Misplaced Pages

Maybe DT has really lost his mind......Is he actually crazy? are just two quick find. His sanity is being discussed. Maybe you are not listening. Buster Seven Talk 20:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Zigzig20 A more recent one The Wall Street Journal in early August,"When you act as if you’re insane, people are liable to think you’re insane".

• Include. This page already includes statements by several people that Trump is unfit to be a president, but these people are a lot less important than Obama. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include it's not so much his fitness to be president, but that Obama as well as many top Republicans are saying similar things. Yesterday on NBC, today in the Washington Post it looks 5 times worse. I'm sure Trump could survive this, but it will certainly be considered a turning point in his campaign. We need a short paragraph in the body and one sentence in the lede. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude, at least as written as against neutrality policy. You cannot cite two newspapers that historically support establishment Democrats and generalize. Similarly the fact that some Republicans oppose Trump is only significant if it can be quantified. Instead of using primary sources, you should use secondary sources that explain in a balanced way who does and does not think Trump is qualified to be president. TFD (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: And what secondary sources would that be? I'm afraid we all have to rely on primary sources when editing this article. "he fact that some Republicans oppose Trump is only significant if it can be quantified," you say? But this is unreasonable. Statements by leading politicians are always important in their own right, and quantified data are only accessible to us via polls. Finally, contrary to your claim, User MelanieN cites more than two newspapers, and additional referencing could be added at any time. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include - this is highly significant and accurately represents a substantial segment/range of mainstream opinion. Neutrality 02:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, but not right now - We are all caught up in the storm(s). Maybe there is a different solution to the "it's something new every other day" problem. Some editors want to say very little about each event while others want to say too much. And the daily high/low lights cascade into each other causing editorial gridlock. There are 96 (?) days till the election. What if we broke the rest of the campaign into 10 day sections 96-86, 85-75, 74-64, etc. and organized it that way. There would be cross-over, sure, but the reader might be better informed (and served) as to what was happening as the campaign marched to its conclusion. We could even back-track and begin with the end of the Republican Convention. Just an idea. Buster Seven Talk 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not against adding ASAP. I just think the story will build rather than go away. I think the list of Republican politicians opposing Trump will expand. Buster Seven Talk 19:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, as soon as possible. The issue is notable and there is plenty of mainstream material to support a section on it. MelanieN's wording works fine, I say. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include - The President's comments have been reported in numerous major publications around the world. Trump's perceived unsuitability for the highest political office has uniquely caught the notice of major newspaper's editorial boards. WP:DUEWEIGHT mandates some mention of this in the article.- MrX 18:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Thank you for this update. If Obama's press conference on Trump's unfitness for the presidency really has made headlines throughout the world, the wording suggested by User:MelanieN above should be rearranged to take into account this new development. Since WP is not a news agency, the material could be put in the article text with some suitable delay, and worked through here beforehand. As User:Buster7 has already pointed to above, the unpredictable and massive media cascades on Trump plus the WP consensus requirement plus the conflicting POV of many involved editors is straining the editing environment somewhat. So, let us accept some delay and skip the nitpicking, I say. And enjoy ourselves while making some sense out of this highly controversial presidential candidate and his historically unique campaign :-) Gaeanautes (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. Nicely written, neutral, and well-sourced.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude any newspaper editorial comment: Include Obama's comments. I don't believe newspaper editors are qualified to judge anybody's fitness for anything. They can't even judge reporters properly which is why they end up with so many plagiarists on staff. But a sitting president can judge. And I know, he's got a political motive, but that's huge. Newspaper editors, absolutely not. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Comment: I also don't like the idea that these are the editorials from which to choose. These are papers that have never supported Trump. They are idealogically opposed to Trump any day. It's not a question of true fitness. It's a question of political beliefs.. Sorry, I can't agree and I would say, unless there is 100% agreement on which editors and which outlets, then it cannot be used. Obama's comments, yes. He's political, yes, but he's a sitting president. In addition, absolutely not on anything said by Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney. They have no qualifications to judge anybody. They are shills for their own personal interests and this is blatant bias to include this in the article. The already biased views of editors, absolutely not. Sorry, but this needs 100% consensus because this is a contentious issue and deserves extra care before this edit is made. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include: Many Republican leaders are saying this, it is not a partisan issue, it is a love of country issue. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Khan's response

User:DaltonCastle removed the fifth paragraph from the "Khan" section, the paragraph about Khan's response to Trump's followup comments. So what we now have is four paragraphs: the first about Khan's initial speech, with his comments paraphrased into two short sentences; Trump's response to it, extensively quoting him; a third paragraph with one sentence about the public reaction and a sentence quoting Trump's continuing attacks; and a fourth paragraph quoting Trump's written followup. Does that seem balanced to most people? Or should Khan's own followup get some coverage? Possible sources (the source that DaltonCastle deleted), And considering the massive public reaction to Trump's comments, does that material maybe deserve more than one sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We needed Five paragraphs at all on the subject? No one is concerned about too much weight being given? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes we need 5 paragraphs. The reversion just looks like, "I don't like it." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC) It could be argued that four paragraphs is too much. It could be trimmed. But per WP:WEIGHT, it is not balanced to have two-and-a-half of those paragraphs presenting just Trump's viewpoint, in his own words. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a Trump criticism. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Having 70% of the material devoted to Trump quotes and defenses does not seem balanced, no. Neutrality 02:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Then just cut the whole section down. Its already too much weight. The removed paragraph was just a chance for all the die-hards to tell readers what they should take away from the section - that is, Trump = bad. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You object to having less than a third of the section devoted to the person on the other side of the disagreement AND the public reaction to it, combined, leaving two thirds of the section quoting Trump in his own words? You actually think that has the UNDUE intent/effect of making Trump look bad? The only way that math works if if you think quoting Trump, in his own words, amounts to criticizing him or making him look bad. Of course maybe that is what you think; do you? And if not, how can you possibly claim that a section of which two-thirds consists of Trump talking, is unfair to Trump? Personally it seems obvious to me that this section in its current form is very slanted in favor of Trump, and needs to get more of the other side in (for example by restoring the paragraph you deleted, which would restore the balance to 2 1/2 paragraphs Trump, 2 1/2 paragraphs anti-Trump). You deleted it without getting consensus; let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle:, I added the Khan response because the section begins with what Mr. Khan said at the DNC convention, and I saw his response on Meet the Press and thought it tied it up. I certainly didn't mean to make the section unbalanced against Trump. I thought I was editing with a NPOV and I certainly didn't intend to make it WP:Undue emphasis. I do think the section could be trimmed and we could leave off Khan's rebuttal. The issue is over the words spoken and Trump's words must be there in full to understand the controversy. But we don't have to have Khan's MTP rebuttal. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The section is way too long, and direct quotes just add to it. This is an article, not a dramatic play. TFD (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The controversy is over what Trump said. It's his words. Yes, we need his quote. It's a campaign issue, and does not in any way resemble a "dramatic play." I would prefer to keep the section just as it was. It had consensus. Originally, I left off the rather dramatic bits about firestorms and the press going nuts about it and just had it at what these two men had to say. It's their words that matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why? What is significant is how his comments were interpreted. If people want to to read transcripts of everythiing Trump has said and draw their own conclusions, they can folow the sources. But we should not reprint them in this article. TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not an article about the media and how they respond to every thing Trump says. This is about Trump's campaign and his conduct within it. It is not about the media coverage of Trump's campaign. There's no context for the media firestorm without what he said. And it wasn't the editors here who put the words in his mouth. He did that all by himself. Nobody is picking on him or trying to make him look bad. This is Donald Trump. And I'd prefer to keep Khan's rebuttal because as MelanieN noted, it's only a small portion of the whole section. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While it is not about the media coverage, we rely on media reports as secondary sources for what happened and accept the expertise of the writers of secondary sources to summarize what is found in primary sources. Some readers may wish to examine primary sources themselves. Some readers for example may question official reports of 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination and want to read through all the testimony and exhibits. But that makes article overly long and really boring. TFD (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested before that perhaps this deserves an article of its own. That would allow us to cut it down here and then just link it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It would also make more sense to move the Khan section from "People and groups" to "Controversies".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Good point! The issue has got nothing to do with "People and groups." Gaeanautes (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really need to be cut down here. Maybe it's offending people, but that's what the man said. You're right, it could easily be expanded on a subpage which is perfectly within policy. But what is there now, is fine. Readers do want to know what presidential candidate Donald Trump said in response to the parents of a dead American soldier killed by a suicide bomber, and it's right there where it should be, right here on his presidential campaign page. It is not "overly long,"there are no BLP violations. It's not undue, it's NPOV, and it's sourced with reliable sources per policy. More importantly, the edit was settled on with congenial editing and consensus.. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed people want to know what Trump said which is why we should mention it. But why should we use five paragraphs to illustrate what could be explained in one or two sentences? Furthermore, deciding which words to quote and which to ignore involves judgment, and we should defer to the judgment of people like reporters in mainstream newspapers who are better able to judge what is important and what is not. Again, if people want to read Donald Trump's speeches in full, this article is not the place to find them. TFD (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not really 5 paragraghs. It's really one or two paras broken up for ease of reading. That's my doing, I can change it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@TFD, shouldn't that standard also apply to speeches made in criticism of Trump? This whole article has gotten blown out of proportion with such incredible weight being given to events which, if not within a month certainly within a year, will be a minor footnote at best in the history of the election. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't pretend to predict the future but I dare say that nothing, in the long history of this campaign and this election, will be a footnote. This campaign is uprooting the election process and transforming it by "root and branch". Buster Seven Talk 06:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with that. Well said, Buster. This is like 1968 all over again, but on steroids. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue seems to have dropped off our radar (as often happens with Trump because he creates a new sensation every day or two and new threads get started here). But I don't want to let this issue, slide because I feel the current section is heavily slanted toward Trump. It is now three paragraphs: one paragraph about Mr. Khan's speech; a second paragraph that is entirely Trump's reaction, with direct quotes; and a third paragraph with ONE SENTENCE about the enormous, bipartisan rejection of Trump's comments and the rest of it, again, Trump in his own words. We need at least a full paragraph about the fallout, because this touched off a reaction comparable to the widespread condemnation of his months-ago comments about the judge. Trump's comments were denounced by prominent Republicans as well as Democrats, veterans and other nonpartisan organizations, and the press. Three Republican congresspeople (at last count) have proclaimed they cannot support Trump, in part because of this incident. Some pollsters attribute Trump's recent slump in the polls to public disapproval of his comments. We can't let this go with a single, generality-type sentence, and I will work tomorrow on a proposal to expand this back to a properly balanced section. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your points. My concern is, it seems like political correctness and a desire to gain positive attention on the part of those politicians who weren't really supporting Trump anyway. As for the media 'firestorm' the big question is, what set that off? It was Trump's response to a question put to him about what Mr. Khan said regarding sacrifice. I think as it reads right now is enough. Because afterall, how can anybody answer a question about 'what have you sacrificed,' when it's already a loaded question meant to draw fire against Trump, because of course he can't answer that in his favor. It puts him immediately on the defensive because none of Trump's children have been killed in the service of the country. It's a demeaning thing to say even to someone who's child did serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or in any war. Is Mr. Khan saying that those parents/spouses/children didn't suffer because their loved one wasn't killed? What about the little boy who cried every day he was father was deployed and refused to let go of him when he returned home finally? I guess he didn't sacrifice with his fear and sadness every day because his Dad wasn't killed. Trump floundered because he did not respond with the cool, measured response that we were all expecting. I can't be alone in expecting him to respond in the way Hillary Clinton handled a question about Pat Smith's speech at the RNC. Hillary was gracious, understanding and said, "Of course she's upset." She never took a defensive stance. So it was Trump feeling on the defensive and his own words that got him in trouble. But he was set up for that and there's no mention of that. I'm against piling on the slanted view of the media which is already aligned against him. They don't even make any attempt to hide it. That's not what this article is about. It's about Donald Trump's presidential campaign and his conduct in carrying out that campaign. I think the section is fine as it is. But if there is a rewrite, I'd like to see sources that acknowledge what he was up against and just how stacked the deck was when he was asked that loaded question on by a man who openly supports Hillary and has contributed to her campaign. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I question whether this article is the best one to include maximum detail about the Khizr and Ghazala Khan controversy. Perhaps the best article would be the one about Khizr and Ghazala Khan. There's lots of room there, and a summary could go here in this article, with a link to the pertinent section of that article for people who would like to know more. I note that Pat Smith isn't even mentioned in the article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, FWIW.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that they had their own article. Yes, I agree with that. I've not had time to look over Hillary's article. I've not looked at it lately as last I checked things seemed well in hand. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The story to me was that Trump lacked normal compassion, the normal empathy that one father would have for another who has lost a son in the service to his country. The story was, to me at least, that Trumps first response was a callous counter-attack. "He hit me first". Even most of his vocal surrogates defended Trump as if it was a schoolyard fight between 8 year olds. We've seen it before. It was nice to see Eric Trump defend his father a few days into the story. It's to bad that Mr. Khan's son doesn't have the opportunity to defend his father and his grievously maligned mother. That's the story. That's what I would put in the article...that Trump showed his true nature and he lost a lot of Republican support because of it. Buster Seven Talk 07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Khan is a Harvard-trained immigration lawyer, and reliable sources give credit to both him and the DNC for cleverness. Time Magazine reports that he set an "obvious trap" and Trump "took the bait".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a Kobayashi Maru. And I did state clearly (in my post here) that Trump had failed the expected response which was to show compassion and empathy and get past it rather than take a defensive stance. We were all hoping he would say what we were all thinking, which is the job of our leaders. We wanted heartfelt empathy and we didn't get it. It was a massive fail. We all know how the press are treating it, but not everybody is aware of what exactly did he say? I agree with Buster7 that comments about how he failed those expectations belong there, and with due weight. But also include what his defenders, like his son said. And I certainly don't fault any parent for not having a child who died serving the country. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And even if Khan did set an "obvious trap" (which I doubt was intentional; he was asked to speak by the convention, and his speech received so much attention precisely because it was so heartfelt and emotional) - it says something important about a potential president if he "can't resist taking the bait". Would he be easily manipulated by others, "take the bait" every time a foreign leader pushed one of his buttons? In contrast, Hillary Clinton listened to four solid days of vicious attacks against herself, but she did not lash out against the individual speakers. I recently saw a replay of George W. Bush's response to Cindy Sheehan, who set up camp outside Trump's Texas home while he was staying there, spent nearly a month there, speaking about against Bush and the Iraq war, said it was Bush's fault that her son was dead. When Bush was asked about Sheehan at a press conference, he said he sympathized with her; emphasized that she had every right to speak out as she was doing; and then offered a calm defense of his Iraq policy. That's how presidents are expected to respond. That's why Trump's fight-back, he-had-no-right response caused so much dismay and disapproval among his supporters. That's why observers all across the political spectrum, and in the anonymous people who respond to polls, condemned his comments. And that reaction is what makes this a story. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with all that, Melanie. There are also a zillion other significant aspects to the story. Trump says he was advised beforehand not to "punch down" but ignored the advice. Mr. Khan said afterward that "Allah makes people like Trump to make mistakes to discredit them in public eyes forever...." Which kind of confirms that Mr. Khan was happy with the outcome, not crying in disappointment and hurt. Reporters observe that the widespread coverage of the Khan story bumped anti-Clinton headlines, e.g. her misstatements to Fox News's Chris Wallace. And the question comes back to whether Trump can or will learn from his mistakes, or will relapse into squabbles with people who aren't Hillary Clinton, against widespread advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added some material about the reaction to Trump's comments - with additional references about the reaction of newsmakers, plus information about polling data about the controversy. I left in all the direct quotes from Trump which still constitute 50% of the section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that it belongs in the article about the Khans.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What in the world do criticism of Trump, and Trump's poll numbers, have to do with the biographical article about the Kahns? Nothing. This information is directly relevant to the "Donald Trump presidential campaign" article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The main article about the Khan's speech and its consequences should be Khizr and Ghazala Khan. Including it all here strikes me as undue weight. Of course, it can and should be summarized here, and perhaps even supplemented. The criticisms of Trump about this were also defenses of the Khans.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

