Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Appearance of Partisanship

Comparing this article to the Hillary Clinton article gives the appearance of partisanship. Wikipedia is anything if not nonpartisan, and the contrast between the two articles almost certainly reflects the weight of contributors over time. But there are a lot of paragraphs that take impromptu exclamations in town halls as "gotcha" phrases by antagonistic partisans who treat it like an official policy statement and discuss it as such in as great a length as possible; this is, actually, clearly biased. In contrast, the Hillary article is pretty much a puff piece. Hillary's principal substantive controversies are minimized there, although they are covered well in separate Wikipedia articles. I don't have a good suggestion about what to do about this contrast and the appearance of bias, since we are dependent on outside contributors for content. -motorfingers- 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)

I don't think the "appearance of partisanship" can be avoided. Trump is a very different person from Clinton, and there's no reason that their respective articles should be similar. I think you also have to bear in mind that many editors, such as myself, are not American. While America is in election mode, the rest of the world isn't. American media might attempt to be "balanced" (i.e. self-censored in order to avoid the appearance of partisanship), but the rest of the world's media doesn't necessarily have to. Hence un-American media is more likely to give an uncensored view of Trump. Trump is colourful. If it bleeds, it leads. His wit and wisdom garner international coverage. Inevitably Wikipedia reflects that. Wikipedia is international and hence must give an uncensored view. That is not a violation of the policy of neutrality; it is an application of the policy of accuracy.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's amusing - because we also get complaints that the Clinton article is biased against her while the Trump article is a whitewash. I guess that means we are doing our job and following what the sources say. For instance, if an "impromptu exclamation in a town hall" gets widespread coverage from neutral reliable sources, or becomes a major issue in the campaign, chances are it will get covered here; whether it was impromptu or scripted is not what determines our coverage. (How much coverage did Mitt Romney's impromptu comment about "the 47%" get? Here's a hint: Mitt Romney 47 percent comments.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to partisan to me. While Trump may be the least trusted least liked candidate ever, Clinton is a close second. Yet this article emphasizes his reputation, while Clinton's minimizes it. TFD (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What else does Trump offer but his reputation. That's all we have available other than his current actions and quotes. His reputation is that he's a great business man. But he won't share his tax returns so we can see how great he really is...so we can measure if what he says is true. Clinton, on the other hand, has 40 years of recorded history in the arena that is pertinent: government service. Non-partisanship is a very difficult fence to keep your balance on. Having never visited the Clinton article, I can only guess that the balancing act is just as difficult there but for different reasons. Buster Seven Talk 05:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Part of her experience is that in 2003 she had to vote on the Iraq war. She voted for it, 5,000 Americans died, 1 million Iraqs died, millions of people were displaced, ISIS took over the Middle East, and the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for $13 trillion. We all knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda, but some forgave her because she was running for president and could not look weak. But she actually wanted the war and that puts her in the same group as the worst Bush administration officials. What would Trump have done? No idea, but don't tell me that making the worst decision in the last half century somehow qualifies her. TFD (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Vote in the House for the War was 296-133 and and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23. Contrary to We all knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda the opposite was true. We had no reason to disbelieve. We were gullible because of our pain and our desire to show unity. Point is...she didn't act alone. The majority of Congress voted the same as her...based on mis-information and ambiguous (false?) intelligence reports. Buster Seven Talk 06:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It could be that the desire for unity triumphed rationality, but it was limited to the U.S. public and Clinton was provided the intelligence reports. Other than the U.K., no other country accepted them, except under duress. And although Bush and Clinton said the reports were a "slam dunk," Canada's prime minister, who also read them, said there were no WMDs.[1] As you point out, 133 congressmen and 23 senators, mostly Democrats, had the courage to vote on the evidence and their conscience. Why didn't she? TFD (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey fellow Wikipedians, I'm as thrilled as anyone to see a constructive debate about the state of American politics, but could we limit the conversation to improving the present article? For example, what part of the article has the appearance of partisanship? ^Falling_Gravity 03:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia quality standards require relevance to the topic, and cited sources as to facts. Including things like endorsement by racists lacks relevance to either Trump the person, the politician, or the campaign, citing sources such as energetically partisan sources such as blog entries on huffingtonpost.com is simply transferring aggressively presumptuous attacks to Wikipedia. For Hillary, these things are given their own topic. Including all manner of attacks on Trump into the article turns it into a hatchet job unworthy of Wikipedia. Arguing politics here is out-of-place, we should be talking about relevance to the topic (does the edit add to the topic?) and credibility of the source (is it a fact source, or just a blog? "Most mainstream media..." or an article that summarizes such is not a fact source, it's a source of conglomerated opinions-or worse...). Most of the topics in this entire article fail both tests. It doesn't matter if you think Trump "is a very different person" or not, Wikipedia's standards apply. -motorfingers- 02:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)

• I think that page Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 is indeed rather different and more boring. This is for a very good reason. Hillary behaves as a traditional US presidential candidate who plays by the rules. In contrast, Trump creates a lot of noise and controversy, intentionally to win these elections. He does not play "by the rules", and his strategy is actually working. Describing his election behavior/winning strategy per reliable sources is not a BLP violation by any account, but following WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: "racism" in lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following highlighted statement be included in the lede to this article?

Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign and has proved to be popular among his supporters, although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.

References

CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Per discussion below I have removed the word "explicitly" from the text in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• No It appears to violate WP:BLP. This is sensationalism generated by editors of these news outlets and politicians who politically oppose Trump. WP:BLP specifically states:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

