day creates their importance and their proper placement in the lede. They are not criticisms in that they are more than just "finding fault". They are accurate observations made by thousands of available secondary sources. Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is, people who have officially endorsed Trump are ALSO saying this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's original research. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. There is no basis for it. Partisan (left-wing) media sources may try to smear him, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. He's appealing to people who like America; that's not racist.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- How are comments by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, accurately reported in mainstream sources such as USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Associated Press, etc., "partisan left-wing sources"? Utter nonsense. Neutralitytalk 14:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Include - There is nothing "partisan (left-wing)" about comments from Republican sources. As mentioned above, this is not stated in Wiki-voice. Objective3000 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes This is properly sourced and attributed, e.g. to Ryan and Romney. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes of course. Reflecting what a large body of very reliable sources has reported is not a WP:BLP violation per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but it certainly would be a WP:NPOV violation to omit the material from the lead. It's not at all sensationalist. His racially-charged comments have occurred in public forums and don't involve getting naked. His racially-toned rhetoric is part of a prominent underlying theme of his appeal to poorly-educated white voters.- MrX 14:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely yes Very well sourced, its not in Wikipedia voice, and it expresses the consensus view across the political spectrum. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Because this is a BLP, if we include this quote from Ryan/Romney, we should also add the context in which they say this along with their opposition to Trump's policies on trade, immigration, and criminal sentencing reductions. They are motivated by their donors who are opposed to all of Trump's proposals. Paul Ryan just spent time with the Koch brothers who support TPP, open borders, etc., because it's good for their bottom line. I don't believe for once second that Mitt Romney gives a rat's about racism, or misogyny, what with his binders full of women, 47% quotes, etc. So these guys do not come to the table with clean hands. They are smearing this guy for their own agenda, and unfortunately, Trump is giving them the ammunition. Self-inflicting his own wounds. Here's a bit on Ryan's romp with the Kochs: [17] SW3 5DL (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
"Fitness of Presidency" in Controversies section?
With the extraordinary declarations of unfitness for the presidency by Obama [18][19] and by Romney [20], we really should have a section on this controversy. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)