All these attempts to sanitize the article by Trump fans is reminiscent of how disparaging issues were handled in the Sarah Palin article so many years ago. I wondered about paid surrogates back then. I'm beginning to wonder again. Buster Seven Talk 21:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If that's an accusation of paid editing, I deny it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks or unsupported "wondering" here, please, Buster. This page is under heavy scrutiny because of Discretionary Sanctions and we need to stick to issues, not personalities. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just consider it a "(warning) shot across the bows". I could say more but "discretion is the better part of valor"...and "conjecture is a fool's game". I will take your well-intentioned advice and say no more on the subject. Buster Seven Talk 04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much weight

Considering the importance of the article, too much weight is not a problem. Its a snowball rolling down a hill. There is no finite size to an article especially one about the most interesting American election in decades. When the clock stops ticking we can all go back and refine the article. I like Melanies suggestions. I just think its a bit early to decide. Buster Seven Talk 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If we want to get rid of weight, the Background thread would be a good place to start. Almost every sentence mentions a poll of one kind or another...all for the purpose of showing interest BY Trump or interest IN Trump to be a POTUS candidate. Im sure they can all be encapsulated into one sentence with appropriate references. Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, polls do fill up a page. It gets worse when they keep getting added to. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Refusal to back Ryan and McCain

Trump's refusal to back Paul Ryan and John McCain in their primaries is a very significant story of this campaign and needs to be added to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it belongs here. That's historic. Never done before by presidential candidates. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely worth inclusion given that this is unprecedented. Neutrality 16:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I object. It's not about his campaign. It's off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously about his campaign given the reasons for his refusal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I believe it should go in their campaign articles. It's not about his campaign, but theirs.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

John McCain's campaign article? You mean from 2008? Graham (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur. This is a significant, albeit predictable, development. - MrX 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I also concur. It is a major political and campaign decision that can not be ignored. Buster Seven Talk 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this should be included as something unprecedented. Moreover, the refusal to endorse was apparently a retaliation for comments by Paul Ryan and John McCain made during the previous part of campaign - per sources. That should be noted. That tells a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What does it tell?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: It tells that Trump is a (PA); however, that fact should be plain for most people by now... Gaeanautes (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but calling a presidential candidate names on Misplaced Pages as you just did is not OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: My humblest apologies at that. Trump is not a (PA). But he is vindictive. OK? Gaeanautes (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? His personality is irrelevant. It's not encyclopedic. We're not writing a therapist report.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) @Zigzig20s:, putting on their campaign page is okay, too. But this is the Republican presidential nominee who is taking Paul Ryan's own words and flinging them back at him. "I'm not there yet." That's never been done by any candidate in any election that I'm aware of. It needs to be here. This meets all the policy for inclusion. Plus, you know the readers will come here looking for it. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you and I don't know that. It's off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Let it go. Stating his refusal to endorse, in the way he did, using Ryan's own words, is clearly vindictive on the part of Trump. If you don't see that, well, all I can do is shrug. The bastard part is news to me. Buster Seven Talk 20:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We're not writing a therapist report.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7:, I deleted the bastard thing. @Zigzig20s:, look at the page views for this article. Yes, readers are coming here looking for what he said about Ryan. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate place to look for it is Paul Ryan.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So should this article not reference endorsements either, by that logic? Graham (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Include. Unprecedented move by a presidential candidate. Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You can put it on the Ryan page, as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It really is off-topic. If you all decide to include you should really keep it very minimal. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DaltonCastle: It is absolutely off topic. Can editors add it even if there is no consensus? Do they not need to do an RFC?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How is it off-topic? The usual candidate gives a blanket endorsement to all his parties office seekers. But Trump is not the usual candidate. His unprecedented refusal to endorse The Speaker of the House for re-election and subsequent endorsement of Ryan's primary opponent is a rarity. Rarities deserve mention. Buster Seven Talk 00:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. There's no consensus for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be a little too vague, especially for just this section alone, but this argument that keeps getting thrown around, that "this is an election unlike any other" is a bad one. Every election, in the history in the nation, is unique. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The message at the top says, Consensus required. Yet there is no consensus to include this.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is consensus 7:2 if to count comments above. If anyone wants to include that info, it is going to be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Look. Do presidential candidates always endorse members of their own party in down-ticket races? Yes. Is Trump a presidential candidate of the Republican Party? Apparently so since we have this article right here about it. Did Trump break with this tradition? Yes, that's what the hullaboo is about. Why did Trump not endorse Ryan and McCain? Because they wouldn't endorse DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 2016 until everyone else dropped out!!!!! So there's no freakin' way in hell you can argue that it's off topic. Please stop being silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Its not about his campaign. And what I'm saying is that if you mention it, keep it to a minimum, since it is a tangent of the campaign. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how in the world this is "not about his campaign". Actually, nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Lets all go back in a time machine to late May. Everyone that was paying attention was in a tizzy about whether or not Ryan would endorse Trump. On Jun2, he did and it was the News of the Week. Trump got the seal of approval from the titular head of the Republican Party. And here we are 2 months later and Trump, unlike any other politician in modern history, does not return the favor. And you claim its not about the campaign? In the words of your candidate, "That's just ridiculous!" Buster Seven Talk 06:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is 8-2 to include. Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, definitely. (That makes it 9-2.) As noted, it is unprecedented for a party's presidential nominee to refuse to endorse other party leaders in their re-election campaigns. But it goes way beyond refusing to endorse: Trump has publicly praised Ryan's primary opponent , Paul Nehlen. And multiple former Trump staffers are actively working on Nehlen's campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include. I agree with MelanieN. It is also unprecedented for a Speaker of the House to refuse to endorse the party's nominee and to then give him a horrible wink wink endorsement after dragging it out to weaken that same endorsement. Just unheard of before. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt if that is unprecedented. I suspect you might find that a Republican congressional leader refused to support Goldwater, or that a Democratic congressional leader refused to support McGovern. I don't have any specific information here, but I suspect it has happened. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yes, thank you for the critique, Melanie, and I apologize for not being as versed in American history as you are, but my formative years were steeped in Our Island Story. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Proposed wording, for a subsection of "Controversies" titled "Refusing to endorse other Republican leaders". --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In early August Trump refused to endorse Paul Ryan or John McCain, two of the top Republican leaders in Congress, for re-election to their seats. In fact Trump publicly praised Ryan's primary opponent, Paul Nehlen, and multiple former workers on Trump's campaign are currently working for Nehlen. Trump's actions have been described as "extraordinary" and "unprecedented".