SW3 5DL (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's a misapplication of WP:BLP to exclude prominent controversies about living public figures from their Wikipedia pages. The paragraph you quote mainly concerns privacy and rumors about people's personal lives. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - there's a ton of sources, another couple tons can be provided and the fact is obviously pertinent to his presidential campaign. As a result, not a BLP issue. Not even close, given the careful wording of the present text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: What reliable sources claim Donald Trump is a racist? What evidence is there that he behaves like a racist? Characterizing his comments as racist is not the same thing as his being a racist. His behavior does not support such a claim. Donald Trump made sure his club in Florida admitted Blacks and Jews when other clubs were still discriminating. That doesn't sound like a guy who seeks to appeal to racist people. When he was running for President with the Green Party back in the 80s, he resigned from the party because David Duke was a member of the party and Trump explicitly said he wouldn't be part of that. His daughter and her family are Jewish. Mitt Romney politically opposes Trump. He's not a racist. And yes, this would be a BLP violation. I think it would be all right to state that some of Trump's comments could be seen as appealing to those with racists tendencies, but it must not suggest that Trump is a racist since a careful reading of his past comments and behaviours do not suggest racism. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply: The text being discussed DOES NOT claim Donald Trump is a racist. See strawman fallacy. This is why I explicitly mentioned the "careful wording of the present text". (and, uh, David Duke was not a member of the Green Party. Neither was Donald) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, include - this is properly hedged (it's presented not in our own voice, but in the voice of others), carefully worded, and thoroughly referenced. It may be unpleasant to talk about, but as the references plainly indicate, this is a major, sustained, months-long theme/controversy. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney's statements should absolutely seal the deal on this. This is not, in my view, even a close call. Neutrality^talk 05:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This should not say ". . .have viewed him as appealing explicity to racism." They have no proof of that. Rather, it would be acceptable to say '. . .have viewed his comments as appealing to those with racist tendencies." Using 'explicitly' accuses Trump of intending all along to discriminate and seeking like-minded followers. There are no reliable sources to support that. Mitt Romney, who does not hide his scathing hatred for Trump, saying it doesn't make it so. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTTRUTH. Romney may be wrong, but he's sufficiently prominent that his comments merit mention. (Though I'd prefer his name be in there explicitly, along with Paul Ryan et al., rather than the current vague wording.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include - to reiterate, his statements have been described as "racist" by GOP House Leader Paul Ryan, former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and a myriad of other Republicans (as well as Democrats and mainstream RS observers). It is a central component of his electoral appeal -- he launched his campaign with racial generalizations about Mexican immigrants, after all, and has attacked an Indiana-born judge on the basis of his Mexican heritage -- and it is obviously a trait he takes pride in and has defended, arguing that he opposes "politically correct" speech. The additional clause is necessary, in order to contextualized what Trump claims as a campaign against "political correctness", and I find no objection to its NPOV wording as currently proposed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Include.- for the reasons given by other editors. The almost year-long societal conversations and hundreds of media dialogues and reports have mostly centered on Trumps racist thinking and his damning comments. We didn't get here alone. We know him by what we see....and hear. Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• No: this isn't an attack page about the campaign. It's an article simply about the campaign. Criticisms like that do not belong in the lead. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I might agree if it were a normal campaign. But it is not. Attacking ones opponents and any naysayers is the #1 tactic of the campaign. Outliers (other races) have been the #1 target. The fact that they (tactics and targets) have been repeatedly used since the beginning of the campaign to the present day creates their importance and their proper placement in the lede. They are not criticisms in that they are more than just "finding fault". They are accurate observations made by thousands of available secondary sources. Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, people who have officially endorsed Trump are ALSO saying this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That's original research. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea what "original research" means, in this context, if that's your belief. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. There is no basis for it. Partisan (left-wing) media sources may try to smear him, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. He's appealing to people who like America; that's not racist.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How are comments by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, accurately reported in mainstream sources such as USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Associated Press, etc., "partisan left-wing sources"? Utter nonsense. Neutrality^talk 14:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutrality: Well, they are wrong. Trump was talking about culture. He's pro-Western and pro-American. Anybody can become pro-American no matter what they look like. We know there is only one human race and no basis for "racism" anyway. But Trump is opposed to cultural relativism.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Include - There is nothing "partisan (left-wing)" about comments from Republican sources. As mentioned above, this is not stated in Wiki-voice. Objective3000 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes This is properly sourced and attributed, e.g. to Ryan and Romney. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes of course. Reflecting what a large body of very reliable sources has reported is not a WP:BLP violation per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but it certainly would be a WP:NPOV violation to omit the material from the lead. It's not at all sensationalist. His racially-charged comments have occurred in public forums and don't involve getting naked. His racially-toned rhetoric is part of a prominent underlying theme of his appeal to poorly-educated white voters.- MrX 14:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes Very well sourced, its not in Wikipedia voice, and it expresses the consensus view across the political spectrum. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Because this is a BLP, if we include this quote from Ryan/Romney, we should also add the context in which they say this along with their opposition to Trump's policies on trade, immigration, and criminal sentencing reductions. They are motivated by their donors who are opposed to all of Trump's proposals. Paul Ryan just spent time with the Koch brothers who support TPP, open borders, etc., because it's good for their bottom line. I don't believe for once second that Mitt Romney gives a rat's about racism, or misogyny, what with his binders full of women, 47% quotes, etc. So these guys do not come to the table with clean hands. They are smearing this guy for their own agenda, and unfortunately, Trump is giving them the ammunition. Self-inflicting his own wounds. Here's a bit on Ryan's romp with the Kochs: [2] SW3 5DL (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• To be clear, this language was recently discussed at length, and consensus supported its inclusion. This RfC is seeking to overturn that consensus, which is fine, but it means that the burden of proof is a bit different. There would need to be a clear consensus to remove the material here in order to support its removal, since it's already been included by consensus.

  To the point, I think this is an example of someone seeing something negative and reflexively assuming it must be a BLP violation. In this case, the actual policy is very clear that even negative material is appropriate, and in fact mandatory, for inclusion if it is widely reported and supported by multiple independent, reliable sources. Obviously, many such sources describe a racially charged or frankly racist element to Trump's rhetoric. Conveying that is not a BLP violation. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell: I absolutely agree with you. But the context of some of these claims I think should be presented. I think there's RS to show that Ryan/Romney don't have pure motives here. Certainly, Romney doesn't have a spotless background on this. But as you said, there is plenty of RS to substantiate what Trump is saying and how that is being perceived/received. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are those sources about Romney/Ryan? I'm not sure what you mean by "pure motives". I mean, they're politicians—their motives are political. That's what is so unprecedented about this - there is a huge incentive for a politician to fall in line behind a party's Presidential nominee, even in the face of substantial disagreements (cf. Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton). It's literally unheard of for the Speaker of the House to call out his own Party's nominee for "textbook racism" or "anti-Semitism" during an active campaign. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

They are politicians. And I agree it is unheard of that the Speaker of the House. took such exception to his own party's nominee. It just gets curiouser and curiouser. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes include. Not only this is widely covered in RS, but this very notable in context of the presidential campaign, which is the subject here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Tone it down. If we're going to say that the campaign is based partly on opposition to political correctness — a coded term if there ever was one — we owe it to the reader to point out that this has racial overtones that people have objected to. However, I don't think we need to go so far as to say that it appeals to racism, even when attributed to opponents and detractors. We could use a word like offensive, or divisive, or something that actually describes what it is rather than characterizing it with a value judgment. That's not really necessary. In the body perhaps we can keep the fuller discussion of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to assume a value judgement associated with racism uniquely among ideologies. Racism is an ideology, as is liberalism, feminism, patriotism, conservatism, communism, etc. Many individuals would make a negative value judgement about racism as, I suspect, many Americans would about communism, for example. And certainly, there's electoral advantages for candidates who associate/disassociate themselves from these various labels (varying depending on the context).