1. ^ Henderson, Barney (August 3, 2016). "Donald Trump highlights Republican Party divisions after refusing to back Paul Ryan and John McCain for re-election". The Telegraph. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
2. Fandos, Nicholas (August 4, 2016). "Paul Ryan's Rival, a Long Shot, Tries to Gain an Edge from Donald Trump's Praise". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
3. "Trump acolytes campaign to defeat Ryan". Politico. August 3, 2016. Retrieved 5 August 2016.

Sounds good. Should it mention the precise wording ("not there yet"), since that was intentional? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. It should mention Kelly Ayotte also. I'm going to add this to the article now, although it can still be tweaked. I am wondering whether we should add a sentence saying that his running mate, Mike Pence, the next day endorsed Ryan and gave a blanket endorsement to all Republican congress members running for re-election? --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And should we add anything about Reince Priebus being "furious" (aka "apoplectic") and expressing his "extreme displeasure" over Trump's refusal to endorse Ryan? --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Yes, maybe mention Priebus since he's the Chair. And I would mention that Trump apparently told Mike Pence he had no issue with him supporting Ryan. Might not want to use the phrase "In fact. . ." as it sounds a bit POV, and even if the source is using it, we have to paraphrase we can't take everything word for word from the source as that violates the plagiarism rule. One other thing, I wouldn't say 'refused' to endorse, I'd say he hadn't endorsed as he said, "he wasn't there yet." Sources have noted he is giving Ryan back his own words. And @Buster7: noted that in a different section earlier. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, today he went ahead and endorsed all three of them. Does this mean the entire story gets removed from the article? Or does it get updated with the fact that he has now endorsed them (after catching enormous flak from Priebus and the Republican establshment)? --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I updated the section to note Priebus' reaction and Trump's endorsement today. I am still open to the question of whether the entire section should remain or be pulled. Maybe wait a few days and see if it remains a story or vanishes from the news? In the meantime people may be coming here for information about the situation. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, yes, adding Priebus was a good idea. On keeping it all, maybe wait a few days to see how it all shakes out. I agree readers will likely be coming here for information. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well done. I'm glad no one removed it. This campaign will ebb and flow for 3 months. But each story is historically important. Months down the line will come a time when we can abbreviate sections in an orderly fashion. Who can guess what tomorrow will bring? Buster Seven Talk 07:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be removed, because this is not a newspaper. He's endorsed them, end of the story.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it. It is no longer a "controversy". You could start an RFC to add it again, I suppose.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Retain or remove?

We were already discussing it here. Three people said it should be kept for a while; so far Zigzag20s is the only one who has said it should be removed. But per the Discretionary Sanctions, "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Since Zigzag has challenged it and removed it (not exactly a reversion of an edit since it had been there for several days, but I'll let it count as a reversion), we must obtain consensus. Here is that discussion: Should we keep this section, as updated, at least for a short time to see if it has lasting repercussions?

• Retain at least for now while it is a subject of intense public interest. Consider removing later if it vanishes from coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Remove as obsolete, because Trump has now endorsed them. Even before that, AFAIK Trump never hinted he would withhold endorsements of Ryan, McCain and Ayotte if they become GOP nominees by winning their primary elections. It's very common for presidents to stay neutral in the primary elections of members of Congress. "here is a general tradition that national party leaders and committeemen shall remain neutral in congressional primaries." Bone, Hugh. American Politics and the Primary System, p. 301 (1965).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Retain. The fact that a controversy or affair may be historical (i.e., in the past) does not mean that it is not noteworthy. An encyclopedia is a work of history, not a newspaper, and this affair is unprecedented and worthy of note. Neutrality 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Remove as obsolete.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Retain- at least till the fog lifts. This constant removal of anything that besmirches Trump is contrary to our duty as editors. The whole Trump/Ryan/McCain thread that runs through the history of the campaign is important. To remove this last chapter is a disconnect from the real story. If you want to remove something inconsequential, why not remove the "Hi. My name is John Miller" stuff? Everybody always complaining about WP:Weight. Go back and encapsulate some of last years early stuff that has become unimportant. Make room for whats to come. Buster Seven Talk 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment about the "Trump/Ryan" theme to this election. Possibly both names should be added (individually) to the "People and Groups" section, where Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham already have subsections. The history with both men goes back far deeper than this week's issue about endorsement. I think that idea has a lot of merit. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove With the recent endorsements it reads as if he just didn't endorse fast enough, which is far less historically significant.LM2000 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Before we proceed

One editor says the campaign is "historically unique" while another says it is "normally unique". This stalemate may cause constant bickering as we move forward. So...before we go to an RfC it is suggested that we have a discussion. Is it historic or normal? Buster Seven Talk 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Historically unique. The other one is poor English ("unique" means "one of a kind" so "normally unique" or "very unique" don't make sense). Neutrality 14:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Historically unique. agree that makes the most sense Rockypedia (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: - In this question "normally unique" is meant to imply that all campaigns/elections are unique when considered against each other. The claim is made that this elections uniqueness is normal and that opposing claims (that it is "historically" unique) should cease. Buster Seven Talk 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Historically irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Historic only. Both campaigns are historic. One is for the first woman president and the other is for a businessman who has never held public office. Not even on a city council or had any political appointment of any kind. I would just say "Historic." I don't think "unique" applies to either campaign. In that, I agree with @Buster7: and @MelanieN:. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If we say that it is unique we need to say how, because every campaign is unique in some way. TFD (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither. I'm with Buster. Every campaign is different, and every campaign has aspects that are unique to it. This campaign has a lot more such aspects than most, but you can't say something is "more unique" than something else; a thing is either unique or it isn't. And "normally unique" is an oxymoron. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Historically unique, I say. A simple text search on the term 'historically unique' reveals that I was the 'one editor' refered to by User: Buster7 who was first to use this description of Trump's campaign, so maybe I should have the opportunity to explain myself in greater detail...? But before I proceed, we need to get rid of a rather silly misrepresentation made by Buster7: A new text search, now on the term 'normally unique', reveals that Buster7 was the first editor on this talk page ever to use this particular term (I've been through the archives, too). Yet another text search reveals that Buster7 must have paraphrased User: DaltonCastle above, who merely argued that ' Every election, in the history the nation, is unique.' Shame on you, Buster7, for confusing co-editors and wasting their time with your own made up terms and 'stalemates' and 'bickering' and different degrees of uniqueness and whatnot. I hope you are easily forgiven by the others ;-)
Anyway, here's the list of stylized facts that make me believe Trump's campaign is historically unique, and not just different — as conceptually distinct from 'unique' — from any other election:

• Trump has been appealing to racist sentiments from the outset of his campaign; this has been reported, documented and commented on (almost) from the outset as well; but he has managed to defeat all of his rivals within the Republican Party with a comfortable margin and win the Party's nomination anyway. Has he managed to win this nomination because of or despite of his appeal to racist sentiments? Whatever the answer may be, it will be a historically unique answer.
• Trump has radically shattered the establishment of the Republican Party and exposed the vast chasm dividing the base and the top. I expect that the political consequences of this shattering will unfold for years to come. American conservatism may be challenged by right-wing populism on a permanent basis from now on...
• Commentators have been tossing the 'F'-word at Trump from early on in his campaign, and scholars have seriously discussed if Trump really is an 'F'. The 'F'-word I'm refering to here is Fascism.
• His policies have evoked disbelief and condemnation throughout the world, from the former president of Mexico to the Pope and many others in between. I'm surprised that Gandalf and Darth Vader have not yet come up with a solid statement on Trump.
• Trump is ignorant of politics and world affairs in general. He is arrogant and vindictive towards political opponents and rivals, even within his own party. He is impulsive and unreliable in all of his conduct and communication. He is a habitual lier. He shares the typical egomaniac's authoritarian contempt for democratic norms and limitations. He displays all the personality traits characteristic of a narcissist, please check out this comprehensive list and draw your own conclusions. Nonetheless, he has managed to get this far in a U.S. presidential election!

Those are the reasons for my belief that Trump's presidential campaign is historically unique. Gaeanautes (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaeanautes, your attacks on Trump here come close to violating the notice at the top of the page - "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I understand that you are posting this material to defend your claim that this election is "historically unique" from any other election - presumably with the intention of including that description somewhere in the article. But I'm sure you realize that your opinion carries no weight in that question. Show us the reliable sources describing this election as "historically unique"; then we can talk. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As Editor Gaeanautes states my confusing thread was pretty much a waste of our precious time. My question was not clear and so the responding answers (which I am thankful to for editors participating) wandered. It was never intended as a means to include something into the article. I'm 70. This is the most historic election cycle in my life. I guess I wanted to end up with an irrefutable consensus, for future discussions on this talk page, supporting its historic quality so we could not be burdened by the idea that this is just a good old fashioned normal campaign. Buster Seven Talk 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• The posts by User: MelanieN and User: Buster7 above merit some further comments on my part. Consider the following:

– Buster7 and I seem to agree that Trump's presidential campaign is historically unique; however, this is only our POVs. Buster7 apparently believed he could settle the issue once and for all on this talk page by an 'irrefutable consensus', and then move on to other matters. He has now stepped down on this, which I think was a wise decision: As WP editors, we are not in a position to settle such an issue.

– I agree with MelanieN that my post violated the WP notice that the talk page "is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." However, the entire section (thread) initiated by Buster7 seems to be violating this WP notice, and MelanieN herself merrily went along with the violation nonetheless by posting her own opinion on the 'general discussion'. I'm not the only editor to blame here, I say.

– I realize that the content of my post may be read as an attack on Trump. Fortunately, MelanieN is good enough to express her understanding of the particular circumstance of me feeling a need to explain (defend) myself, as Buster7's vague reference to me left something (a lot) to be desired in the context.

– MelanieN asks for reliable sources to back my claim about 'historical uniqueness'. Well, I was inspired by The Washington Post's editorial from July 22 on Trump's lack of qualifications to serve as president. The word 'unique' appears in the headline of this editorial, and the second paragraph of the text indirectly admits that this is no ordinary election year. Further down, we learn that "It has been 64 years since a major party nominated anyone for president who did not have electoral experience", and that Trump's personality is 'unusual'. Although the very term 'historically unique' does not appear in the editorial, that was what I thought while reading. I can only encourage other editors to read the editorial, as it is a very good read. The Post's editorial has been resonating somewhat around the media, so maybe we could turn it all into a section of its own...?

References

1. Editorial Board (22 July 2016). "Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy". Washington Post.

End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Support among Israeli Americans

Where should we add referenced content about his support among Israeli Americans please? Also the fact that his campaign is leveraging pro-Trump Americans who live in Israel.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe it would go under "People and Groups" and I would support the inclusion of that. There are also "Immigrants for Trump" "Hispanics/Latinos for Trump" "Coal Miners" for Trump, etc. I think the groups and people who support him are relevant to a campaign page. . SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't include. This is one story in a minor publication, and it does not support your contention about "support among Israeli Americans" in any way. For one thing it is about American citizens living in Israel; I don't think the term "Israeli Americans" is a correct description of them. More important, the story offers no facts, just competing opinions. The Republicans say most of this group will vote for Trump; the Democrats say most of them will vote for Hillary; there is no story here. And I disagree with SW3 5DL about including every little group that calls itself "(fill in name of demographic) for (fill in name of candidate)". There are thousands of such groups. Some are huge; some are small; some are just one person with a facebook page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The JTA is not a "minor publication". The article explains that many Americans who live in Israel, or Israeli Americans, are registered in swing states, which makes this even more important to add to the article. The Democrats are another kettle of fish. But this article is about Trump's campaign. His campaign is leveraging Israeli Americans; we should mention that, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Any estimate on the number of ethnicities, religions, countries, and other groupings that exist? How about golfers? Sorry if that sounds snide. But, it would only be notable if it was something like Democratic Senators, or some other group where this would be surprising. And, I wouldn't suggest that either. Objective3000 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

All good points, of course, because we don't want a laundry list. But particular groups seem of interest especially as they all relate to things he's said and you'd expect them to be the last people supporting him. He wants to be build a wall with Mexico and yet there are Mexican-Americans who agree with him. He wants to limit immigration to legal, vetted immigrants only, and yet Immigrants are for him. He wants to limit/temporarily ban Muslims from countries with terrorist issues, and yet there are Muslims who are for him. It's been said his credibility with the Jewish community has been called into question, and yet there are Jews supporting him. It's an interesting cross-section of people. I don't think it should be an indepth examination of all this, but a para that mentions various groups as examples and notes the contradictions, as reliable sources have done, seems appropriate. At least, I think that's what ZigZig20s is getting at. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, of course there are members of every demographic group supporting both candidates. Even if a particular demographic is 95% for one candidate, that still leaves 5% supporting the other. (Remember Trump pointing out "my African American" at a rally?) That does not make the 5% (or 10% or 20%) newsworthy. And if we tried to cover every such group we would overwhelm the article (as well as making ourselves look somewhat ridiculous). This kind of thing is covered in "demographics of supporters" and polling sections. If a particular group is reported to be 80% supporting Trump, anyone can do the math to realize that means 20% are not supporting him. As for the proposal that led off this section, there is nothing in the article linked here that is worthy of inclusion. It just says that U.S. citizens living in Israel are being courted by both campaigns, and both sides claim they are likely to get the most votes from that group. There is no there there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, my only point was the dichotomy of opposing/supporting within the same groups. I'm not advocating for it, just pointing out that it is interesting. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This group is more accurately described as U.S. expatriates in Israel. If there is signicant coverage of the campaign for Americans abroad then it could be mentioned but this seems minor. There is no reason why some Jews should not support Trump but in any case only becomes important if mainstream media give it prominence in their coverage, which they have not. TFD (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that the only polling data presented in the article found 28% support for Trump and 38% for Clinton. So, is this suppose to be another group not supporting Trump? In any case, the article is dated with little data. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree...there is no story here. The article provides no quantitative information that adds to our article. If it is intended to give credence to improving support for Trump it misses the mark. If secondary sources pick up the theme, that's a different story. Buster Seven Talk 07:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Republicans estimated 85 percent of Americans in Israel will vote for Trump.".Zigzig20s (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course they did. And the Democrats said that number is "wildly exaggerated" and that "most American Israelis favor the Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton". What do you expect them to say? And "a March poll by the Israel Democracy Institute think tank found that most Israelis prefer Clinton to Trump". And none of this is worth arguing over or adding to the article. The only other coverage I could find about this subject was this piece in Haaretz (which by the way does not support your thesis). One story in the JTA and one in Haaretz does not constitute significant enough coverage to warrant inclusion in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have a subsection about his overwhelming support among the Israeli, Russian and Persian Jewish communities (see related topic above). But I agree with you that we need to find more sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We cannot pluck a few groups (particular small groups) out at random. If we include this, we would be essentially obliged to, as a matter of weight, to include material about reactions from other American minority groups, e.g.:

African Americans: Samantha Neal, Only 1 Percent Of Black Voters Support Donald Trump: The GOP presidential nominee polls at a record low among a demographic key to winning the general election, Huffington Post (August 5, 2016); Michael Kranish, Trump's courtship of black voters hampered by decades of race controversies, Washington Post (July 20, 2016).

Asian Americans generally: Chris Fuchs, Republican Diversity Coalition Plans Trump Election Strategy, NBC News (July 5, 2016); Hanna Trudo, Trump polls miserably among Asian Americans, Politico (May 23, 2016).

Japanese Americans: Ed Pilkington, Japanese American internment survivor hears troubling echoes in Trump rhetoric, Guardian (May 28, 2016).

Vietnamese Americans: Elizabeth Lee, Some Republican Vietnamese Americans Say No Vote for Trump, Voice of America (March 13, 2016), with accompanying video piece.

Arab Americans: Don Gonyea, Michigan's Arab-Americans Respond To Donald Trump's Anti-Muslim Rhetoric, NPR, All Things Considered (December 11, 2015).

Cuban Americans: Patricia Mazzei, Will Donald Trump drive Miami Cuban Americans from GOP? New poll says yes, Miami Herald (May 2, 2016)

Puerto Ricans: Elise Foley, Puerto Ricans Are Streaming Into Florida And They Aren't Exactly Fans of Donald Trump, Huffington Post (July 7, 2016).

Chinese Americans: Chris Fuchs, Attracted by Immigration, Education Policies, Some Chinese Americans Stump for Trump, NBC News (May 26, 2016); Kate Linthicum, Meet the Chinese American immigrants who are supporting Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times (May 27, 2016).

Greek Americans: Mary Harris, GR Poll: Most Greek-Americans Are with Her, Greek Reporter (July 27, 2016).

Jewish Americans: Michael Wilner, On Trump, Jewish voters not taking the bait, Jerusalem Post (July 22, 2016); Ron Kampeas, Where 17 Jewish Conservatives Stand on Donald Trump, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (May 8, 2016).

Sikh Americans: Murtaza Hussain, Sikh Americans Fight for Civil Rights in Donald Trump’s America, The Intercept (March 14, 2016).

Quakers: Marc Fortier, Group Plans Protest Outside of Donald Trump Event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, New England Cable News (December 9, 2015).

Neutrality 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My personal view, to be clear, is that we should apply weight: i.e., the extent of treatment in this article should reflect the size of the group and the extent of the coverage: so we would cover African Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, etc. in some detail, but limit coverage as to individual subgroups or smaller groups. Similar, we should discuss Christian, Jewish, and Muslim reactions in some detail, but limit, e.g., coverage from Zoroastrians or Zen Buddhists. Neutrality 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The JTA article suggests Israeli Americans are registered in swing states. I think this gives them more weight. Republicans traditionally don't fare well with African Americans, so it may be undue. Hispanics cannot be seen as one group: there are documented and undocumented Hispanics. We would need to make sure the polls don't include undocumented Hispanics (who, inevitably, would be opposed to his policies); they don't get to vote, so shouldn't be included. It is interesting to note that Chinese Americans support him (despite his views on climate change and manufacturing).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we have a subsection about a tiny group (I hope), white supremacists. Why are they given more weight than Israelis?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Because of the extent of the coverage, obviously, is greater, due to the extensive controversy surrounding the Trump campaign and white supremacists. That is rather apparent to all. Neutrality 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's undue. He disavowed them. And they are a tiny minority.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view, but we are not obligated to accept your ipse dixit. Neutrality 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements seems like a valid subheader. That could include endorsements by elected officials, other celebrities, and perhaps fringe figures if there's a lot of coverage. Under fringe figures there are different kinds. We should have broad coverage as to endorsements generally, but limit coverage as to individual subgroups or smaller groups, like fringe figures (including white supremacists).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements go here: List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that it's a distraction, as not only has he disavowed them, but they are completely irrelevant in today's political landscape. Americans who live in Israel, however, are registered in swing states, which means they will have an impact on the election results.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzag20s, you keep saying that ("they are registered in swing states"). Here's the problem: In every country in the world, some of the Americans living there are registered in swing states. According to your article, in Israel the "swing state" voters amount to less than 10% of Americans living there (an estimated 30,000 out of 300,000 to 400,000). We have no data whether that is more or less than in other countries. This "swing state" argument adds nothing to your claim of weight, and your constant repetition of it is approaching disruptive. Meanwhile, what argues against your claim of weight is the lack of coverage of these claims by additional sources. For that matter they are not even verified by any other sources, some of which say the opposite. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Only one thing establishes weight: "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Reliable sources may be biased or wrong but it is not our role to correct them. TFD (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule that's true, but the words "reliable" and "biased" are in tension. Certainly a source is not very reliable if it has a reputation for bias on certain matters. I'm just replying in general terms to TFD without addressing any particular sources or matters.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias is inherent in all news coverage, even if it is factual, because the reporters will chose what stories to cover and what emphasis to provide. However, we expect that the facts will be accurate. For example, one could write about the contents of the DNC emails while another could write about how they were obtained. Both accurately reflect facts, but one shows the DNC as a villain, while the other shows it as a victim. Whatever weight a sources provides between the two narratives, even if it is equal, it is a bias. Misplaced Pages policy requires that articles reflect the same weight as reliable sources, which means articles will reflect the same bias as shown in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