But for example, what if what a candidate has been saying has been consistently conservative, and a significant number of reliable sources are describing it as conservative, but the candidate doesn't describe him or herself as "conservative" for political reasons (maybe they're a conservative running in a general election in a particularly blue state, for instance)? Would we decide that since people make value judgements about conservatism, we should find some sort of euphemism as you're suggesting? Of course we wouldn't. So I don't see how we can pick and choose which ideologies we should be ascribing "value judgment[s]" to. Graham (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The term, in modern American English usage (and as far as I know, the rest of the English speaking world), is a pejorative term to describe and condemn bigotry, not ideology. As I said there are less judgmental terms for conveying the same facts. These aren't euphemisms, they're simple factual statements. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the word "communist" (among others) not often used pejoratively in the United States too? And surely there is no doubt that in that case a spade should be called a spade. Graham (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include – of course! There is a massive amount of balanced material documenting that Trump appeals explicitly to racism, thereby justifying the use of the term in the lead section. His campaign has been racist from the outset; journalists have correctly reported on this from the outset; commentators and politicians have commented on it from the outset. It really takes a lot of POV to deny all of this, I say. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Definitely include – The racially charged comments Trump has made and ideas around which he has built his campaign, which many have described as "racist", is a key component of his campaign. To not include include that in the lede would be to whitewash (legitimately no pun intended) the subject. We can't be tiptoeing around the word "racism" more than we would any other ideology (see my above reply to Wikidemon).

That being said, I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of the word explicitly in this context (though if it's a question of the sentence as originally proposed or nothing at all in the lede, on balance the original would be greatly preferable).

And a couple other minor things: I wonder if the phrase political correctness should be enclosed in quotation marks to make clear that that is Trump's language. As well, while it's difficult to find published sources outside the news media for an article about an ongoing election campaign, it wouldn't hurt to throw in a citation to a peer-reviewed publication. What about this one?:

Gökarıksel, Banu; Smith, Sara (2016). "'Making America Great Again'?: The Fascist Body Politics of Donald Trump". Political Geography. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.07.004. ISSN 1873-5096.

Any thoughts about these possible changes? Pinging CFredkin. Graham (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:LEAD, racism is mentioned twice in the article in passing, and is therefore not covered prominently enough for there to be coverage of this in the lead. Further, per WP:BLP this material should be removed immediately. You do not leave in contentious BLP material and discuss exclusion; you remove it and discuss inclusion. As has been pointed out to me, this is not supposed by a single citation, but a single inline TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, of course -- omitting this would distort the topic and mislead readers by leaving out a key aspect of how his campaign has been covered in a vast range of sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - As an overwhelming number of reliable sources discuss, there is wide agreement that explicit and implicit appeals to racial prejudices, white nationalism and xenophobia have been a key component of Trump's presidential campaign. It is neither undue weight nor a BLP violation to include this in the lede; to the contrary, it is effectively demanded by the weight of what reliable sources say about the campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to the basic idea, but wouldn't oppose wording tweaks - The sheer volume of sources about Trump and racism during this campaign is overwhelming to the point that it would be strange not to mention it in the lead. The sourcing blows away any WP:BLP issue, and WP:WEIGHT is substantial enough that it would be weird not to include in the lead. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think your comment is a good example of why most of this RfC is talking completely across purposes. My understanding is that WP:DUE applies mainly to the prominence of coverage in an article, not the lead, and WP:LEAD simply says that prominence in the lead should follow that in the article. Similarly, most of these comments are citing completely wrong criteria, and making a completely irrelevant argument. If it's due weight, then a section should be written about it. If a section cannot or has not been written about it, then it probably shouldn't go in the lead. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include - important, fully sourced and not in Wikipedia's voice. There is no original research or synthesis here, and all BLP provisions are fully followed. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• No because it does not accurately reflect reliable sources (thus violating WP:V), and because the body of the article does not support such a statement in the lead (as it must per WP:Lead). Those are two clear violations of policy, and there are more, e.g. the material violates WP:BLP in that it excludes the Trump campaign's denial of engaging in racial "Dog-whistle politics", much less engaging in explicit appeals to racists. As to not reflecting reliable sources, the sentence quoted above in the RFC question includes language ("although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism") indicating that only "some" prominent Republicans feel this way, and that all mainstream commentators feel this way. That is false, and moreover it is different from what the current version of the lead now says ("although some mainstream commentators and prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism"). Also completely unsupported by reliable sources (as far as I can tell) is the word "explicitly", given that few if any reliable sources say that Trump has explicitly said "I hope racists will support me" or made any comparable explicit statement. As for absence of support in the body of the article, the only mentions of "racism" or "racist" in the body of the article are comments by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and not any "mainstream commentators" as claimed in this RFC question. As for WP:BLP, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist", and suggesting that Trump has "explicitly" (or even implicitly) appealed for support from racism-supporters is sensationalist (in addition to being false). The leading incident on this subject involved the notorious racist David Duke, and as described in the body of this article "Trump highlighted his previous terse disavowal of Duke". Given Trump's repeated denials of any appeal to Duke (either explicit or implicit), any accusation in our lead about appealing to racism ought to at least briefly mention Trump's denial. In American politics, associating with racists is rightly the kiss of death, even more so than having extramarital affairs, and so the BLP advice about the latter would need to be followed here: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Lede should reflect body In the absence of a comprehensive section on Trump's use of appeals to racism and his personal record it should not be in the lede. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead section does reflect body, I say. In recent posts above, Users Timothy Joseph Wood, Anythingyouwant and Fred Bauder have all claimed that the text in the lead about Trump appealing explicitly to racism is not supported by the body of the article. This claim is factually incorrect. I think you should read the article's subsection on 'Announcement', the second paragraph starting with "Following the announcement, most of the media's attention..." This piece of text has been in place for months already (I checked the log). It's a bad thing to have the current RfC tainted by pure ignorance of the subject matter commented on. Editors, please shape up. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