IOW bias and reliablity are not in tension. There are of course some biased sources that deliberately misstate facts, but then there are neutral sources that do not fact check. TFD (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Things don't seem that simple, TFD. It's probably unnecessary to have an extended discussion about it here, but as indicated above a biased source may merit inline attribution, and also verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of biased material. Doesn't the policy on undue weight refer to viewpoints rather than undisputed facts? If undisputed facts are publicized or suppressed by a biased source, I'm not sure we're required to publicize or suppress them accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality determines how both opinions and facts are presented. (See Balancing aspects for facts.) Note too that we report facts about opinions. (E.g., x said Trump would be a great president, not Trump will be a great president. We can verify that x something, we cannot verify that what he said is true.) Determining which facts and opinions should be presented in a news article is a matter of judgment and depends on the the perspective of the writer. Neutrality requires that we reflect the judgment that appears in reliable sources. For example, "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Reliable sources spend more space discussing Trump's ratings among women than they do discussing his ratings among Americans living in Israel. That is the reason we emphasize the one over the other. It is not because we have determined that one is more important than the other, but because reliable sources have made that determination. While you and I agree that reliable sources are correct in this matter, that is not a policy based reason. The only valid policy based reason is that is what reliable sources have determined. In some cases you or I may disagree with what opinions and facts reliable sources emphasize. But we cannot correct that. TFD (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I'm sure we could find many more reliable sources in the Israeli press. This really needs to get covered because of the swing states situation. Haim Saban will not be happy but--it is a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we should not do that. Because if it receives little or no attention in U.S. and international media, then weight says to leave it out. This article is not about how Israelis view the Trump campaign. Incidentally, the Israeli articles illustrate media bias. Israeli media are more interested in people in their country who support Trump than are media in other countries. Similarly, Mexican media is more interested in border and trade issues. TFD (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a very brief mention about this Israeli stuff would necessarily violate balancing aspects for facts, but it may well violate the consensus policy because there doesn't seem to be much support for including it. After all, there is not zero discussion of this Israeli stuff in reliable sources, and therefore zero discussion of it would not be necessary here. Personally, I do not support inclusion of the Israeli stuff because it would open the door for stuff from lots of other countries, whereas this is a U.S. election. I would definitely support putting the info into an article about International reaction to the 2016 U.S. election campaign, which could be linked from this article. We should not be engaged in wiping away factual information from Misplaced Pages, per WP:Preserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the international reaction. They are US citizens, who are registered in US swing states, but they live in Israel. We can certainly cite more sources in the Israeli press; we don't have to cite only US sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got it backwards, it seems. You've cited the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) which is not a US source. Cite some US sources and you would have a stronger argument for inclusion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, Jewish Telegraphic Agency has headquarters in New York.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We certainly can cite reliable sources from anywhere. But it is not an issue of reliable sources, it is an issue of weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." If the only coverage is in Israeli news sources, then it has no weight in the "body of reliable sources" and they are just "isolated" news reports. TFD (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE. It would be as if the Asheville, North Carolina article told us that Eleanor Roosevelt once stayed there for a weekend, citing a contemporaneous source from a local newspaper. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not undue. Israeli sources are not marginal or "isolated". US sources are not superior. We can cite in several languages as long as the sources are reliable, and the content is significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please find a mainstream US, Japanese, or European source that discusses the significance of this. Nobody has argued that Israeli sources in general are isolated or marginal. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What is isolated is the "news coverage." The news coverage is isolated to Israel and not covered in American, British, Canadian, German, French, Russian, Afghani or Nigerian media or media in any other country that is not Israel. BTW weight works both ways. It also keeps out lots of negative stories that have received little or no coverage. TFD (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The JTA is based in New York City.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, we just need to find more sources, that's all. But articles in Globes would be perfectly valid.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, why not start a new section in this article about international reactions or international aspects? The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article as appropriate. Alternatively, you could start a section about minority groups using the links that Neutrality provided above. But just focusing on one tiny group alone is probably not going to get you very far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, before you add anything about this to the article, you need to find sources that actually support your claims. You have repeatedly asserted here, as if it were fact, that "the voters in Israel are from swing states" and "they overwhelmingly support Trump". But those assertions are not supported by the source you keep citing. According to that source, only a small fraction of the Americans in Israel are from swing states, and the claim that they support Trump comes from the local Republican chairman. I have linked to at least one other article, the one from Haaretz, that contradicts almost everything in your article. Until you can figure out how to read a reference and report what it actually says, your suggestions are not going to be taken very seriously here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source?

As Donald Trump Incites Feuds, Other G.O.P. Candidates Flee His Shadow. Candidates going their seperate ways. Now there's a story that needs to be told. Does it fit any of the threads that already exist or should a new one be created?. Buster Seven Talk 21:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds biased to me. It sounds like a talking point from the DNC, to distract us from their problem with the Bernie Bros after their convention...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a perfectly reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How about this one. Buster Seven Talk 23:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As is this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a story to be told here, but this isn't it. This kind of analysis, which a lot of the media is doing this week, is likely to be overturned next week when the polls shift as they always do this time of year. But I do think we may want to find some way to list (facts, not analysis) the growing number of congresspeople who say they do not plan to vote for Trump. (Three Four so far by my count: Richard Hanna, Charlie Dent, Scott Rigell, and Adam Kinzinger.) This is unusual for a presidential election. I'm not aware of any such list of defectors on the Democratic side, or on either side in previous presidential elections. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely get the list going - in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it looks like the DNC is trying to drive a wedge where there isn't one. By the way, Trump just posted a picture he took with Reince Priebus today. They're united. There's no discord.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a moment ago you seemed quite particular about ensuring the reliability of sources, but now we're supposed to accept your assertion that a photo that Trump took with Reince Preibus is a reliable source of evidence that there is no discord within the Republican Party? It must be quite a feat to reconcile those two views. How do you do it? Graham (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the United States' newspaper of record doesn't qualify as a reliable source? Graham (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources are obviously reliable (WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument). The only question is whether this meets WP:DUE. Because this is fairly unprecedented it should be mentioned - albeit briefly - in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is significant that the GOP has not fully united behind Trump. Obviously someone who runs against the GOP establishment will alienate some of them. TFD (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's undue. Four attention-seeking congresspeople as opposed to millions of Republican voters and the rest of the party. Ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The millions of republican voters are not running for office, 24 candidates in the Senate and 435 in the house are. That reduces the ratio just a bit. Under 1% but it might grow in the next 90 days. Let's see what happens. Buster Seven Talk 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's unprecedented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Politico "Insiders to Trump: Drop out". We should be ready for this, though the majority of "insiders" say that he won't drop out, even if the majority of Republian "insiders" say that he should. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, many people believe HRC should drop out, too. But we shouldn't turn Misplaced Pages articles into attack pages. I really think we should spend more time editing about Trump's policies, not gossip.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s. You might give this a look. Its more than just gossip. Buster Seven Talk 03:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed the section called "Republican letter of condemnation" to "Opposition from Republicans," and added the list of incumbent Republicans who say they will not vote for Trump. So far two senators and four representatives. I can't say for sure that it's unprecedented, but I can't personally remember anything like this. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"condemnation" sounds POV to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you'll be happy that I changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We should add/restore "some".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The list

1. - Richard Hanna R-NY (retiring), will vote for Clinton
2. - Adam Kinzinger R-IL, will vote for a write-in or not vote
3. - Charlie Dent R-PA, will vote for a write-in
4. - Scott Rigell R-VA (retiring), will vote for Gary Johnson
5. - Lindsey Graham, Senator-South Carolina
6. - Mark Kirk, Senator-Illinois, will vote for a write-in
7. - Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) (added by Smallbones)
8. - Bob Dold, R-IL, (added by Buster7]
9. - Senator Mike Lee, R-UT, Why he can’t embrace Trump (added by Buster7
10. - Senator Ben Sasse, R-NV, Early anti-Trump voice (added by Buster7)

"some, I assume, are good people"

In the lede it says, "his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."". Can we please add that he also said some were good people? Otherwise we are misquoting him.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not a misquote. He said the words between the quotation marks. See previous RfC. That's why we included the word "many".- MrX 11:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX is correct that the "good people" remark was made by Trump at a different time. However, User:Zigzig20s is correct that the present quotation is woefully incomplete. I corrected it earlier today, so that it refers to "his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." This was reverted for reasons that strike me as extremely unpersuasive. We want to slant what Trump said so that the lead of this BLP makes it sound like he was denigrating a whole class of people? Trump never suggested that the many people who cross the border illegally are bad people. He was explicitly referring to only some of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. The compromise reached in the RfC was to add the word many to his direct quote. By the way, you didn't correct it; you simply added more words to say roughly the same thing, but in a tone that tends to make it sound like Trump was speaking about "cases", when in fact he was speaking about people. We should not sugar quote his words, since sources obviously don't.- MrX 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the RFC which I hadn't noticed (I've been looking more closely at this article only during the past day or so). First of all, the RFC has a preposterously biased title and question: "Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored?" He only characterized some of them that way, as you well know. But even accepting the outcome of that RFC, no edit of mine removed those quoted words from the lead. I simply expanded the quote. I had not thought about how the word "cases" might mislead anyone, but perhaps it would. Still, something needs to be done here because readers (some but not all) will read this as a blanket statement by Trump about the many people who enter the country illegally, and we both know he wasn't making a blanket statement. I will take another crack at clarifying it later, unless someone else beats me to it, and of course without messing with the outcome of the preposterous RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"some, I assume, are good people" was an after-thought by Trump. It is disingenuous to present it to our reader as the lead-in to the "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." comment. Buster Seven Talk 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Exactly.- MrX 17:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It's important not to misrepresent what he said, especially in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to conduct another RfC to see if that idea gains any traction.- MrX 17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC QUESTION: "Is it important not to misrepresent what he said, especially in the lede?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Very funny, Anythingyouwant.- MrX 18:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think he may have been serious.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. Trump said “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.” Those are the words that, among others, created the perception that Trump has pandered to racists. Your proposed wording slants the material toward Trump's revised comments. Our sources have not done this and neither should we.- MrX 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• You agree Trump said "in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
• You support including that quote in the lead without the first three words, because (you said) the word "cases" might mislead readers to think he was referring to court cases.
• You oppose saying in the lead "in many instances 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'" even though the word "instance" cannot be confused with court cases.

As far as I can tell from these bullet points, you are arguing to mangle Trump's words, to deliberately distort his meaning, pure and simple. I get that you don't like Trump. Fine. But that's no reason to violate the pillars of Misplaced Pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What's unreasonable about providing the exact quote that he made on which the perception is based and referring you to the robust discussion above? I never said any thing about court cases. I said "cases", a word which has abstract meaning in the context that you propose. Cases don't traffic drugs and rape. I oppose your wording because "many illegal immigrants" is clearer, and truer to the sources, than "many instances".- MrX 22:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the outcome of the robust discussion above, which was to include the quote at issue. But if I say "I want to rob a bank in my next life" and you put into my BLP that I "want to rob a bank" then you would have no legitimate argument against adding immediately thereafter "if he is ever reincarnated" or the like. Including exact quotes is wrong when you truncate them and remove the critical context. You have moved the word "many" very far from the quote with absolutely no good reason. Readers will think Trump was making a blanket statement about the many illegal immigrants who come to the United States. Is that what you want readers to think? Your position in this argument strongly suggests so. You haven't given any reason why we should not include the word "many" (or the word "some") within a word or two of the Trump quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We do include the word "many". Here is the relevant passage from the article: "... his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."". If you or C. Fredkin prefer, I have no objection to not quoting Trump and changing the wording to "... his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as criminals, drug dealers, and rapists".- MrX 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way is awkward and will be misunderstood by many readers as saying "... his characterizations of the many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."". Is that what you want readers to think? What is the big deal if we move the word "many" closer to the Trump quote? I suggest "... his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as including many "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."" To me, that is much more clear, and much more like what he actually said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If readers see a "the" where none exists, then should read more carefully. Your proposal to add more words does not make this passage more clear. - MrX 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to add all of two words, to make the sentence reflect more what Trump actually said. Do you dispute that he used the word "many" much closer to the quoted phrase than we currently do? That's because it's the natural way to express the thought he was expressing. Removing the word "many" to a far distance is completely unnecessary in the lead, and your objection to moving it (i.e. introduction of two brief words) does not make sense to me. I plan to make the change, while removing two other superfluous words from the lead, for a net change of zero words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of that passage in lead is not to quote Mr. Trump. The purpose is to reflect what is written in sources. Please don't alter the wording without obtaining a firm consensus to do so.- MrX 21:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it does quote Trump poorly right now, and it does poorly reflect the sources right now. The following cures both problems while decreasing the length: "the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over that border as including many 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'...." I haven't heard any reason whatsoever for rejecting this. Is there some reason why it should be longer, and should awkwardly obscure that Trump was not calling all of these illegal immigrants bad people? Moreover, I don't think everything that's put into this BLP requires a firm consensus to remove, which would seem to be a recipe for resisting removal of all kinds of crapola that anyone throws into the BLP. If for some reason you don't like this suggested language, please give a reason, and preferably also a version that can satisfy both our concerns. Thanks. Incidentally, I oppose your suggestion above to remove the quotation marks, for two reasons: first, an RFC above established that it should be included; second, removing the quotation marks would not resolve the concern that the word "many" is too far removed from the derogatory nouns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've patiently and repeatedly told you why I object to your proposed verbiage. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Also, this is not a biography; it's an article about a political campaign.- MrX 22:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

When you quote living people, WP:BLP typically applies. As to not hearing you, that's not so. I did hear your objection to the word "cases" so I removed it from my draft. Then I heard your objection to lengthening the lead, so I proposed a revised draft that shortens the lead: "the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over that border as including many 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'...." I proposed this bolded language at 22:07 on 8 Aug. Your only reply has been to disregard the fact that this is new verbiage. If you don't give any reason, I am inclined to insert the language. Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it does not carry much weight, after all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop editing against the consensus of "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?" above. The only reason this is even noteworthy is because he said "many" were "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump the pugilist

I edited the article earlier today by adding the bolded material: "Trump said he himself wished to punch protesters who were themselves throwing punches and screaming during his speech, and has defended their ejection from his events, but has also said he hopes that he has not encouraged physical force to subdue or remove protesters." This was inexplicably reverted. Does anyone dispute that the bolded information is factually correct? Why would a fine, upstanding, neutral organization like Misplaced Pages want to make it seem like Trump wanted to punch even peaceful, polite protesters? Surely the revert must be an unintentional mistake, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit behind on this (got busy with other stuff) but there's basically no way you can say that in Misplaced Pages voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

He said it long before protesters too started punching thus it is highly misleading/deceptive to make it appear that he said it in response to such.--TMCk (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this the incident that you mean? Or was it this one where he actually says he wants to punch him in the face? Buster Seven Talk 16:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The incident where Trump specifically spoke of punching a protester in the face was in Las Vegas, and at the same time he said the protester had been throwing punches. Here's the quote: "Honestly, I hate to see that. Here's a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming when we're talking. The guards are very gentle with him and he's walking out, big high-fives, smiling, laughing, I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you." So Trump alleged that the guy had been violent before the guards escorted him out. Anyway, we ought to put a time-frame in this sort of language from Trump, because it stopped awhile ago.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys really want to go there; I wouldn't advise it. Because the Las Vegas incident, where he accused the protester of "screaming and throwing punches" (although he wouldn't have been able to tell from the podium if that was true or not), is not the only such comment from Trump. If you like, we could spell out his whole history of encouraging violence at his rallies, using his own words so as not to be accused of distortion:

• At a Las Vegas rally in February he said he would like to "punch in the face" a protester he said had been throwing punches and screaming, and lamented "the old days" when protesters would be "carried out on a stretcher". That's a one-sentence version; if you prefer you could use his whole quote: "You know what I hate? There's a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches. We're not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. Ah, it's true…. I'd like to punch him in the face."
• In March in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he told the crowd there might be tomato-throwing protesters, and urged his audience to "knock the crap out of 'em" if anyone should try. "I promise you, I will pay the legal fees," he added. Or again, if you prefer his exact words: "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you?Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell - I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise". He later denied having offered to pay legal fees.
• Later in March in North Carolina, a Trump supporter was filmed sucker-punching a protester who was being led out of the event. Trump said he was "looking into" paying the man's legal fees, although he "doesn't condone violence in any shape." The local sheriff's office considered filing charges against Trump for "inciting a riot" but concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge him.

If you'd prefer not to see all this in the article, I suggest you simply agree to the removal of the claim that the protesters were screaming and throwing punches, because that was a qualification he only used once. At the very least, if we are going to include the "screaming and throwing punches" quote, we should also include his other quote from the same incident, lamenting the "old days" when protesters would be "carried out on a stretcher".--MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Have these incidents stopped, and if so when?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The last such comment I found was the multiple incidents in March. (There were later incidents of Trump supporters beating up protesters, but not of Trump encouraging them to.) Unless you want to include his pugilistic threats against speakers at the Democratic National Convention:He wanted to "hit a number of those speakers so hard, their heads would spin - they would never recover". In any case, even if he only made this kind of statements for a couple of months, it still got enough coverage to be included here. And we shouldn't include the qualification about the protesters "screaming and throwing punches" because he didn't always include it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's standard political language to "hit" an opponent with an argument or with certain facts, et cetera. Think Progress has your quote about hitting DNC speakers from a Trump speech in Davenport, Iowa. Think Progress says "Trump eventually made clear that he was using the word 'hit' metaphorically." If there's reliable reporting that Trump has toned down his language, then it may be worth including in this BLP. And as far as I know, Trump never talked about punching any protester who Trump thought was peaceful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, we won't count that one; l'll strike it out. However I just noticed that I missed one from way back in November, where he said about a protester "maybe he should have been roughed up." Prior to that, he used to tell his rallies "Get 'em out, but don't hurt 'em." So we have reliable reporting that he urged violence toward protesters in November, in February, and twice in March. As for "never talked about punching any protester who Trump thought was peaceful": Trump never thought protesters were peaceful. If they shouted, if they made obscene gestures, if they waved signs, then they aren't peaceful - go ahead and beat them up! Are you really defending him because he only talked about beating up protesters that he thought were not peaceful? That seems rather like a man who only beats his wife when he thinks she deserves it. And to borrow your "standard political language" argument: I don't know of any other politician who has sometimes urged his supporters to "rough up" protesters or "beat the crap out of them"; do you? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Melanie, I always urge battered wives and ex-wives to defend themselves with whatever weapons they can legally use. But getting back to the point, I think Trump promised several months ago to use more placid language, and he seems to have done so, because I'm sure you would have identified any oversight. I will look around and see what the reliable sources have to say about that. Also, even back when his language was more thuggish, I am not aware that he discussed physically punching anyone who he thought had not already been physically violent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Then read the sources. About he North Carolina victim, he said the guy was "very loud, very disruptive", and had been "sticking a certain finger up in the air". About the November incident, he said the protester should have been roughed up because he was "obnoxious and loud". --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you didn't answer my question about whether there are other politicians who use this kind of language. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Trump's a fan of the fighting words doctrine. Are there any politicians who use this kind of language? I don't think there are, including at this point Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think we've pretty much said what we have to say. So in the "Violence and expulsion at rallies" section, I propose to replace the second part of the paragraph (the part that begins "Trump's rivals have blamed Trump" which is inaccurate; it wasn't just his rivals called attention to this) with the following:

• During the early days of the campaign On several occasions between November 2015 through March 2016, Trump was accused of encouraging violence and escalating tension at campaign events. Prior to November he used to tell his rallies "Get 'em (protesters) out, but don't hurt 'em." But in November 2015, Trump said of a protester in Birmingham, Alabama, "Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." On February 23, 2016, at a rally in Las Vegas, Trump reacted to a protester by saying "I love the old days — you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks," adding "I'd like to punch him in the face." In March in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he told the crowd there might be tomato-throwing protesters, and urged his audience to "knock the crap out of 'em" if anyone should try. "I promise you, I will pay the legal fees," he added. Also in March in North Carolina, a Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester who was being led out of the event. Asked about paying the man's legal fees, Trump said he was "looking into it", although he "doesn't condone violence in any shape." The local sheriff's office considered filing charges against Trump for "inciting a riot" at that event, but concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge him. In April 2015, Time Magazine noted that he had toned down his rhetoric.

Everybody reasonably OK with this? --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reasonably OK? Yes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Not quite yet. This article in Time Magazine documents that Trump has deliberately toned down the rhetoric about punching protesters and the like. I think it deserves a mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Melanie's version is reasonably OK with me, but I would not characterize March 2016 as "the early days of the campaign" - Trump announced in June 2015 and so by March 2016 his campaign had been going on for nine months. I would drop the "early days" part. Neutrality 23:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, making both changes. Thanks for the input. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to specify that Trump "toned down the rhetoric about punching". I think the reader will realize something caused the punching and threats to stop when no more are listed. I don't mind that its there I just don't think it is necessary. Buster Seven Talk 03:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind it there either, though it would perhaps be more useful to note that these incidents stopped when Trump's campaign deliberately pivoted to a more presidential approach. It wasn't happenstance, or shame, or fear of legal trouble, et cetera, that caused the change per Time Magazine, but rather a desire to be more presidential.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"these incidents stopped when Trump's campaign deliberately pivoted to a more presidential approach" - uhh... when did this supposedly happen? Pretty much all the news of the past couple weeks is about how he FAILED to "pivot" and just doubled down on the controversy. Ex. here: ""He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no 'pivot.' It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it's that he doesn't have the skill set needed now — discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There's a clueless quality about him."" (my emphasis).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the Time Magazine link makes that point, if people want more information. I don't think we need to say WHY he stopped (which is interpretation, who knows what his motives were?) - only THAT he stopped. (At least so far.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember some Tweet about "Melania wants me to be more presidential" but I don't think she specifically said, "Stop talking about hitting people". And I believe Trump still did it a few times after his wifes' reproach. So I agree that our saying "He stopped to appear more presidential" is interpretation. Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Melania, Melanie, just coincidence?  :) By the way, this is from a letter written by President Harry Truman to Paul Hume (which Truman knew would become public): "Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!"Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds odious. Please seeWP:Threats of violence which states: Should any threat of violence be made on Misplaced Pages, it is unlikely the community of editors, including administrators, will be able to make an appropriate "real world" response. Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a "real world" threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency contact email at emergency@wikimedia.org, where Wikimedia staff can assess the situation and contact authorities if needed. Since this page is watched by many administrators, I will leave it in the air as to how to proceed. Buster Seven Talk 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I was simply responding further to Melanie's question above "Oh, and you didn't answer my question about whether there are other politicians who use this kind of language."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Many people have compared him to Harry Truman for his use of crude language (that's why his supporters shouted 'Give 'em hell, Harry!"). And then there was George Wallace. Other than those two, there hasn't been a national level politician like that in living memory. ----Melania (ok, I guess you're on to me). 0;-D MelanieN alt (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Standards have changed over time. Generally they have risen. Except in this election. Anyway, the trouble is with the sentence "In April 2015, Time Magazine noted that he had toned down his rhetoric". I would NOT include this. For several reasons. First, it's just one source. Second, he may have toned down the rhetoric in regard to violence against protesters but this is a more general statement. Third and most importantly, even if he did tone it down for a brief period in April, it does not appear to be the case since then. See the "I'd like to hit people" statement (however you interpret the word "hit", it's still "violent" rhetoric). Basically to put in "he had done something" with a source from April is outdated. What has he done since? I would just omit that sentence from your paragraph.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "hit" quote, Trump made clear he was using that word metaphorically. Do you dispute that he made that clear? Even Think Progress says he made that clear.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually relevant of what he "really" meant - using violent metaphors is still "violent rhetoric". But again, it's sort of beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In your paragraph you already give dates (November through March - it should actually be "and" not "through") so simply omitting the phrase about April should be fine (in fact, it's redundant in there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was November, February, and March. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I prefer "stopped encouraging violence." Sorry, I should have said, "stopped talking about violence toward protesters" SW3 5DL (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Trump's denial in lead