First, calling others ignorant is not exactly being a paragon of civility. Second, a section on comments that were controversial does not equal a substantial section on racism. "Racism" is mentioned twice in the article, both in reference to comments made by Romney. "Racist" is mentioned once, in reference to comments made by Ryan. Both are essentially passing mention, and neither concern "mainstream commentators". TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Please accept my humblest apologies for calling you ignorant; but you should consider that the paragraph I refered to above concludes thus:

“ Reactions from other presidential candidates were mixed, with some Republican candidates disagreeing with the tone of Trump's remarks yet supporting the core idea that illegal immigration is an important campaign issue, while other Republican candidates, along with the leading Democratic candidates, condemning Trump's remarks and his policy stances as offensive or inflammatory. ”

There you go! We could easily add the term 'racist' to the text, like this: "... and his policy stances as offensive, inflammatory or racist." If the present references do not support this addition, we could easily add some more references that do (just repeat the current reference #15 from the lead section). Satisfied? Gaeanautes (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy? No. I'd be happy if there were enough cited coverage about this in the body that you don't have to tack on a list of seven sources in order to justify putting it in the lead. Although three passing mentions is better than two. TimothyJosephWood 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include – of course! Trump's explicitly racist demagoguery is well documented (and the primary reason he won the GOP nomination according to some polls) Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Accusations of racism have played such a large role in media coverage of Trump's campaign that it would be amiss not to mention the subject. However, "although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans" strikes me as weaselly. All mainstream commentators? Which ones? Which prominent Republicans? Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL provides that "They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Going into detail about exactly who had made such characterizations would be excessive for the lede and may even put undue emphasis on this issue. Graham (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• No: Every other statement in the lead is factual or uncontested: businessman, populist, controversial, temporary ban on Muslim immigration, etc. Saying he's appealed to racism would be contested by about 30-40% of the US. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just contested - the lede should be neutral. Opinions, especially controversial ones, belong in the body where we can provide full context. D.Creish (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, include - I agree with Neutrality and Dogg's assessment. Well sourced, a major feature of sources' coverage of the campaign, and decently worded. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include BLP requires "the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." These requirements are abundantly fulfilled here; the statement is supported by a number of sources, it is very carefully worded and not in Wikipedia's voice, and is thoroughly sourced. Given the volume of coverage this has received, it would be a violation of WP:DUE not to include this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• No, per Wikidemon and WP:LEDE. The lede of an article shouldn't contain references, i.e. it means something is not right about the body of the article if you need to reference something differently at the the top. Furthermore, it is WP:SYNTH in the way it's currently worded. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, its pretty well-decumented. Pwolit iets (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• No per FoCuSandLeArN. SSTflyer 02:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Explicitly"

As Anythingyouwant has now raised the same concern, I'm wondering if there would be any objection to removing the word "explicitly" from the original proposal, as I proposed above. Graham (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there are many serious flaws in the RFC proposal, and removing one would only make the others more likely to be accepted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Provided that were true, I would hope that if one were to feel that way, one would not game the system by opposing my proposal. This is an exercise in consensus building, not strategic voting, is it not? Graham (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(As an aside, it is generally courteous not to edit your comments after someone has referenced them without indicating that you have done so (per the talk page guidelines).) Graham (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you change the RFC question, then it will appear that people have given their opinions about the revised RFC question, even though they did not actually do so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it won't. While any reasonable person would assume that the vast majority of the three quarters of participants thus far who were supportive of the original proposal would also either prefer my amendment or accept it as a second choice, we will soon see get to see whether that is the case. By default, RfCs can run for up to a month, so given that we aren't even a week in yet, I think we have time – after all, there is no deadline.

And I can't imagine what other procedure you would prefer. Because someone made a proposal, does that mean that it either has to be accepted or rejected and then that paragraph is set in stone for eternity? Are compromises are entirely impermissible in consensus building?

Look, you've already been pretty explicit about that fact that you oppose my making this proposal primarily because it doesn't serve your strategic interests, so I would appreciate if we could get on with constructive discussion rather than stonewalling with procedural wrangling. (Also, as I did you the courtesy of not reverting your edit that blatantly violated WP:REDACT, I would have hoped that you would have corrected what I presume to have been a mistake…) Graham (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The standard way to proceed would be to withdraw this RFC and start a new one, but that can only be done by the person who started the RFC. You cannot change an RFC question after people have already responded to it with a !vote. My preference is that it not be withdrawn, so that it will be quickly and easily rejected, and I think that's a reasonable preference. But the person who started it is entitled to withdraw it, notwithstanding my preference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not been very active in this thread, but I do agree with removing "explicitly" and doing it now. It avoids arguments about whether things like pointing out the judge's Mexican heritage are "explicitly" or "implictly" racist comments. And contrary to Anythingyouwant's procedural arguments, I have often seen modifications to the discussed wording in the course of an RfC. I suggest that Graham go ahead and remove the word "explicitly", and note the removal at the top of the RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I would also go along with changing "although mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans" to "although some mainstream commentators and prominent Republicans" - if people think the current wording implies that ALL mainstream commentators feel this way. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, are you suggesting that Graham change the wording of the RFC question, or of the lead, or both? He cannot change the RFC question without permission of the person who started the RFC, right? (Even then you would have problems about people !voting on something that's subsequently changed.) If you mean that Graham should change the lead without changing the RFC question, then the RFC question would become obsolete and would have to be started over, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting that he remove that word from the lede, and add a note right under the RFC stating that he had done so. I don't believe that materially alters or voids the discussion. I don't believe the presence or absence of that one word is going to change anyone's opinion about whether or not to include the whole phrase. And no, I don't believe he needs the "permission" of the person who started the RFC. Please let's not wikilawyer this thing to death. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this comment of yours will be found useful by Graham and others, and it will not cause any "death". (Such violent rhetoric!)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that nobody got around to removing the word. I have removed it just now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

This RFC has not yet been closed, but the lead nevertheless has a sentence like the one under consideration. I have edited the sentence for clarity: "Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as an appealing candidate to racists." We need to qualify "mainstream commentators" because most haven't said this about Trump. Also, the word "appealing" has different senses and I have clarified which one. If another sense of the word is intended, for example that Trump has made appeals to racists, then we can change the sentence accordingly, but leaving it vague would confuse readers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Federal Reserve

I'm thinking we should have a few lines on this:

Trump has received coverage about his comments on the Federal Reserve and the Chairperson. Apparently he started commenting last October 2015, reversed course in May 2016, and then around September 12th 2016, went back to most of his original criticisms. He may have added something during the debate. It is a little confusing. I think the most significant thing is he thinks the Fed and Janet Yellen are keeping a lid on interest rates at the behest of the Democratic Party and President Obama. In other words Trump is saying, Yellen and Fed officials are politically influenced. In his view, just after Obama leaves office interest rates are sure to go up, the stock market will go down, and the intent is to keep Obama's legacy in tact until he leaves. Here are some relevant sources [3], [4], [5]. The NYT article is fresh off the presses covering this as one of the debate issues. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I can propose a one liner (not intended for lede) :

Trump's currently expressed views on the Federal Reserve is that the institution and its Chairperson, Janet Yellen, are influenced politically by the Democratic party and President Obama "at the expense of the economy."

Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly

Trump has received no endorsements from any major daily papers during the general election. Isn't that unusual and worthy of mention? Buster Seven Talk 13:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is. Especially when conservative papers, papers that have endorsed the Republican for the past century or so, opt to endorse Clinton or Johnson. Specifically, I'm thinking of the Cincinnati Enquirer, Dallas Morning News, and Union Leader. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The only newspaper (?) that is listed at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016#Newspapers, magazines and other media is the National Enquirer. There are four listed at Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2016#Donald Trump:The National Enquirer, NY Times, NY Post and the Santa Barbara News-Press. I'll try to come up with something in a few days...after I "come down" from Donalds debate victory. Buster Seven Talk 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Editor Muboshgu. Buster Seven Talk 13:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: See "Endorsement" thread below. Buster Seven Talk 18:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Machado

Trump is again making personal attacks against a civilian (see Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Khizr_and_Ghazala_Khan). Should we put this in the article? If so, what wording should we use? [6][7] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Trump still harangues about a 4 day old comment rather than tweet about some real issues. Trump is the only one keeping this minor story alive. The story is small...but him making a big deal about it is semi-important. Also not sure how to word it. Buster Seven Talk 21:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I'd word it either, which is why I didn't propose any wording. I agree that it's a minor issue, but paired with the Khans, Curiel, Melania's speech, etc., it does show a pattern of harping on something for days, when the media would've otherwise moved on. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• If we put everything that made a news cycle into this article, the Foundation would have to expand our storage capacity. This isn't significant now on anything near the magnitude of the Khan thing. If it becomes significant in the future, we can address it then. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

MSNBC and FoxNews are in agreement that Trumps focus on a 20 year old story is surprisingly self-centered. off-course and inconsiderate of the damage it could do to the campaign. It is being presented as the possible "last straw" of Trumps quest to achieve the White House. The fact that FoxNews even criticizes his late-night tweeting means "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". The story may die as many do. But it also has the chance of being the moment that is looked back on as "Jumping the shark" Buster Seven Talk 07:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it could be put into the "Women" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That would seem like a logical place for it if consensus agrees. Here is a NBC News|SurveyMoney poll. We could mention the updated results of the various polls that are already included in that thread if they are available. Buster Seven Talk 14:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements

Regarding this edit, I totally understand why it may be seen as WP:UNDUE, but I disagree. Newspaper endorsements often don't matter, unless they're unexpected. "For example, if a conservative editorial board endorsed a Democrat or a liberal editorial board endorsed a Republican." For one conservative paper to pass over Trump, it would not be a big deal. But we're seeing a pattern of conservative editorial boards not endorse Trump, either choosing Clinton or Johnson. I think that's important (and relevant) enough to include in a paragraph, especially when you consider how many third-party sources are covering the fact that these editorial boards are not endorsing Trump.[8][9][10][11][12] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be perfectly fine in a lengthy well fleshed out section on endorsements, or on the main article on endorsements, but it is not appropriate for literally all but single sentence of a section to be about a person other than the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is about Trump. These newspapers that typically endorse the Republican aren't, and it's because of him specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's about relative weight. There's a 250k main article about endorsements. In comparison, having a section here devoted almost entirely to papers that haven't endorsed him, doesn't accurately give an overview of the situation as a whole, and in fact, none of this is currently covered in the main article at all. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You could be right. I await feedback from other. And come to think of it, these endorsements should be covered in summary style in the main election page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. It is remarkable that a string of conservative editorial boards are not endorsing Trump. This is a notable pattern. If it was only one conservative paper (editorial board); this probably would not be notable. The fact that this is receiving third party coverage makes it notable for purposes of Wikipedia. And this has happened because of Trump, so it is directly on point here. So, I agree this deserves a paragraph and the material should be restored. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your link went to Time magazine's home page - I took the liberty of fixing the link (I hope this works) and I hope you don't mind. I usually don't do this. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this: USA Today made its first ever presidential endorsement, and it's because they say Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'. That has to fit here, right? They refer to Trump about 5-6x as often as they do Clinton. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much all of it needs to go in. Just like if long standing Democratic newspapers refused to endorse Clinton. It looks like there's consensus here to do that (I'm counting User:Buster7 based on their remarks above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Also, the fact that there are sources about the non-endorsements, evidences that this is indeed notable: [13].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We are more than just editors:we are historians. We do our best to record history in a fair, balanced and impartial way. This "lack of endorsements" issue could easily be disregarded and slip thru the cracks and not get mentioned. But it is a very peculiar and important fact that makes the campaign that this article is about unique and remarkable: remark-able or (turned around) "able to be remarked about". As of October First (tomorrow) (less than 40 days till election day), Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for President, will have received zero endorsements from any major daily American newspaper. Thats called history! Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above that the string of non-endorsements from historically Republican editorial boards is historic, and the reliable sources reflect this - ergo, it belongs here in some form. Neutrality^talk 21:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

But a non-endorsement is not the same as endorsing the "other side" since there is more than 2 candidates. The USA editorial made it clear that it was NOT endorsing a candidate and we should reflect the same. The tradition of not endosing a candidate remains entact. They are NOT taking sides, they are disqualifing one of the candidates. --Malerooster (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about USA Today specifically. I'm talking about the whole collection of traditionally Republican papers that have endorsed Clinton or strongly criticized Trump.

(And you are incorrect abut the USA Today, which did explicitly take sides, see the editorial itself: "The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now."). Neutrality^talk 14:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, they are taking the "anything but Trump" side, but they are also clear in not endorsing any candidate.--Malerooster (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Another important non-endorsement from an unlikely sorce: Dorothy Rabinowitz a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist for the most persistently conservative paper in the country (Wall Street Journal) has advocated voting for Clinton. The LA Times says: The WSJ could "......endorse Clinton, a move that would be so unexpected and newsworthy that it could doom Trump’s candidacy". Buster Seven Talk 08:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is notable and it reflects Trump's character as a candidate. It is not necessarily a criticism. In fact, he has made a virtue of not being part of the establishment.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This material is of historical significance and should be included in some form. - MrX 12:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Some good articles that summarize, to cite/draw upon

1. Rowena Lindsay, Newspaper presidential endorsements 2016: A big break with tradition, Christian Science Monitor (September 30, 2016).
2. Michael Calderone, Conservative Newspaper Editorial Boards Line Up Behind Hillary Clinton: But will these tradition-breaking endorsements matter?, Huffington Post (September 28, 2016).
3. David Bauder & Hillel Italie, Clinton set for landslide in newspaper endorsements. Does it matter?, Associated Press (September 30, 2016).
4. Conor Friedersdorf, The Newspapers Taking an Unprecedented Stand Against Trump, The Atlantic (September 30, 2016).
5. Meg Anderson, Newspaper Endorsements Matter Most When They're Unexpected, NPR (September 24, 2016).

--Neutrality^talk 14:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The David Duke disavowal dispute

I've been looking into the timeline of David Duke's "endorsement" of Trump and the conclusions people have drawn about Trump consequently embracing Duke's form of racism. Here's a draft of what I'd like to add to the article:

• During spring 2016, there was some confusion in the media. Some broadcast journalists, apparently unaware of Trump's having already disavowed white supremacist David Duke, implied that Trump was a Duke supporter. Trump followed this up with repeated disavowals, even one time answering the disavowal question before his interviewer could get the question out of his mouth.

If no one has a strong objection to this, I'll go ahead and dig up the sources for this. Some are print, but many are in video (i.e., interviews). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You can look for sources to back that up, but it strikes me as incorrect. Jake Tapper was the first to question Trump about it, and he said something along the lines of "I don't know about David Duke or white supremacists"; his first impulse was to not disavow them. He did later, after his campaign staff told him he messed up, disavow Duke. But he has continued to race bait with his alt-right supporters ever since. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would definitely like to see some sources supporting that narrative. It doesn't line up with my own recollection of how news about this was reported.- MrX 18:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind being wrong. I'm just saying it would be interesting to show a sort of time line. For example, here's one from the Weekly Standard, dated Feb. 26th. IIRC that was before the Jake Tapper interview.

• "... he endorsed me, OK? I disavow." [14]

We would then leave it to readers to wonder whether Tapper had heard about the earlier disavowal.

Maybe somebody could fact-check the dates on this, which is why I'm running this by everybody instead of inserting the quotes and dates unilaterally. I'd rather not edit the article at all than be reverted because I got the dates wrong. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• The Washington Examiner provides a timeline:
  1. Trump disavows on Feb 26
  2. Trump doesn't reiterate it, "Despite having disavowed Duke on Friday."
• Am I interpreting the sequence of events correctly? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• March 1st: "I disavow and hopefully it’s the final time I have to do it" Washington Post

You wrote "Washington Examiner", but I think you mean "The Washington Post". The sources don't support that "there was some confusion in the media". Maybe Trump was confused though, or maybe he was lying, based on his prior statements reflecting that he did know who Duke was. He disavowed Duke, then the next day said "I know nothing about David Duke" which of course also contradicts what he said in 2000: "Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem."- MrX 19:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ed Poor, the external links that you just added are inappropriate per WP:ELNO#not unique. Those are sources which can be cited in the body of the article. By singling them out in the External links section, you elevated their importance in violation of WP:NPOV.- MrX 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX (in both of his above remarks). As the sources reflect, Trump said a number of contradictory things over time. As for "media confusion" — I find this to be unconvincing in the extreme, and in any case our job is not to engage in media criticism and analysis.

I've also removed two links to news articles on the Duke affair from the "external links" section - perhaps these might work as references somewhere, but certainly not in the external links section. As MrX wrote, see WP:ELNO. Neutrality^talk 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

there was some confusion in the media - uh, no. See WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Neutrality and others who chimed in. I'll review WP:ELNO first thing, and in any case give it a rest until after the holidays. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

L'shanah tovah, Ed. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The Debate

Days and days of arguing about the image that we use, and not a single mention of a long-awaited debate watched by 81.4 million voters. I find that laughable. I don't trust my writing skills to do the debate recap fair justice....or to remain impartial. Is anyone working on a thread about the debate? Buster Seven Talk 13:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is the briefest of mentions at the Donald Trump article. This was a historic event in American Political history. Our challenge as editors, as recorders of that history, is to do our best. Ive started some rough drafts but they set the "wrong tone"...too partisan. I eagerly await the true wordsmiths among us to start the ball rolling. Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You rang? ;) The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Find ball. Initiate roll. Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User: Buster7 - I think that content should be in this article, rather than a biography page Donald Trump article, but perhaps I'm missing some reason as that seems to be where it's getting put. Markbassett (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Polls

Just to record: I see that a statement about "All scientific polls" had been duplicated from the Donald Trump article without the TALK there -- so I've edited it a bit and put a backnote there. Since it's been deleted from there so there's no explanation in the article where it, I'm putting notes here.

I've tried to clarify by

• wiki linking poll to Opinion poll;
• remove the "All" in "All scientific polls" as source said "early" (reporting about the first 4 in twitter mentions?) not "All". "All" is kind of open-ended and presumes no poll took place in say Texas or asked questions other than 'who won');
• say "most voters" versus "voters" since that's more accurate about what the source said -- the first 4 poll reports had some voters felt the other way, and a smaller number felt 'neither'.

I'm not putting online polls in but note the modifier "scientific poll" seems to be a mmm result about the media polls vs online polls. I don't say it's a partisan codeword, but only point out that "sientific" appears as an odd phrasing in article text unless it is in contrast to some other non-scientific flavor flavor such as online polls (wikilink to Open_access_poll#Online_poll) and needed at least a wikilink to explain what "scientific poll" meant. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

People and groups

I think this is a bit of an odd heading. I guess it arose to categorise miscellaneous issues, but wouldn't "Miscellaneous issues" be a better heading? Or is there a heading or headings that are more specific and informative?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Stuck out at me, too. I changed it to "Relationships with people and groups". Brianga (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's tax returns

Question for Monday morning: how to work in the new details on Donald Trump's tax returns? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

First thought is... The taxes can't just all of a sudden appear. We have to mention that The Times received them from an anonymous Trump Tower (return address) source and that the accountant at the time (now retired) has verified their authenticity. Buster Seven Talk 05:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Second thought is... The Times reported that rules that are especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period. Its called a "net loss carryover". Buster Seven Talk 12:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's currently under § Media coverage. I think it should also be in a sub section of § Refusal to release tax returns. We can write about the provenance of the document, the campaign's reaction, comments from his 1995 accountant, the threat to sue The New York Times, and the general media reactions. We can also include an external link to the actual document.- MrX 12:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Third thought is... Rudy Guilliani is on all the Sunday shows claiming Trump is a genius. The genius'es are Trump's tax accountants who give Trump what is normal advice to real estate developers. Buster Seven Talk 13:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Without getting into Mr. Trump's personal tax situation, the generation of net operating losses (NOLs) and the deduction of NOLs is not remarkable (except of course in the context of the political implications, in the case of Mr. Trump). Even in a small town somewhere, an NOL on a tax return is about as unusual as having your breakfast in the morning. Generally any taxpayer engaged in business can have an NOL, and can use the NOL to reduce or eliminate federal income taxes. A $900+ million NOL is a big one, but this would not necessarily be such a big story if the taxpayer were not running for President. I'm a tax attorney and Certified Public Accountant, and I'm working on a set of federal tax returns right now where the NOL exceeds $2.6 billion. Famspear (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it Hillary's?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Good one! (And that would be news, I guess......) Famspear (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 63.143.227.46: No, I am not a "supposed" accountant, and no, this is not "just my unsupported opinion." I know whereof I speak. Pointing out facts about the commonplace concept of a net operating loss that would be obvious to any CPA with any substantial amount of tax experience is not expression of my "unsupported opinion." And making these observations does not make me "painfully conservatively biased". Indeed, I am about as likely to vote for Donald Trump as I am to visit the Planet Neptune later today. Mr. Trump is a total mess.

Nobody has claimed that the news story lacks "factually verifiable notability." Whether it has "sunk" Trump's candidacy remains to be seen -- but that's not the point of this discussion, so why do you want to bring it up? The purpose of this talk page is not to debate that point. And, no, we're not "playing counterfactual party." Calm down. Famspear (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think your comment was really interesting and relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted on another talk page, the New York Times report does not say that Trump could have avoided Federal income taxes for eighteen years AFTER the year 1995. The Times says that Trump could have avoided taxes for up to 18 years. For 1995, the Federal NOL would normally have been carried back 3 years (to 1992, 1993, and 1994) and then forward 15 years (1996 through 2010), for a total of 18 years. The Times got it basically right, except for one detail: they forgot the year 1995 itself (assuming of course that the entire NOL was generated in that year). The total potential number of years for which Federal income taxes could have been avoided was 19, not 18. However, that's a minor point, and does not really require a correction in the article. The Times got it mostly right. Famspear (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin

Why is this guy's opinion in Wikipedia? He says "Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign," I doubt he even knows any real-life 'Nazis' given he's nothing but an internet troll. This is just an attempt by Leftists to smear Trump. If however we have decided this guy's opinion is notable enough for Wikipedia, I'll take it upon myself to insert his opinions into other articles, abortion, Jewish religious practices, ect. Unremarkable Specimen (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? Where is this? Are you certain that you aren't believing a conspiracy site? Objective3000 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Specimen is referring to "Endorsements of white nationalists..." which quotes Anglin, as editor of Daily Stormer. His comments seem notable here as they are quoted by the LA Times and his website has an article on Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The rumor mill and a heads up

I'm sure everyone here has heard of the Access Hollywood tape. There are rumors circulating around the web as to whether Trump or Pence might actually withdraw from the race. If there's any validity to these, then we've got to be ready to completely re-edit the article. The "Lewd Statement" section will have to be enlarged enormously. As of now, it can't be in the article yet. But we should start thinking about itArglebargle79 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

My first reaction is just to deal with it if it comes up, but wait. If there was a resignation, it would have to be put in the lede and the section on the tape would have to be raised to one of the first 3 sections, e.g. primaries intro, nomination, tape and resignation. Pence resigning would need less drastic work. The only thing that IMHO would make this feasible is if several more allegations of sexual assult come forward. There are currently 3 by my count. One attempted rape charge filed and then dropped in the 1990s (very complicated), one Jane Doe rape accusation currently in the courts (starting in December), and the CNN accusation from today. Maybe people can work on those to see what's needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not much of a re-write would be required either way. If Trump dropped out, we would say that and we could looking for dirt on his replacement. TFD (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-write what? We will deal with what happens according to WP guidelines. I don't see a large change, or even a surprise, here. Objective3000 (talk)

These rumors are not worth dealing with at this point. I have actually seen at least one fake news story (now deleted) that he has suspended his campaign, and someone actually added that to one of the articles (quickly deleted). Other than staying alert for that kind of thing I don't think we need a Plan B. If it happens, we will deal with it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

True, although as October 10 continues, there is serious risk of the RNC pulling its financial support for the campaign, and Paul Ryan has, while not (yet) pulling his paper endorsement, told down-ticket Republican candidates to "do what's best for them" regarding Trump and the campaign. Assuming that holds or the RNC goes ahead with that, those almost certainly do belong in the opening paragraphs. Skybunny (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point of being alert for sommething that will make headlines internationally.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

New campaign Photo

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/160801-trump-porn-crackdown-feature.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1328&h=882&crop=1 Article: http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/trump-vows-to-crack-down-on-internet-porn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.198.191 (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Second debate

Three days later and still no entry for one the most watched presidential debates in American history. Trump made claims today that most polls show he easily won the debate. I suppose I could work up a skeleton mention later today. Buster Seven Talk 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Buster Seven Talk 19:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The recent New York Times report on allegations of inappropriate behavior

See also: Talk:Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy § The New York Times: "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately"

The New York Times just came out with this report: "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately". The article contains a video with one of the woman explaining the sexual aggression Donald Trump used against them. This story in all likelihood will receive widespread media coverage, especially with him denying that he has groped women in the debate three days ago. These allegations seem completely credible and from my personal viewpoint may be the end of his campaign, if the last video wasn't enough. This should probably be included in the article, though we can wait and see how much media coverage it gets and how many more reliable sources report on this. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a BLP violation to me and should be removed from this talkpage immediately.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It is now experiencing and will gain more widespread coverage, as it must. I'm never in favor of moving too quickly: WP:Recentism. And, it's too much to think this will end his campaign -- given the campaign thus far. I'd wait a few days. OTOH, Zigzig20s's comment is ridiculous. Talking about a NYTimes story on a Talk Page is obviously not a BLP vio. Objective3000 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you know that it "will gain more widespread coverage"? And why do you say, "as it must"? Would this not be agenda-pushing? As far as I can tell, this article is nothing but a rumor, and Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's already being covered by major reputable international news organizations. It's not a rumor; it's allegations from named individuals. I don't advocate rushing to add it to any articles, but I imagine it's inevitable. - MrX 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's a rumor. And anybody could spread similar rumors about Hillary. No, adding it would make Wikipedia look bad/like a gossip rag.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but you can take your apparent argument that the NYTimes is a gossip rag to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In this instance, yes, they are certainly behaving like a gossip rag. It's not a blanket statement on the entire newspaper; we don't use editorials as RS for example. We shouldn't cite rumors and unfounded allegations either.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What if we use this Fox News article as the source and edit the drafted blurb accordingly?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No. This is a recentist rumor/unprovable allegation spread by The New York Times, which is actively trying to get HRC elected. If other news outlets are echoing it, it is simply to get more ad revenue thanks to click bait. If this could be proved, and stopped being a rumor, and it wasn't so recentist, perhaps. But right now this is just gossip.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

To claim on WP that an RS made “unfounded allegations” would require that you provide an RS that states those claims. Otherwise, it would seem that you are the one making “unfounded allegations.” And, your claims in this edit are beyond the pale. Perhaps you should avoid controversial articles. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Can these women prove the allegations? Apparently not. So it's gossip. Wikipedia is not a gossip website; it's a serious encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your logic, Zigzig20s. You're right WP is not a gossip site. Of course, that's true, and that's why a lot of unreliable sources do not fit within WP guidelines. I know you question the source, but I haven't seen that you're interested in taking NYT to the RS noticeboard. I've not seen anyone other than you question using the article, and I wonder how different these allegations are than some made on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. The point is: Trump said he'd not made sexual advances to women without their consent and there are now women coming forward who dispute his claim. I see that it's a pivotal point in the campaign, but how should that control whether or not we'd post something that would otherwise be posted at another time?

The fact that you don't even want this story posted viewed from the Fox News perspective is especially telling to me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple new, related stories are appearing. I think we need to wait a day or two for the dust to settle, and then add them as a group. Objective3000 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is too recentist. But it also smacks of character assassination, and given the context, it is extremely suspicious.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: We need to make a compromise. The fact is, if you think the allegations are valid or not, many sources from the left and right are reporting on this. I, along with User:CaroleHenson, agree that this needs to be included, so I propose we cite these 4 sources from across the political spectrum:

• NPR: "Report: Two Women Say Donald Trump Inappropriately Touched Them", generally considered more liberal than some other sources, but nonetheless a solid reference.
• Breitbart: "NYTimes: Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately", openly supports Donald Trump is considered far-right or fringe-right and questions validity of NYT's article; this should make up for "bias" on newspapers that endorsed Hillary. This is also considered by many to be a sometimes questionable source.
• Los Angeles Times: "Campaign 2016 updates: New sex assault allegations emerge against Donald Trump", more liberal and gives opposite opinion compared to Breitbart
• Fox News: "Three women claim Trump touched them inappropriately in two new reports", general right-wing news source

We can rewrite the section about the NYT's article that presents first what the allegations are, and then the various standpoints from the various news sources above. Now there are sources on both sides; If you feel that strongly againist the New York Times, I can now say the same about Breitbart. Now can we please move forward? If anyone else has ideas we're open to suggestions. WClarke (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As User:Objective3000 argued earlier, this is too recentist. Why are you in such a rush to add unprovable allegations akin to character assassination in the midst of a campaign? I'm sorry but there is no consensus. I suppose you could start an RfC, but it is probably too recentist for that right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly a response from the Trump campaign should be added. But, Breitbart should not ever be used as a WP cite about anything but Breitbart itself. Objective3000 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zigzig and Objective3000. What's the rush? My guess is this is just the beginning of a deluge of article worthy incidents regarding verifiable sexual assault. Buster Seven Talk 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that there is nothing to it. Just saying this to remind you that we are not supposed to "guess" anything, as that is WP:OR.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

We can guess all we want. Its not OR until we add it to the article. As WP:OR clearly states at the very outset: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages. Buster Seven Talk 03:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not helpful. It's a BLP violation as long as you can't prove your defamatory "guess".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My "guess" is based on what happened with the recent Bill Cosby allegations. Eventually 60 women accused Crosby of some form of sexual assault. As victims came forward, each strengthened and empowered the next to be brave. Most reading the reports would not question the authenticity of the victims. These ladies came forward, so I assume there will be others. I could be wrong but I don't think I will be. Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In the Rowanne Brewer Lane reports back in May, she never undid her claim that he gropped her under the table while she and her boyfriend were negotiating a business deal with Trump. Buster Seven Talk 13:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My "guess" is based on a Cosmopolitan survey of over 2,000 full-time and part-time female employees, 44% of which said they experienced unwanted advances and touching. My "guess" is based on a People Magazine article describing Trumps behavior at a Teen beauty pageant that he owned. My "guess" is based on a Palm Beach Florida report about a woman who says Trump groped her. My"guess" is based on Jill Harth Houraney's $125 million dollar lawsuit against Trump alleging touching of her "private parts".Buster Seven Talk 14:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)