The lead says a bunch of people think Trump's a racist. I inserted that he denies it, and was reverted. According to WP:BLP, when someone is accused of having a romantic affair, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I see no essential difference here. Many racists embrace and tout their racism. Trump denies the charge. Omitting it from the lead is very ill-advised.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC) There is an ongoing RFC about this above, so please disregard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, if we don't include the campaign's denial, it may give the impression that he accepts that label. This seems like an important point.CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The lead says nothing about people thinking Trump's a racist. It says he is viewed as appealing explicitly to racism. It is a widely-reported fact that he is viewed as appealing explicitly to racism. Please stop trying to circumvent a consensus with this equivocation.- MrX 17:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference between appealing to racism and being a racist is trivial. Where was the consensus to omit Trump's denial?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference is certainly not trivial. One speaks to his tactics; the other speaks to his beliefs. I imagine there's no consensus to include his denial because most editors realize that would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE.- MrX 17:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe we should definitely add that he has repeatedly denied it. This isn't supposed to be an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. MrX is right. The lead does not make an accusation against Trump; it states how he is perceived by a wide variety of commentators. These are quite different. Neutrality 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, perception is highly subjective.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude denial, as it is irrelevant what Trump admits or denies in the context. What is relevant is that 'some mainstream commentators and prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.' I have included this full quote from the lead section, because User: Anythingyouwant distorted the issue from the outset in his first post in the current section, chatting about 'a bunch of people' and accusations about having romantic affairs. Fortunately, User: MrX has already reacted to the distortion, and User: Neutrality joined in. I'm now the third one in the row. Editors should always stay objective and not distort the issues on purpose, refer to talk page guidelines. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include denial. Accusations of racism are very damaging and this isn't supposed to be an attack piece.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: We all agree that the present article is not supposed to be 'an attack piece', so will you please stop repeating this non-issue ad nauseam? Yes, accusations of racism are usually damaging to people; but the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to document matters from a neutral point of view, not to avoid damaging people's reputations. Refer to the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. You really have to get better informed about the nature of Misplaced Pages before posting more premature stuff and wasting co-editor's time and attention on this talk page, I say. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I think the accusations of racism in the lede are undue and POV. This is a constructive comment. I am quite experienced with Misplaced Pages...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, there are NO accusations of racism in the lede. Please stop misrepresenting the situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's please put a hold on this until I get more info about the denial. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include I don't think the content is relevant to begin with per WP:LEAD, but if the community decides to override policy in that regard, some sort of qualifying statement seems appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude The lead does not say a bunch of people think Trump's a racist but that some people view him as appealing explicitly to racism. The qualifier "some" infers that others do not view him this way which should be sufficient. The difference between appealing to racism and being a racist is non-trivial, just as the difference between appealing to evangelical voters and being evangelical is non-trivial. TFD (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude and uhhhh... wasn't this just a subject of an RfC? 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please note that your post above was not properly signed... Gaeanautes (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. One too many tilde I believe. The above is me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per Neutrality. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude The denial of being a racist in this context makes no sense. Some have accused him of appealing to racism, which is not the same as accusing Trump of being a racist. As it stands, it is well-sourced, balanced, and neutral.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude per other editors. Buster Seven Talk 03:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Modify What is needed as a contrast is Trump's record of relating well in his personal and business life with a wide variety of people of other races and persuasions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this material is already subject to an RFC above, and therefore I probably should not have started this talk page section. I already said above "Let's please put a hold on this...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think he's "explicity" going out on the campaign trail 'explicity' appealing to racism. That implies to me a single-minded focus, and I've been looking over some of his speeches and rally talks on Youtube and I'm not hearing that. The source might say that, but that seems like a POV word, in any case.I'm also concerned that the article will be perceived as labeling him a racist and I don't believe he is. He speaks off the top of his head like he's sitting in his local having a pint and chatting it up. Definitely not polished, but that doesn't make someone a racist. Boneheaded, yes, but racist no. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude 90% of User:Anythingyouwant edits are pro-Trump-pushing-non-NPOV edits, and this one fits in the 90%. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I am not proposing anything in this section. Go look above where I deleted my initial comment, saying: "There is an ongoing RFC about this above, so please disregard."Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Iran Cash Video

In a repeat of his "thousands of Muslims cheering" claim, Trump recently had to admit that, although he had talked about it in depth and made a lot of conjecture about the careful professional quality of the tape and Irans reasoning for showing the tape, the tape of the Cash transfer didn't exist. Not sure how to incorporate this into the article and whether to co-mingle it with the previous claim of seeing a tape that no-one else can find. The "muslims cheering in NJ" tape has been mentioned often over the past year. A skilled editor is needed to meld the two incidents with care and concern. Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Which tape? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump claims he saw a on TV that ‘thousands’ of New Jersey Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks and

Donald Trump backtracks on 'video of Iran payment. Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd include that. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Responsibility of journalists

"Trump's behavior and positions have resulted in some journalists changing their goal in covering Trump from balanced and fair coverage to performing a duty to fully inform the public regarding the alleged dangers of a Trump presidency."

I am going to remove this new section, pending discussion here and consensus to include it. In my opinion it is insufficiently sourced (two sources are given, but one of them is based in part on the other) and the evidence cited in the articles is weak and muddled. The section claims that journalists - presumably meaning the reporters who produce the "news" content - are beginning to abandon balance for advocacy. But the examples given are mostly not from straight reporting, but from interviewers and editorials, which have always included judgment. It's possible this may become more widely reported or better documented in the future, but I don't believe it is there yet based on the sources given. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be restored. There's no question that Trump has been treated very unfairly by the press.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it should only be restored if someone can produce a better version of the previous version. _Gravity 19:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This can be directly observed in nearly every major newspaper and on every news channel, excepting Fox News. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal - that section was not encyclopedic and it was based on two editorials/opinion pieces. There are literally thousands of editorials written over the course of a presidential election. Unless these editorials become notable themselves, this is WP:UNDUE and should not be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ABC news cut away when Trump criticized Hillary, actually had the screen go blank, then came back, but played music instead of Trump speaking, then restored the sound. There are multiple instances of unfairness, and it is an issue in the campaign. They can be reliably sourced. As for Fox News, I wouldn't say they're favorable to him, especially Megan Kelly. Hannity is in love with Trump, but other than that, they seem to slant toward the negative, especially what I've seen of Shepard Smith. The newspapers always seem negative. For instance, they write articles about his school days at Wharton but always in the negative such as, "Trump did not receive an MBA from Wharton." Well, I don't know any undergraduate who did get a Master's in Business Administration while still an undergraduate at Wharton. They pile on negatives that make no sense. Since this is the campaign page, and media coverage is part of that, I would include it. I would also include the bit where Trump revoked the press credentials of the WashPo guy for the nasty piece of work he wrote. The articles are out there and some are really ugly. I had no idea how bad things were until I started editing these pages and went looking for sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If they "can" be reliably sourced, then provide these reliable sources. And these sources have to discuss the coverage rather than serve as examples, should not be unique or few in number, should not be editorials and an argument needs to be made that this is an issue on its own. Otherwise all we have is your impressions and original research. And these impressions could very well be wrong. Indeed, scholarly assesments of media coverage of the candidates show that it was actually Clinton who got most negative coverage , , . So if anything, that fact (Clinton got bad coverage, Trump was boosted) should be included, although of course not here, but in her presidential campaign article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Journalistic coverage of the election campaign will certainly be the subject of study for years to come. But the entry was vague and written in a judgmental tone. TFD (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, I hope my comment wasn't taken to mean I wanted to see that edit put back. I was simply commenting that in general I think there's something to the bias. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I see two kinds of responses here: evaluations of the sources, and assertions of personal opinion or observation. Only one of those types of responses carries weight here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We are looking for meta sources where journalism experts comment on media coverage and the ethics of journalism. The Columbia Journalism review is an example of that, news of journalism and media coverage. The Columbia source compares Trump to Joseph McCarthy and cites Edward R. Murrow as a role model. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Most discussion with respect to the ethics of covering Trump relates to giving him too much coverage or how to cover him after you have been banned by him. Only this commentary addresses the issue raised of duty to warn. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Jim Rutenberg (August 7, 2016). "Balance, Fairness and a Proudly Provocative Presidential Candidate". The New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2016.
2. David Mindich (July 15, 2016). "For journalists covering Trump, a Murrow moment". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved August 8, 2016.

• Do not include. It was correct for MelanieN. It is way under sourced. The two related sources are only opinions with anecdotes instead statistical data establishing bias.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, yes, we would need RS that specifies it but maybe from media critics whose job it is to assess coverage. But it would cut both ways. Those who perceive it and those who aren't seeing it. These are just randoms I found: SW3 5DL (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of these sources are usable, but many are not. The "TransmiTV" YouTube channel is not reliable. Breitbart, "WesternJournalism.com," and the Daily Caller are not reliable. Peter Navarro's op-ed in the National Interest is not reliable (note that Navarro is an official adviser to Trump, so of course he'll say that the media is biased against him). The Washington Times is, if not actually unreliable, low-quality. An LA Times op-ed by Justin Raimondo is not reliable for statements of fact (and is probably not worth citing for his opinion since Raimondo is a quite marginal figure).

The bottom line is this: we must avoid a grab-bag of punditry, and should rely on (1) actual journalistic accounts (straight news), plus (2) analysis from experts in journalism, plus (3) maybe some attributed opinion from noteworthy commentators. Neutrality 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with a section or piece about how the Trump campaign is affecting journalism (there are good sources out there) but the section that was inserted into the article was dreadful—unbalanced and not really supported by the cited sources—and quite properly removed by Melanie. A good, concise but comprehensive write-up can be done. This was not that.

Two places that might have good, usable material on this are the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and the Columbia Journalism Review. Neutrality 06:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality:, Thanks for looking through those. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was supporting the edit that has been removed. As for the sources I've listed, I wouldn't dismiss all of them. I agree Peter Navarro, if he has a connection to the campaign, wouldn't be useful, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss all the others out of hand. Taken as a whole, they do all seem to be pointing to the bias Trump claims. Comments from recognized media critics might be best. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a piece by Howard Kurtz. It seems to lay out Trump's behavior versus media. I wouldn't head a section about how Trump is affecting Journalism. It seems more like a tit for tat interaction to me. He says something, they attack, he hits back. At least, Kurtz seems to think so. Maybe he baits them to seem the underdog? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The only fact-based evaluations of media coverage I have seen at this discussion are the three cited above by Volunteer Marek - which use actual data (rather than opinions or anecdotes) to show that in fact media coverage over the last year has been mostly negative about Hillary Clinton, slightly positive about Donald Trump, and highly positive about Bernie Sanders. We have all heard the "media is liberal and biased" accusations for decades, at least since the advent of Rush Limbaugh, until it has become a truism among the right. But the evidence does not seem to support it, and without evidence, neither should Misplaced Pages. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UT

The Howard Kurtz piece appears to be a reliable source on the topic. Melanie your comment seems entirely off topic. I don't see any comment here from any editor advocating what your comment is suggesting. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Security Experts

@User: CFredkin, @User: Fred Bauder, and @User: MelanieN, you have all provided edits related to the Security Experts section. Can we try to get some agreement? Current it reads:

Security experts

On August 8, 2016, fifty of the nation's most senior Republican national security officials signed a letter calling Donald J. Trump unqualified to be president and warning that a Trump presidency ”would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being” and that “he would be the most reckless President in American history.” In March 2016 a similar previous letter was signed by 121 members of the Republican national security community, expressing their opinion that Trump as president would "make America less safe". "diminish our standing in the world", and "pose a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States."

References

1. Sanger, David E. "50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation's Security 'at Risk'". New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
2. 50 G.O.P. national security veterans. "A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump". nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved August 9, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
3. "Open letter on Donald Trump from GOP national security leaders". WOTR. March 2, 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2016.

Should it be a named Security Experts or National Security Establishment section, or should it be removed for the list as in CFredkin edit? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I believe it should be included - both letters were widely reported - but ""National security community" might be a better title than "Security experts" or "National security establishment" as it is less judgmental, and it parallels other section titles like "Business community" and "Religious community". If there are similar, widely reported letters from multiple national security people supporting Trump, they could be included here too - particularly if the people supporting Trump are Democrats (these letters got so much media attention because they came from Republicans). --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I support matching section titles. Buster Seven Talk 18:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

With this edit, I moved the reference to the new letter to the section "Opposition from Republicans", which is where previous letters from this group of "experts" are already referenced. As part of the move, I removed a redundant reference to the March letter. Gouncebeatduke reverted my edit and effectively restored the redundant content. This is undue. (It's also a violation of discretionary sanctions.)CFredkin (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also not clear to me why we need 2 separate sections to address such letters.CFredkin (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is solely a GOP issue. Democratic experts have taken issue as well. see http://www.presstv.us/Detail/2016/08/07/478932/Trump-nuclear-weapons-Clinton-Obama Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I agree, but is it in two sections? Why do we include the letters in Republican opposition if it is about security? I understand they are from Republican admins but that could mentioned in the security section. I think the reader will go looking at the security section for these issues. Republican opposition seems like it should be Republicans who aren't supporting him, not their security experts. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree we don't want to be redundant, but it does appear that security expert opposition and GOP opposition are overlapping sets. Maybe there is some way to split the information between the two sections with as little redundancy as possible? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that brings back into consideration Melanie's suggested "National Security Community". Matching thread titles does seem to make it easier for the future readers. Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the header to "National Security Community" Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That addresses the redundancy issue not at all.CFredkin (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it needs to be combined. I thought that was the point. I don't see any reason to repeat the same thing twice in the same article. I could see adding it to the Campaign page again, but not here twice. What's the point of that? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Then use the title when the redundancy issue gets handled (not by me). Buster Seven Talk 23:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Can you please tell me, what is the rationale for having this information mentioned twice in the article? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why ask me? I'm not advocating that we mention it twice. Mention the information once, in one thread, and title it 'National security community'...or some other easy to locate title. You say "it needs to be combined" and I agree. I'm just advocating that the title be congruent with other existing titles which use the word "communities"...which is what I meant by "matching titles". Buster Seven Talk 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the National Security community section as the letter is specifically from former GOP officials. (I had not seen it earlier.) The info, I believe, is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, NPOV, and balanced. Tweaks are certainly welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. SSTflyer 10:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 → Trump presidential campaign, 2016 – Nobody else named Trump has run for president so specifying the first name seems unnecessary. If we look at the lead image, it simply says Trump Pence so why the bloated title? Ranze (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not consistent with other articles, and this title is probably more recognizable. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose good faith suggestion. This might make sense in terms of Misplaced Pages's titling guidelines, but it appears that such article are always titled as Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Not consistent with similar article titles.LM2000 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Why call 'em The New York Yankees. Everyone knows they're from New York! Buster Seven Talk 07:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Trump/Second Amendment comment

This clearly needs to be added to the article. Yesterday, Trump was discussing Hillary and the future Supreme Court picks and stated Hillary would take away the second amendment if she won. There would be nothing left to be done, unless Second Amendment supporters did something. , It seems to me he's subtly suggesting something, he subsequently denied it on Hannity here. It must be added. The question is how best to write it, source it, and position it in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the same...Where do we start? And how do we capture the level of brainlessness it takes to continue to say these things. Other than the crass disregard for what might happen should some lunatic take his advice (see Gabby Giffords), this is also the most recent example of Trumps constant ridiculous claim that the "dishonest media” distorts his words. Should I believe him or my lying ears? Good luck trying to capture the impact of his latest re-boot. Buster Seven Talk 13:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. He's walking this back. Did you see how casual he was on Hannity? This is no slip of the tongue. We need to center the edit around what he said, the reaction, his 'rebuttal' if you want to call it that. To my ears, he did not say "Second Amendment supporters should go vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And include Secret Service reaction. We need to gather sources first. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal NYTimes Los Angeles Times CNN

Yes, this should be added. I'm almost inclined to think that there should be a WP:SPINOFF article about the many controversial comments that Trump has made during the campaign. They could be categorized as 1) appealing to racism, 2) misogynistic, 3) appealing to violence, 4) mocking the disabled, 5) comments about future election, so on.- MrX 14:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I support a spin-off. I have a feeling the next 90 days will be filled with article-worthy incidents and the sheer volume will be over-whelming. Buster Seven Talk 14:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely support a spin off article. This is not isolated. I don't know what it is, but he's been doing this since day 1. Here's a new Reuter's poll: Repubs want Trump to drop out. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This New Yorker article is from the March, 2016, but it questions if he is self-destructing. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that would make sense since new material keeps coming.--TMCk (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first such kerfuffle. In 2008, Hillary Clinton was asked about staying in the race for the Democratic nomination, and she responded that all kinds of things can happen late in the democratic primaries such as the assassination of RFK in June 1968. Some of Obama's people took this as a reference to his possible death, which it kind-of was in a way maybe. This 2008 episode is being discussed now by mainstream media, see here, in relation to the current Trump kerfuffle. BTW, it seems very possible that Trump meant second amendment people could act POLITICALLY to stop Senate confirmation of Clinton judicial nominees, but hey, it is indeed more fun to speculate that Trump was issuing a fatwah against Clinton like Clinton did against Obama in 2008.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. If you don't take him by his words and apply enough of fantasy it could mean anything you'd like. Anything is possible.--TMCk (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, this cannot be ameliorated by comparable Hillary Clinton comments to Obama. This is not his first time making statements that just hang there enough to give him deniability on his intent. I know that's POV to say, but we all know it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg Politics is a reliable source, and it's a relevant video. The idea that Trump was threatening the life of Clinton is just as ridiculously absurd, IMHO, as the idea that Clinton was threatening the life of Obama. What we absolutely should not do is suppress the 2008 analogy, suppress Trump's denial, and paint him as a psychopath merely because most editors might perhaps be categorized as despising despise him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Clinton 2008. Your ability to find outlier comparisons is commended, but the material is not relevant to this article. The last sentence in your comment is way out of bounds.- MrX 15:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to know that you disagree with national mainstream media reliable sources, MrX. Is your disagreement relevant?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Objective3000 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you would need RS that makes that comparison. Here's exactly what Trump said according to the L.A. Times: What Trump Said SW3 5DL (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I did provide an RS above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what Trump actually said...

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… (CROWD BOOING) If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

It takes quite a bit of mind reading to get that he was encouraging 2nd Amendment folks to assassinate Hillary from that. At least some, if not most, mainstream media are attributing that interpretation to his critics.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. And when he said “Blood Coming Out of Her Wherever” about Megyn Kelly, he was of course talking about her blood coming out of her nose.- MrX 15:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a mention of this should be added to this article. CNN Money's summary—"Donald Trump's remark that 'Second Amendment people' might be able to stop Hillary Clinton's appointment of Supreme Court justices....raised the specter of political violence and earned widespread condemnation, though Trump supporters denied that he was encouraging violence"—seems fair. The Boston Globe described it as an "incendiary comment, delivered as an off-handed aside, ... the latest remark from the Republican presidential nominee to stir intense controversy."

Interestingly, Dan Rather commented that the remark was "unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics" (link), which speaks to the historic nature of these kinds of remarks. Neutrality 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add Dan Rather to the critic category. He was discredited as an unbiased journalist long ago.CFredkin (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Rather's remark comes in his capacity as a commentator, yes. (If quoted in the article we should give in-text attribution to Rather).

P.S.: if your notion of "discredited" = "criticized by Rich Lowry in the New York Post," well, that's a rather odd notion of what it means to be "discredited." Neutrality 15:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

By discredited, I mean that he was "eased out" of his job as anchor at CBS News after pushing a "fatally flawed" report on Bush.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is fairly straight-forward. We take what he said, we add the sources that support that, we add in the reaction. He does have peeps speaking on his behalf, we can include that. Nobody's trying to be one-sided, but this has to be in the article. Also, this campaign has so many controversies that I think that section needs to be higher in the article. I'll work up an edit and put it here for others to comment/add to/delete. brbSW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is just the basics. It needs more reaction. Should I include Trump's Hannity comments or just the campaign statement? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Basic draft edit

At a campaign stop in Wilmington, North Carolina on August 9, Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton wants to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment.” He said if she appoints judges to the Supreme Court, there would be nothing that could be done, and added, “Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is. I don’t know.” Clinton Campaign spokesman Robby Mook released a statement that said, “. . .what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.” When asked his reaction, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said Trump should clarify what seemed to him a joke gone wrong. Dan Rather called the comments ‘a new low.’ Politifact noted that some people saw it as a joke while others took it as a threat.. Clinton supporters took to Twitter to express their reactions including Elizabeth Warren who called Trump's comment a "death threat." The Trump campaign released a statement that attributed the comment to, “. . .the power of unification – 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified which gives them great political power. . .” It went on to state these people would vote in record numbers but not for Hillary Clinton.Conservative commentator Bill Kristol commented on Twitter, that Trump was “hurting the cause of defense of the 2nd Amendment.”

comments/suggestion

Commentary from the Clinton campaign, Elizabeth Warren, and Dan Rather should not be included. It's not appropriate to rely on the interpretation of political opponents, and I've stated my concerns about relying on Dan Rather above.CFredkin (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly just pro-Trump POV-pushing. There should be a section on Trump's pattern of advocacy of violence. Starting with his ""I love the old days—you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks, ... I'd like to punch him in the face." statement and ending with this one. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If my statement above is "pro-Trump POV-pushing", would you support me in adding commentary by Trump and his surrogates about Hillary to her Campaign article?CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This edit is here for the purpose of everybody contributing. Let's see your contribution. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-ryan-says-trump-ought-to-clarify-second-1470798038-htmlstory.html
2. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/10/media/dan-rather-donald-trump/index.html
3. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/09/context-donald-trumps-second-amendment-people-comm/
4. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-defends-2nd-amendment-comment-n626601
5. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-campaign-statement-on-dishonest-media
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxAyyBDdGac