Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Access Hollywood tape

TJD2. Mention of the tapes has once again been removed from the article with the laughable claim they had nothing to do with the campaign although they were mentioned in Sundays second debate and that they were unsourced. Sources are easily provided but maybe we should discuss first. Buster Seven Talk 19:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC).

It's been mentioned at the debate, and it's led more Republicans than I can count to denounce and unendorse him. This is a legit issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering the thread below, The recent New York Times report on allegations of inappropriate behavior, I suppose the Access Hollywood tape can be the starting point for inclusion in a thread including the many allegations that are likely to become newsworthy now that a few brave women have come forward. Plus, waiting seems to be the norm here as I point out in the Second debate thread above. Buster Seven Talk 03:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you know that they are "brave"? They are only "brave" if it is true. Otherwise, they could be political operatives trying to disrupt an opponent's campaign a few weeks before the election via character assassination. As far as I can tell, nobody knows--so please let's try to be cautious and neutral here.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Any women that comes forward, prepared for the firestorm of contempt and the threats of lawsuits and recriminations, is brave. But you are right. Maybe they are paid operatives trying to cause disruption. Or maybe not. Time will tell. Buster Seven Talk 03:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily paid.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My issue is also that the only citation was that of a media outlet that publicly endorsed Trump's opponent. That to me makes them unreliable and is also a NPOV issue. The tape itself has nothing to do with his campaign, but the Republicans retracting their endorsement do. I would not object to including that last bit, but PLEASE find a neutral source. TJD2 (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That doesn't make them "unreliable" and it's not an NPOV issue. Reputable media outlets establish clear firewalls between editorial and reporting functions, and editorializing in favor of one candidate or another has no impact on whether a source is reliable for Wikipedia purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor NorthBySouthBaranof is correct. Under the rules of Wikipedia, sources do not have to be "neutral" or unbiased. Sources have to be reliable. And, obviously, the argument that the tape itself (that is, the subject matter or contents of the conversation recorded on the tape) "has nothing to do" with Trump's campaign is without merit. Famspear (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Should "Controversies/criticisms" be it's own article?

Many to name.131.128.73.4 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements??

Currently we have an "Endorsements" section which only speaks about Trump's lack of endorsements by the press, and some endorsements of Clinton to boot. No mention of people or organizations who do endorse Trump, although we have a fairly developed main article about those. Did I miss a consensus discussion to exclude Trump endorsements from the Endorsements section of the Trump campaign page? — JFG ^talk 23:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Endorsements" section refers only to newspaper endorsements; I have changed the section heading to make that clear. There are several entire articles listing Trump's endorsements by people and organizations, and they are linked at the top of the section. There are too many to include in this article; that's why it is spun off. However, the unprecedented lack of endorsements by the press has been commented on by many sources.[1][2][3] It is a news story in itself and thus is deserving of a mention here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Donation

A NY Daily News stories claims that Trump never made good on a pledge to contribute $10,000 to a Howard Stern charity. The pledge was made on the radio and Trump received many accolades for his contribution....but the city's comptroller says the charity never got the check and concluded that Trump "may have lied" about making a donation. Trump often makes a point of talking about his generosity during his campaign. It would not be the first time that named charities did not receive funds or that the foundation claims it sent, but were never received. Not included is the $25,000 "donation" to Pam Bondi after she decided not to investigate Trump University. Buster Seven Talk 14:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

'Howard Stern charity' < this is when people dont know what is a joke.(unsigned contributor)

The promise to contribute was not a joke Buster Seven Talk 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not have space to include every story about Trump, just those that are most widely reported which this one is not. If we decided to base articles about politicians based on investigative reporting by the Post, these articles would have a peculiar look. Of course when tabloid stories hit the mainstream we cover them not because they come from tabloids but because they have attracted attention. I note that the paper's reporters searched for payments to the two major 9/11 charities only, and even then could not report with certainty that Trump did not contribute to either of them. That could be why the mainstream did not run with it, but it violates neutrality for us to promote unduly stories that have been overlooked. TFD (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Categories

this diff by Triggerhappy4 with the edit summary "removed inappropriate categories" is questionable to me and should be undone. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 16:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the "racism" and "sexism" categories. Looking at the type of articles that are listed in those categories, they were inappropriate for this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral one way or the other. Both are in the BLP and sourced, so its not a violation there. Although, I'm not sure the categories really fulfill the spirit of writing BLPs conservatively (no pun intended). TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not willing to pursue it beyond this chat. Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

On the line

Trump's campaign rallies have attracted large crowds, as well as public controversy. Some of the events were marked by incidents of violence between Trump supporters and protesters, mistreatment of some journalists, and disruption by a large group of protesters who effectively shut down a major rally in Chicago. Trump has been accused of inciting violence at his rallies.[29][30][31]

You should include that the protesters at the Chicago rally were paid by Hillary's campaign and other groups working for the campaign.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&index=1&list=PLXvy1DRoSfZlzszVv2sw3-IUPL6YlER6_ [11:00, Zulema Rodriguez] & https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016

Hplaza12 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Neither of those sources are reliable for "the protesters at the Chicago rally were paid by Hillary's campaign and other groups working for the campaign". Please find a reputable newspaper, magazine, journal, or news web site that makes such an assertion.- MrX 20:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Promoting voter intimidation"

I have changed this to accusations of promoting voter intimidation. The cite given was to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/donald-trump-voting-election-rigging.html " stirred increasing fears of intimidation”。 Note this is slightly weaker language and a quick googling of the first RSs i could find suggests that RSs are not currently saying in their own voice that DT's campaign is promoting voter initimidation, but using alleged, so we should follow:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/trump-clinton-voter-intimidation/index.html "allegations of voter intimidation” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/poll-monitoring-voter-intimidation-lawsuits/506078/ "Trump’s Alleged Voter-Intimidation Efforst” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-federal-judge-hears-voter-intimidation-arguments/2016/11/04/a9e8bf7e-a29f-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html "allegations Republican volunteers are engaging in voter intimidation" I suggest we follow this and see if weight of RSs shifts. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary results

According to The Green Papers, Trump led all Republicans with 14,015,993 votes during the primary. This is the highest amount ever received by a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.38.14 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How should we cover the 73 year old, legally blind Trump supporter who allegedly punched a 69 year old woman?

Does this incident belong here at all, once we move past the early, sensational media coverage that let readers assume it was a young man battering an elderly woman? If so, should we mention the two parties's names—Shirley Teter and Richard L. Campbell? Finally, since we are quoting Teter's claim to have been "cold-clocked," can any of the following material from Snopes.com be included?: "Footage of the encounter shows 'Teter reaching out to (Campbell) ... from behind, using her left arm'; the man's lawyer asserted that her client 'reflexively moved his arm to release himself from Ms. Teter's grip, causing her to fall.'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree Snopes doesn't warrant inclusion. Moreover the insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face as long as the puncher is 73 years old is grotesque OR, not unlike the rationalizations of pussy-grabbing by celebrities and forced kissing. This thread should be dropped and archived. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland was arguing that the incident itself lacks notability, and I agree with him. That said, if it is included, then both Teter's and Campbell's claims should be discussed. (SPECIFICO, I would appreciate it if you dropped the personal attacks such as the "grotesque ... insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," since no-one has ever made such an argument. There were plenty of witnesses and video evidence, and it looks like Teter grabbed and startled the legally blind Campbell, who reflexively brushed her aside; she was not "punched in the face" or seriously hurt—it was a hoax.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree minor incident, inclusion violates wp:weight NPalgan2 (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If we include the story, we should mention the claims that the alleged victim was a Clinton campaign plant[4] and it is more relevant to the Clinton campaign article. TFD (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What does that have to do with the guy clocking her? Isn't that like saying a woman was raped because she wore attractive clothing? If the opponent paid an actor to impersonate a violent Trump supporter and assault her, I could understand. But the assault was voluntary and it's been documented, so I don't see what difference it would make why she was at the rally. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read up on rape before making such statements. Women do not provoke men to rape them and rape is a crime of violence and control not men being overcome by lust. Allegations of a campaign paying vulnerable people, whether homeless, mentally ill, or elderly are more serious than alleged assualt by an individual supporter of a campaign. TFD (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(NB: I didn't get into this aspect of the story because the Left will always say O'Keefe is just taking Democratic bosses out of context, but Teter being an operative actually makes perfect sense. It appears Teter was grabbing Trump supporters in the hope of provoking a reaction—although the only reaction she could get came from a blind man reflexively batting her away—and then immediately dropped to the ground despite barely being touched, before giving interviews about it with a large number of media outlets. That's not normal behavior, unless you're being paid to prove how "deplorable" Trump supporters truly are.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: -- Remain calm. I may have misunderstood -- Are you saying that the noteworthy fact about this incident would only be that a politician would engage somebody with COPD to protest when by some standard of care they should not choose such a person for that task? Do we have RS stating that this woman was incompetent to decide whether to attend and protest at this event? I haven't seen any reporting to suggest that she was not competent to make the decision to attend a rally. The text in the article did not deal with or verify that narrative, but it would not make sense to say that she should not have been at a Trump rally because it's dangerous to be an "outsider" at a Trump rally. (and that would be the analogy with folks who blame rape victims because they somehow incited the violent attack on them.) But that SYNTHy innuendo, if that is what's behind the excessive detail on this matter is clearly against WP standards. The primary point, if in fact this incident is to be mentioned in the article at all, would just be to enumerate another case of Trump supporters turning violent or abusive. Am I understanding your point better? Anyway, the woman refuted the paid protester thing and the source is rather weak. Not that there aren't paid protesters out and about, but I don't see that as particularly noteworthy. Dog bites man. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your theories about rape, I suggest you take it elsewhere. I am making no judgment on anyone's actions. It could be the threat of a Trump presidency which you think could lead to nuclear winter justifies extreme measures (the "ticking timebomb defense"), just as some Trump supporters feel the threat of a Clinton presidency justifies extreme measures. But we are not supposed to carry the campaigns into these articles, just report the facts as presented in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Well, I think we're talking past one another. My initial attention to this bit was because of the insertion of the preposterous spin that somehow it's OK for a 73 year old or a person of limited vision, or best of all -- both -- to punch another person of whatever age and gender in the face. As if a visual disability is a license to circulate in a crowded space flailing away at any blur. Anyhoo... Having read some of the reporting on this, I think there's a simpler editorial issue here. Namely, this bit is WP:UNDUE in the context of this article. It could just be cited as one of the many instances of protest and of violent response to protesters, press, and others, at Trump events. I do think, however, that we need to stop proposing spin-room nonsense placed in the media by any political campaign. Unless there's wide reporting to verify the facts and establish the notability of individual incidents, they're best omitted here. Nobody will still be caring about them in a month. I suspect that we may agree on this. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.(not that I'm saying you have feathers.) SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump rushed offstage by security at Reno, Nevada rally

Tonight (Nov. 5) Trump was rushed offstage at his rally by secret service in Reno, Nevada according to multiple news sources. In a video at the rally, Trump can be seen abruptly looking directly into crowd at something, only moments later secret service shielded him and brought him off the stage. Following that, officers went into the crowd and detained someone, bringing the man into a bathroom away from the crowd. Video and Sources:

• Youtube video: Donald Trump Rushed Off Stage By Secret Service in Reno, NV.
• New York Times: Donald Trump Rushed Offstage by Security
• CNN: Trump rushed off stage at campaign rally

Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Update The Trump campaign has released a statement thanking the Secret Service and law enforcement at the rally, though didn't elaborate on what happened. WClarke (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How often has the secret service needed to react during past presidential campaigns? What is pertinent about the incident is that, for what ever reason, it was the second time that the secret service had to whisk Trump off the stage and to safety. The very briefest elaboration as to who, what, why is explanation enough. Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we include this then we need to describe what actually happened: an anti-Trump Republican tried to hold up a "Republicans against Trump" sign, at which point Trump's supporters jumped on him and knocked him down to the ground and began kicking, beating, and stomping him. Then someone in the crowd yelled "gun!" and that's when Secret Service rushed Trump off the stage. The anti-Trump Republican was escorted out and no gun was ever found. He was released shortly there after.

Yeah, we could include a couple sentences about this I guess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a minor incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor indeed except the battery of the innocent sign-carrier by Trumps Army and for the twitter claims by Eric Trump that it was an assassination attempt. If we mention the sign-carrier we need to mention the extremely over-exaggerated response by senior members of the Trump team. Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Although the Trump folks tried for a day or so to hype this into an "assassination attempt," it was just another incident of Trump supporters beating up a protester. Luckily for Trump (because it would make him and his people look pretty bad), it wasn't a big enough incident to warrant mention in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add: "Endorsement by some in the Jewish community"

Suggestion that got no support and was regarded as offensive by some users. Re-closing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In light of: "Ivanka Trump visits the Lubavitcher Rebbe's grave ahead of election". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. November 6, 2016. Retrieved November 7, 2016. where it says, "Meanwhile, three New York-based Jewish newspapers have endorsed Trump for president, joining six mainstream newspapers across the country who have done so. The Jewish papers are: The New York Jewish Voice, The Jewish Press and the Long Island Jewish World.", I think we should add a subsection about DJT's support among the Jewish community.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, that article does not suggest that the Jewish community endorses Trump. Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC) What is "the Jewish community?" Like in Trump's ad, is that the insinuation? This is OR and should be archived. Now. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC) No such "Jewish Community" has endorsed Trump. Maybe you meant the Ku Klux Klan?- MrX 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Three Jewish newspapers. Read above.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC) The WP List of Jewish newspapers in the United States includes 41 papers. There is no such thing as "The Jewish Community." Jews are not monolithic. But, a large number would likely find this section offensive. Objective3000 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Can't wait for Thanksgiving? [5], [6], etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC) I agree with the above comments; there is no monolithic "Jewish community", and endorsements by Jewish-themed newspapers are not uniform. See, for example: In First-Ever Political Endorsement, NY Jewish Week Slams Trump and Backs Clinton; Haredi Newspaper Der Yid (Sort Of) Endorses Hillary Clinton; 'Friend of the Jews' Hillary Clinton endorsed by ultra-orthodox Satmar sect - shall I go on? --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC) P.S. ...and then there's this... Yeah, I'm sure the Jewish community just loved being identified with the evil global elite in Trump's final ad. The Anti-Defamation League was particularly fond of it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC) I'm Jewish, and the idea that there is a "Jewish community" is offensive to me. Almost as offensive as Trump's dog whistling anti-semitism, but not quite. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC) The Israeli media offer a different perspective. For example, "In the famed Baltimore yeshiva of Ner Yisroel, trucks drive around singing “Vote for Donald Trump” in Yiddish.": Chizhik-Goldschmidt, Avital (July 7, 2016). "Trump Packs More Punch Than Clinton for Many Brooklyn Orthodox Jews". Haaretz. Retrieved November 7, 2016. And: Ravid, Barak (September 25, 2016). "Trump Tells Netanyahu: If Elected, U.S. Would Recognize Undivided Jerusalem as Israel's Capital". Haaretz. Retrieved November 7, 2016. Thank youZigzig20s (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC) You may not realize this, but all Jews (Blacks, Asians, whatever) do not think alike. Providing examples of what some Jews think and claiming this indicates it is a general belief is extremely offensive. Objective3000 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC) How would you like to rephrase it? I really resent that you don't seem to be assuming good faith. (The LGBT community is not uniform either--that's true of ALL so-called communities.) He enjoys support from some Jewish newspapers, politicians and voters, as per reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Some Jewish papers support him and some support Clinton. So what? Objective3000 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC) So there's quite a lot of RS about Jewish newspapers, Israeli politicians, etc., who support Trump. I am suggesting we add a subsection to the article. My main concern is that the article currently gives undue weight to fringe racists who are complete nobodies (let's be honest), and yet that's not the full picture at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC) David Duke and the KKK are, sadly, not nobodies. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC) To be honest, I think you're wrong about that. They have no power whatsoever, thank God. But that's not my point at all. There's quite a lot of RS about Jewish newspapers, Israeli politicians, etc., who support Trump, and I am suggesting we add a subsection about this to the article, as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC) KKK has no power? Phew. And here I was concerned. I just checked, and Bibi Netanyahu playing favorites with Mitt Romney four years ago, which is quite reliably sourced by the legit media, isn't included in the Romney 2012 article. Why should those publications be listed here? We don't list any foreign papers anywhere on these pages, do we? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC) As far as I know, there is no anti-foreign RS policy on Wikipedia. We shouldn't discriminate against Israeli RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC) There is no story here. There is no pattern of who "the Jewish community" supports for president. Zigzig provided the names of three papers that support Trump. I countered with the names of three papers that support Clinton. There is no polling data on how "Jews" are planning to vote (unlike, say, Hispanics or women). I am going to hat this whole discussion as irrelevant and potentially offensive. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Why did you close the referenced info about the Jewish newspapers and Israelis supporting Trump? It's not OR at all; it's all based on reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Because it does not prove any kind of pattern of the "Jewish community", if such a thing exists. I pointed out an equal number of Jewish papers that endorsed Clinton. Anyhow you had no consensus here; nobody but you argued to include this. Continuing to argue for this dead-on-arrival proposal could become disruptive. Reclosing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is there an NPOV tag but no talk page discussion?

DaltonCastle dropped an NPOV template on the top of the article this election morning, but I don't see a corresponding discussion laying out the neutral point of view issues in the article. Was this tag added as a warning?- MrX 14:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Appears unexplained and should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. Buster Seven Talk 15:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it was explained. There were two users noting the lead does not seem neutral. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There will always be someone making that claim on the election articles. Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that neutrality is legitimately disputed. "two users noting" doesn't help us fix any actual alleged issues.- MrX 19:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the tag should be restored. The lede is completely POV. It sounds like an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In what way is it completely POV?. Is anything in the lead not supported by large number of reputable sources? If so, we can remove that material and will have no need for a maintenance tag.- MrX 19:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to come off as curt, but that is not how neutrality tags work. When there is a concern (which now there are additional editors noting the same issues) it takes a talk page discussion to reach the consensus to remove the tag - it does not take a consensus to add the tag. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to come across as curt either, but please follow the instructions on the template before adding the template:

• Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view.
• Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

Now I ask again, what are the specific passages of content do you or Zigzig20s believe do not represent a neutral point of view and are not reflective of a preponderance of sources.

By the way, an editor was recently topic banned for similarly insisting on adding the NPOV template to a Trump article, while ignoring the fact that the content was the result of collaboration of many experience editors who fully understand and adhere to our policies. - MrX 23:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not going to the talk page first, but that shouldn't disparage from the concern overall. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, longer reply coming... DaltonCastle (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to be snarky, but I doubt we will see an explanation for this template before Trump produces his taxes. OK, that was snarky. But, there is a limit to patience; and this flag should not be on this article during an election. This is a failure of Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, on one hand you are not in trouble for reverting. But on the other, there is no need for that partisanship. Both sides could make claims about each other. And the problem some of us have with this page (MrX, apologies, I am still coming with a reply, I just got carried away in the story about the shooter in California) since it gives too much weight to controversies in the lead, when Trump's counterpart's page does not receive the same treatment. And we keep the tag up until we conclude it comes down. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I realize that you have more experience than I here. But, your claim of partisanship violates WP:AGF. If you look at my history on this and related pages, you will see that I have been even-handed. I believe this article has been well edited by numerous experienced editors despite its controversial nature. I don't understand why someone with no experience with the article would inject themselves at the most critical moment without first having examined the article's history. I think that you are violating the intent of the template. We don't even know what we are supposed to discuss as you provide no explanation. Objective3000 (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trumps counterpart does not receive the same treatment because the ratio of controversies is probably 10 to 1. (More than likely 30 to 1) The tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Buster Seven Talk 02:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)....I completely agree with Editor Objective3000....this article has been well edited by numerous experienced editors despite its controversial nature. I don't understand why someone with no experience with the article would inject themselves at the most critical moment without first having examined the article's history. Buster Seven Talk 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Appears DaltonCastle has been blocked. Objective3000 (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When someone adds an NPOV template they need to set up a discussion thread explaining their concern. It should say specifically what is needed for neutrality. If it does not do that, it is trolling and should be removed. If any editors think the lead is not neutral, they are welcome to challenge it, but need to explain their position clearly on the talk page. TFD (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

New section on Trump's allegedly anti-semitic campaign tactics?

With the recent TV ad that channels the Protocols of Zion meme and other "dog whistle" campaign tactics, it looks as if the anti-Semitic tones, undertones and overtones of some Trump campaign material warrants a section or subsection in the article. See for starters [7], [8]. Any thoughts or additional sources come to mind? SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I LOVE the ADL, but they may be over-interpreting. His daughter is Jewish and so is his EVP:

• Glueck, Katie (April 8, 2016). "Donald Trump's man on Israel". Politico. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

Greenblatt has responded:

• Flores, Reena (November 6, 2016). "Trump campaign fires back after Jewish group blasts anti-Semitic imagery in Trump ad". CBS News. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

"“The ADL should focus on real anti-Semitism and hatred, and not try to find any where none exist,” wrote the campaign’s Jason Greenblatt in a statement to CBS News. “I am offended and concerned that an institution such as the ADL would involve itself in partisan politics instead of focusing on its important mission."".Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the ADL is correct. But, I think the evidence is too thin for inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Following the policy of neutrality, Wikipedia articles should not say that something is anti-Semitic but attribute any such claims if we choose to mention them. I would like to see the extent to which this latest charge is supported. Clinton after all says, "no bank should be too big to fail, no CEO to big to jail," calls the media biased, wants to regulate the banks and thinks the 1% should pay their fair share of taxes. All those targets are seen in the ADL piece as codewords for Jews. I guess she got it from Sanders, who was also accused of anti-semitism by her supporters. TFD (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Clinton or what she has said. Wikipedia isn't a tit-for-tat. The only question is whether this is notable and whether it is supported by reliable sources. Brianga (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree this is not well enough sourced, or a big enough story, to include in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as this election, the point will soon be moot. If it is well enough sourced thereafter, we can include it for historical purposes. I've always thought that was a better encyclopedic purpose anyhow. Objective3000 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not tit for tat, but whether this particular view has obtained any prominence for inclusion. I do not think it has. Few writers say that when Trump talks about the elites he means the Jews. TFD (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It can't be in WP's voice, because it reflects evaluation of his statements and beliefs. Nevertheless, the record is broad and diverse. Google "trump anti-semitic" and its easy to see that this the anti-Semitic advertisement was not an isolated incident. Here are a few of them:

• http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-unleashed-wave-anti-semitic-hatred-516656

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-vigorous-defense-of-anti-semitic-image-a-turning-point-for-many-jews/2016/07/08/720858e2-4450-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

• http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-rolls-out-anti-semitic-closing-ad

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/06/is_donald_trump_s_closing_campaign_ad_anti_semitic.html

• http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/trump_criticized_for_anti-semitic_memes_in_closing.html

• http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-closing-argument-faces-allegations-anti-semitism

• http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/trump-needs-to-loudly-denounce-the-hate/481608/

• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/anti-semitism-trump-supporters-twitter.html

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/06/sen-al-franken-claims-that-donald-trumps-new-ad-on-the-economy-is-anti-semitic/

• http://forward.com/news/national/353563/donald-trumps-final-ad-evokes-centuries-old-anti-semitic-dog-whistles/

SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This ad is the last word, the wrap-up, the final conclusive statement of Trumps campaign for president. The words and images were carefully selected to convey the campaigns meaning and substance. Considering the philosophy of Trumps leadership team, the choices to use known Jewish personages was specific and intentional. Maybe it was the last example of Trumps "truthful hyperbole". You don't have to be Jewish to hear the "whistle". You don't have to be a member of a group to understand the attack. Buster Seven Talk 06:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but did you not read the statement by Jason Greenblatt above?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Greenblatt is exec VP of the Trump Org. What would you expect him to say? Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You're proving my point. Why would Trump appoint him as EVP if these allegations were not unfounded? Ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between being antisemitic and using antisemitic campaign tactics.Objective3000 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s. I ask you to have a read of this. Not as a reliable source to be used. Not as a counterpoint to Greenblatt in order to argue. Just as another viewpoint that is worth consideration. After tonight this article will enter a different phase. Goodwill to all that worked here. Buster Seven Talk 23:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Trump won. The US embassy will be moved to Jerusalem, Netanyahu will no longer be treated like a pariah, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

sentence in lead re: Trump vs PC

This is the present version of the sentence:

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.

This is how I amended it when I cut and paste that passage into my own notes:

Trump's disdain for political correctness was a staple theme of his campaign and proved popular among his supporters.

Concerning the quibble "what he considers to be political correctness", I don't see what that adds to sentence. We've effective forked "political correctness", in the large, into a private repo "PC as Trump sees it" whose specific contents are entirely a matter of speculation. Is Trump's private repo a trimmed-down version of the parent repo, or greatly expanded? Why is this sentence even going there?

And why twice the auxiliary "has been"? Historical artifact? I think "was" suffices as of 11/9. — MaxEnt 19:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I meant to add that, alternatively, "as he sees it" could be flagged as OR or cite needed. — MaxEnt 19:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the more you dig, the more you find. In the present construction of this sentence, its Trump's "disdain" that "proved popular". Flavour of disdain: rebuffing PC; sub-flavour: rebuffing PC "as he sees it". But there's no way his supporters, as a general group, are collectively prescient about the nuance of this sub-flavour. I still think this quibble is worthless. — MaxEnt 20:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

Looking for expansion on this article. Never Hillary BlackAmerican (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton won popular vote; how the hell is there no mention that Trump got fewer votes than Clinton?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/ http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/shades-of-2000-clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-looks-like-clinton-will-win-the-popular-1478698530-htmlstory.html

"The electoral college is a disaster for Democracy!" --Donald Trump in 2012

"I love the electoral college!!!!"--Donald Trump in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.199.16 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I second this comment. I'm traveling and have limited internet access, but somebody needs to update this article. Right now there is a single sentence in the lede saying he was elected, and nothing at all in the "general election" section. Please add the outcome to General election. Currently Trump got 290 electoral votes to Clinton's 232 with Michigan still undecided. Currently she is leading the popular vote by about 800,000 with many votes still to be tallied. There is no doubt about her winning the popular vote, however; even Trump admitted it in a tweet. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Simple answer. This page is devoted to the campaign of President-elect Trump, not the outcome of United States Presidential Election, 2016. There is no reason to insert unnecessary facts in an attempt to push the talking points that you want to put out there. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Protests

There are a number of mainstream newspapers and TV shows that are reporting protests around the country and at Trump Towers following Trump's election. See this--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There will always be anarchists who reject democracy. Non-story in my opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning. Trump is controversial. TFD (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, CBS is showing an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who says she won't leave. Why do immigrants from other countries have to leave when their visas expire but not Mexicans? Ridiculous. But as per WP:NOTNEWS, I still don't think this is encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All the editors who were trashing Trump have moved on and we can concentrate on improving the article. The protests against Trump received a lot of coverage and we should mention it because he is facing more criticism than any president including George W. Bush. Clinton too would have faced opposition. He did not create the division, he inherited it, and how it deals with it will determine his position in history. Sanders and others although suspicious of him want to work with him and if he unites people he will be seen as successful. We should mention the problems he faces even though we do not know whether they will make him look good or bad. If you support him, you should assume he will succeed.

BTW I saw a clip about a child whose parents were both deported and she remains in the U.S. because of birthright citizenship. She is afraid of Trump, but they leave out that Obama deported her parents.

TFD (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the protests are worth mentioning unless it is ongoing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? It is unusual and it has attracted media attention. No one has suggested that we say that Clinton is behind it. TFD (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this has received widespread coverage from NPR, NYT, Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, ABC News, BBC, CBS News, Time, Fox... and many more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Not here The title here is Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 - he has won, the campaign is over - the protests are about his victory, not about the campaign. Perhaps an article about the protests is a good idea. Protests about Donald Trumps 2016 Presidential election victory - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The protests wouldn't exist without the election. But, the protests are a direct reaction to the campaign rhetoric. I think it belongs here. In the event the protests continue for some time period and are of large scale, that can be revisited. Objective3000 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Not here Agreed, use Protests about Donald Trumps 2016 Presidential election victory.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC) or, per LM2000's vote, a broader article on Reactions to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory would be a better fit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A few lines might be fine, but a whole article seems undue and will go to AFD.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that including mention of the protest here makes more sense than creating a new article at this point. Technically, the campaign has ended, but PE Trump has not yet assumed office, so the protests sort of fit within the scope of this article.- MrX 12:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Propose specific wording for a potential addition to this article. There is no reason, at this point, to create a spinoff for what may amount to only a few sentences anyway. I agree that a stand alone article will likely go to AfD. There is therefore, not more appropriate place to mention the events that I can see. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Not here Protests about Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory or a broader article on Reactions to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory would be a better fit.LM2000 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Here for now The protests are a reaction to the campaign. Thus far, they are not a large enough story for a separate article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been several more days and it seems that there's more than enough for Reactions to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory - which could discuss:

• Positive reactions
• Concerns
• Reasons why Trump may have won
• Impacts to the Democratic and Republican parties

Does anyone object to this article being created? Any additional thoughts about what should or shouldn't be in that article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw that there's this article Protests against Donald Trump, which covers protests generally, not just after the election. It could reference this article for the post-election protests.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Here - 1. RS appears to require it somewhere per WP:DUE, and my take is a dedicated subsection of two or three paras, maybe more. 2. As for the argument that this article says campaign, many types of current-events articles cover the event named in the title followed by discussion of the event's reactions and aftermath. This looks no different to me and I don't see justification for +1 to the growing collection of Donald Trump articles. Maybe a move is needed to reflect a slightly wider scope, I don't know, but we are not locked into this title and we shouldn't let it be the sole determiner of the article's scope and content. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Question - There are just a few people that have voted over five days - and the vote seems to be half to have it here, a half for a new article, and one not to cover it at all. I am happy to draft something up for a new section, perhaps under endorsements for now, with the subsections for 1) positive reactions, 2) protests, 3) reasons why Trump may have won, and 4) potential impacts to the Democratic and Republican parties. Then, if it seems that there's enough information to warrant a separate article, then it may be moved later. Does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Objective3000 (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, these are my sources so far just based upon what is coming up in queries... will have to get more specific for some other areas: Atlantic - children react, Time - world leaders react, CNN - world leaders react, PBS - world leaders react, Fox - world leaders react, CNN - protests, Rolling Stone - Why Protests matter, CBS News - 8 days of protests, Reuters - going into 2nd week of protests, students walk out of class in protrest, U of Chicago students walk out, LA students walk out.... this is the start of my list. Anyone that wants to help pitch in is welcome. See User:CaroleHenson/sandbox--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of positive reactions if a new article is created, I suggest the KKK celebration. This is an outdated article, though if it never happens, then we don't include it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee Yes, I have been looking for positive reactions - and there are some in the "World leaders" reaction section. What I'm seeing from Trump supporters are alleged acts of violence and commitment to boycott of Pepsi and others. Do you have see more acts of support?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is all I know about. This is another protest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

The last small paragraph of the lead is troublesome at the very least. It reads; "Trump's campaign rallies attracted large crowds, as well as public controversy. Some of the events were marked by incidents of violence between Trump supporters and protesters, mistreatment of some journalists, and disruption by a large group of protesters who effectively shut down a major rally in Chicago. Trump was accused[29] of inciting violence at his rallies.[30][31][32]" I think its egregious that the DNC's involvement in inciting the violence is not documented. An operative who visited the Obama White House over 340 times, and personally met with Pres. Obama at least 40 times, was uncovered by WikiLeaks to have organized the violence at several of President-Elect Trump's rallies, most notably in Chicago where many were injured, including Law Enforcement. The man, recorded by James O'Keefe, admitted to receiving funds from the DNC, through the Clinton Campaign. This is fact. His meetings with the Obama White House are fact. At the very least, these should be noted as strongly alleged acts committed by several institutions on the left.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 10:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe, who has a long record of selectively editing films like this, was paid by the Trump Foundation. You would need a reliable source for such an accusation. Objective3000 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

User:Petergriffin9901 Seconded. This article has obviously been heavily contaminated by editing from Hillary supporters, and possibly paid operatives from the DNC. Some choose to attack the messenger of the videotape rather than the videotape itself, a de facto type of ad hominem argument. The fact of the matter is that DNC employees are on video admitting and even bragging about paying the mentally ill and the homeless to incite violence at Trump's rallies. Wikipedia is headquartered in San Francisco, a far-left Mecca, so it's unsurprising that liberal activist editors are given free reign to leave their fingerprints all over political articles. On the Hillary Clinton campaign page, there is no mention of Wikileaks. Not a single word. No mention of the Clinton Foundation scandal and FBI investigation. It's just disgraceful. The neutrality of recent political articles is nonexistent, and that doesn't look like it will be changing any time soon, unfortunately. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The above edit should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Quote in World Leaders Section

There is a quote by Garry Kasparov (a Russian chess grandmaster) under "World Leader Reactions" to Trump being elected. I'm not sure why this quote is here, as Kasparov is not a world leader, and is merely a celebrity offering his opinion in the context of Vladimir Putin (who is a world leader)...but I'm sure basically any world leader can have a celebrity of that country disputing what their leader had said. I fixed up the quote, which was awkwardly worded, but in all honesty think that it should be excised entirely. I know that this is a controversial page, so I don't want to remove it without consensus, but I honestly don't see why it is there. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Didn't look and don't care about his opinion, as much as I respect his enormous contributions to chess, any more than a sports hero or media star. Just as I don't care about a politician's opinion of the abilities of a chess master. Objective3000 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It was a parenthetical. It isn't necessary.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Parentheticals may be OK in sparse articles. Not in articles where editors complain about length. Objective3000 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I took it out. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Violence at rallies allegedly incited by Democratic consultant Robert Creamer?

I think we should remove "Trump has been accused of inciting violence at his rallies." from the lede immediately, in light of:

• Diaz, Daniella; Griffin, Drew (October 19, 2016). "Dem operative 'stepping back' after video suggests group incited violence at Trump rallies". CNN. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

Can someone please remove it? Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No, he has definitely incited violence. Others may have also incited violence, but his stands out as extraordinary for a presidential candidate.- MrX 13:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

When? I'm afraid the Creamer scandal speaks for itself. Since there is no consensus anyway, I think it should be removed from the lede immediately--unless we add another sentence about Creamer to the lede. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep the Trump sentence in the lede. Do not add the Creamer allegations anywhere. The Creamer allegation is supported by no evidence except a video from a source which is notorious for doctoring videos to distort the content for partisan purposes. The Trump allegation is supported by Trump's own words, over and over, in well documented and heavily reported public forums. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You may not like the Creamer story, but it's backed up by RS like CNN (see above). There are also suggestions that the Chicago brawl was engineered by Creamer and his ilk. It makes no sense to add this to the lede and not mention Creamer.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"There are also suggestions...." We don't use Breitbart, or Project Veritas, or whatever other WP:SYNTH takes place in the alt-right. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well Jeepers, the CNN bit says that the report is not to be believed. Didja see that part? This is not even worth discussing. BLP, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What about The Daily Caller?

• Hasson, Peter (November 18, 2016). "Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times". The Daily Caller. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You know Daily Caller isn't RS... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, not a reliable source and the content proposed is a fringe viewpoint. Unless the OP is holding out some impeccable sources, I think we can wrap this up now.- MrX 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't, that's why I ask. Assume good faith. There is an article in The New York Times:

• Eder, Steve; Jonathan, Martin (October 20, 2016). "Videos Put Democrats on Defensive About Dirty Tricks". The New York Times. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

"Mr. Foval and Robert Creamer, another operative working for the Democratic National Committee, were the unwitting stars of undercover videos released this week in which they and others were captured discussing unseemly tactics like instigating violence at Mr. Trump’s rallies and arranging for fraudulent voting.".

But my point is that this sentence in the lede is UNDUE.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why not RS? Tucker Carlson. the founder of the Daily Caller has a partner, Neil Patel, who is a former Dick Cheney aide. His opinion editor is Moira Bagley, who was the Republican National Committee's press secretary in 2008. He is funded by $3 million from Wyoming GOP financier Foster Friess. Buster Seven Talk 17:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe but one could make a similar argument about The New York Times and Carlos Slim. The bottom line is, it seems POV to mention the violence at Trump's rallies without adding all we know--including information about agent provocateurs. As a result, I think it would be NPOV to remove this sentence from the lede (or mention both perspectives).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is based on a film by James O'Keefe, the definition of a bad source. Please read the WP article about him. The Trump Foundation is one of his funders. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't be using O'Keefe as a primary source. But it is a fact that there's weight of RS about the agents provocateurs. I think it's just easier and NPOV to remove the sentence. It's UNDUE and there's no consensus to add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen zero RS that claims there are provocateurs. I have seen numerous RS that support the current wording. Objective3000 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

For example, "The key is initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic.":

"Democrat strategist Robert Creamer resigns after video suggests operatives staged protests and incited violence at Donald Trump rallies using paid agitators". Belfast Telegraph. October 19, 2016. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

Again, my point is that this issue seems UNDUE in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You had to go all the way to a small paper in Belfast to find a publication that would simply accept a James O'Keefe film? Again, O'Keefe has a history of doctoring films. He was convicted for actions in one of his films. Objective3000 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no anti-foreign RS policy on Wikipedia. My understanding is that he was convicted for filming inside a federal building without authorization (because he was filming undercover). Anyway, I am not suggesting that we cite O'Keefe as a source at all, since there is ample RS about it. I'm talking about the lede anyway--I think the current state of the lede is misleading and POV. It would just take removing one sentence, which is UNDUE because it is misleading.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not gaining consensus and are not likely to. Objective3000 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for heavens sake. "Trump incites violence at rallies" is in the lede because he has done so very publicly numerous times and it has been commented on by many neutral reporters. Here are just some of the times he has urged his supporters to attack protesters ("knock the crap out of them"), or offered to pay their legal bills if they do, or complained that "part of the problem is that nobody wants to hurt each other any more". This belongs in the lede, end of story. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Accused of inciting violence by the Clinton-endorsing New York Times? Accusations are opinions, and thus POV. They should not appear in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s and Buster7, this topic should absolutely be revisited. Videotape isn't a good enough source, but this page and countless others are littered with citations from CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor. They were also caught feeding debate questions to the Hillary campaign in order to help her cheat, and fired Donna Brazile for it. We count Washington Post as a "RS," despite the fact that they admitted to hiring a special "Trump Unit" composed of 20 reporters whose sole job it was to dig up dirt on Trump. We use CBS as a reputable source, despite the fact that John Harwood was caught colluding with the Hillary campaign, brainstorming questions to ask the Republican candidates in the primary debates. POLITICO is regularly cited, despite the fact that Glenn Thrush, the editor, was caught sending articles to the Hillary campaign for pre-approval before publishing. Something doesn't add up here. If one would like to make the argument that a source is not reliable due to funding and inherent bias, most of the sources on this page and others will need to be deleted. Zigzig20s was in the right on this topic, and efforts to shut this contributor down and marginalize his attempts to restore neutrality to this article are very, very, very troubling. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

With this diff I wished goodwill to ALL and bid this article farewell. I am troubled by more than a marginalized editor. I have no desire or interest in editing it any further. Buster Seven Talk 07:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand. It just needed to be on record that consensus has not been reached on omitting the revelation that the DNC was paying the mentally ill and the homeless to incite the violence at the rallies. In my opinion, it's a clear violation of WP:NPOV and more than a little lopsided. Also, it didn't seem as if Zigzig20s was gathering enough support, so he needs to know that there are many others who are puzzled as to why this startling news has no mention in the article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This page is taking on the tone of a conspiracy site. Objective3000 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it? In what way? I did a quick scan of the talk page and haven't found a single conspiracy theory raised, as of yet. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of Inciting Violence at Rallies

User:Objective3000 Before I revert the edit, let's talk about this. As I understand it, you undid my addition of Trump's response to accusations of inciting violence as you have a problem with the legitimacy of the videotape. I can't find any RS that supports any accusation that any sophisticated editing techniques were used on any of the Project Veritas videos to make Mr. Bob Creamer or Scott Foval appear to say something that they did not. In fact, this video that revealed this group's involvement in the shutting down of Trump's Chicago rally is cited on the Wikipedia page for the incident. But I believe the veracity of the tape seems to be academic, as the edit is designed to comply with WP:POV and include Trump's characterization of the violence, rather than allow the New York Times to characterize the violence however they wish, unchallenged. Any accusations of "selective editing" should be included on the James O'Keefe page.

I'm baffled as to why a far-left wing newspaper (The New York Times) is sourced for the "accusation," but a rebuttal by Donald Trump is prohibited from the page. This is especially relevant given that the New York Times recently apologized for dishonestly covering the campaign of Donald Trump. This seems to be a clear violation of WP:POV. Are you able to provide any information proving otherwise? Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

First, suggesting that you will revert the edit, which would violate discretionary sanctions, shortly after you appear to have violated discretionary sanctions on Donna Brazil is probably not a good move. Just a suggestion.

Next, calling the NYTimes a "far-left wing" newspaper suggests that you have a rather extreme bias.

Lastly, I really don't see how you can read Project Veritas and not realize that it is a terrible source for anything. Even if the Trump Foundation hadn't paid them. Objective3000 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody violated any sanctions on Brazil[sic]'s page. Also, the sanctions to which you refer do not apply to vandalistic deletions, to which your edit is dangerously close.

The New York Times is a famous left-wing newspaper. It's not a big secret. Also, you may have seen in the news recently that the Times sent a letter to subscribers apologizing for dishonest coverage of Trump, planning to "rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor." This, of course, implies that the Times did NOT report the news "honestly, without fear or favor." So let's not go around accusing people of bias without any evidence.

Again, whether or not User:Objective3000 deems videotape from Project Veritas as "terrible" is irrelevant. The point is that Trump referenced the videotape when he attributed the violence at his rallies to the DNC. You still have not made your case for this blatant omission and puzzling violation of WP:POV. Anyone else is more than welcome to offer their perspective. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo, that is a false characterization of the Times letter to its subscribers. It contains no apology. It does not say anything about "dishonest" coverage of Trump. You have made this false claim twice now. Maybe instead of reading ABOUT this letter in right leaning sites like Fox News and the New York Post (which both claim the letter said "we blew it" as if that was a quote, which is not) - maybe you should try reading the actual letter before you try to describe what it said. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. That quote was copy-pasted from the "actual letter." You are of course more than entitled to characterize the letter however you wish, just as I am. I choose to characterize it as an apology. And yes, if a news outlet feels the need to promise to "rededicate" itself to honesty, the obvious implication is an admission of not reporting honestly in recent times. As far as your wild accusations of where I get my news, that's borderline slander and a disgraceful remark. I will choose to ignore it.Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right that I should not have made assumptions about where you got your information. I will strike that. The fact remains that the Times did not apologize, nor did it admit to "dishonest" coverage. MelanieN alt (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but again, that's your opinion. The fact is that they did not use the words "I'm sorry," but your opinion is that they did not admit to dishonest coverage. My opinion is that it is absolutely undeniable that those words did not admit to dishonest coverage and covering the news "with favor." Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are quoting "with favor" despite the fact those words were not used. Nor were any words close to these. A spokeswoman for the New York Times told PolitiFact: "We're incredibly proud of our coverage of the 2016 campaign. There was no suggestion either in our note to staff, or the note to subscribers, that we were apologizing." Objective3000 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't read the letter, and are trying to argue against facts by using a left-wing Tampa Bay Times-run "fact-checking" site called "Politifact." This is absurd. Read the letter, User:Objective3000. Here is the New York Times link for your perusal: Click Here. The words "without fear or favor" were absolutely used, and that is on record. No amount of spin after the ensuing media frenzy will change these facts. The New York Times hasn't been a RS for a VERY long time. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In no way does the letter say that they were not reporting without fear of favor. You are doing exactly what James O'Keefe does. You are dishonestly reporting the contents of the letter. If you have a problem with the NYT, take it to WP:RSN. The NYT is considered an RS by WP. Objective3000 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I provided you with the link to the letter. If you are unable to read the contents, there is nothing more I can do for you. However, this does not give you the right to vent your frustration by blurting out accusations of dishonesty or comparing others to people whom you hold in contempt. There are much more healthy (and polite) ways of handling your exasperation. Best of luck with everything.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Three snide remarks in one edit. Please read WP:CIV.

Of ffs, this is not a matter of "opinion" as Hidden Tempo claims. The letter was meant as an apology for not calling out Trump on his BS earlier. Not on "being mean to Trump". Nice spin though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you forget to read the letter, as well? There is absolutely nothing in the apology letter to suggest that the NYT is sorry for "not calling out Trump" on any perceived "BS" by Volunteer Marek. It's fairly comical that you consider yourself an authority on what is and isn't spin, when you have a rock-solid record of deleting large swaths of information that you deem to reflect poorly on Democrats, as we recently saw from you in Donna Brazile and again in History of the United States. You have made it impossible to apply WP:AGF to your mass deletions, and a quick perusal through responses on various talk pages reveals little appreciation or consensus of these sanitization efforts. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo, you lose credibility by calling the New York Times a far left newspaper. They do not plan to shoot all the millionaires and billionaires, abolish private property, and set up a one party state. TFD (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I regret that I have lost credibility with you. On a related note, your failure to take off your blinders and acknowledge the VERY open and unapologetic (up until a few days ago) liberal nature of the New York Times completely shatters any credibility that you may or may not have hoped to ever gain with me. Take care of yourself. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You said they were far left, not liberal. You realize that the New York Times is traded on the New York Stock Exchange not owned by a commune? TFD (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

All far-left newspapers are liberal, not all liberal newspapers are far-left. That's a transitive logical fallacy (I believe, it's been a while since I took finite math and philosophy), on your part. The New York Times is a liberal paper, as well as a far-left paper. It doesn't matter who owns shares in the NYT - they are a very well-known openly liberal newspaper, known to everyone except for yourself apparently. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The NYT editorial page tends to be a bit left of center relative to the U.S., although they have endorsed both Giuliani and Pataki. The NYT newspaper is not of any political stripe whatever. The NYT can not by any stretch be called far-left. You are welcome to take this up with WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No "political stripe" User:Objective3000? Preposterous and indefensible. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for POTUS since Eisenhower. Sixty years ago. The headlines throughout the campaign have been ludicrous, and at times disgusting. The American people took notice, and made their opinions known on Election Day. As far as fighting the uber-liberal Wikipedia leadership and highly active DNC representatives combing political articles, working diligently to revise history and scrub news that reflects poorly on Democrats from their pages, I have neither the time nor the resources to take on such a monumental task. I do appreciate the invitation, however.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your snarky, combative edits, violations of discretionary sanctions, complete lack of good faith, and strongly held fringe opinions will not serve you well here. This is a volunteer project. I suggest you handle your interactions with other editors with more civility. Objective3000 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I regret that you feel that those with whom you disagree are somehow "fringe" or "snarky," but I am an objective man of facts and the numbers. The numbers say that the NYT hasn't endorsed a Republican POTUS candidate in 60 years. You believe that translates to "slightly liberal," whereas I disagree. Again, I apologize if you felt that I have been uncivil to you in any way, such as comparing you to any journalists with whom I loathe. I don't believe I have done so, but by all means correct me if I'm wrong.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent. I do not feel that those with whom (I) disagree are somehow "fringe" or "snarky".... I feel that you are fringe and snarky. Please realize a paper's editorial board does not control the news sections of the paper. In any case, WP regards the NYT an RS. You cannot argue otherwise here. You must take it to WP:RSN. And, I do not live in SF, am not paid by the DNC, and did not vote for Hillary, Bernie, or Jill, which is completely irrelevant to anything. Objective3000 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And once again, you are more than entitled to your opinion about my personality, or my manner of speaking, regardless of the insulting and snide nature of your comments. Just as I am of yours. But as you said, that's irrelevant, as are our voting tendencies. I am a numbers guy, and the numbers say 60 years. The overwhelming majority of the American media and populace (as well as various sets of data) agree that the NYT is an avowed liberal newspaper, providing a leftist ideological perspective from the front page to the editorial page. You don't need to accept that as fact, just as I am under no obligation to agree with your characterization. Whether or not the San Francisco-based Wikipedia organization regards a liberal newspaper as "reputable" is of no consequence to me. If I can help restore neutrality and eliminate WP:POV from just a few pages, I consider that a success. Thank you again for the contribution to this page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So the New York Times is covering up the Clinton campaign's fomentation of violence at Trump rallies as part of its plan to destroy the capitalist system. TFD (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone on this page has yet made such a claim. May I ask the source upon which you are basing this conclusion? The New York Times did in fact cover the leaked video of DNC activist groups caught on a hot mic boasting about inciting violence at Trump rallies: Please Review, albeit a highly sanitized and tilted piece of "journalism." Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is simply false and slanderous. Seriously, this is an encyclopedia. Wild claims like this do not belong even on the talk pages. Objective3000 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try to relax, User:Objective3000. Instead of harassing other contributors and misusing legal terms, your time may be better well-spent reading the article. I have made no claims that can be construed as "true" or "false," rather provided context to clear up confusion another contributor was experiencing. If you dispute the legitimacy of videotape that caused several members of the DNC outfit in question to lose their jobs, you are invited and encouraged to raise this issue on the James O'Keefe talk page. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody's harassing you. They're just explaining to you why you're wrong. And don't tell other people "try to relax", that's incivility. Passive aggressive incivility but incivility none the less.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting characterization. Opinions, by nature, cannot be "wrong" or "right." If you would like a more concrete example of incivility (as your accusation of my perceived incivility is astonishingly flimsy), please refer to the myriad of personal attacks and repeated violations of WP:AGF and WP:JDLI from the above user.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another snide remark. You win. I don't have time to deal with your constant insults. Discussion with someone that refuses to follow WP guidelines is pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo, you said the New York Times is left wing. Now you are saying, "I don't believe anyone on this page has yet made such a claim." That's why I question your credibility. TFD (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is getting a bit tedious, now. My response of "I don't believe anyone on this page has yet made such a claim" was to your straw man hyperbolic painting of the NYT as "covering up the Clinton campaign's fomentation of violence at Trump rallies as part of its plan to destroy the capitalist system." Nobody said that, insinuated it, or even used the words "capitalism." It's a classic debate technique that has been used for thousands of years, and has failed every time, for thousands of years. If you have anything worthwhile to contribute to make your case that NYT is a fair and balanced newspaper, you're more than welcome to do it here. Otherwise, these type of comments are extraordinarily unhelpful and unwelcome.Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You said they were left-wing. Your words, not mine. TFD (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I said they were left-wing. I said nothing about "destroying a capitalist system" or "covering up Clinton campaign's fomentation of violence." That's what makes what you said a Straw man argument. In fact, as I stated before, the NYT did report on the leaked audio of DNC operatives bragging about starting fights at Trump's rallies. Hopefully I've made myself clear, now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what left-wing means. If that is not what you mean, you should write in less ambiguous language. TFD (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken, unfortunately. Not sure what dictionary you're using, but left-wing is synonymous with "liberal," which the New York Times openly admits. However, if you are able to find a single dictionary that echoes your "covering up Hillary corruption" or "capitalist destruction" definition, I would love to see you post it on this page. If for no other reason, out of sheer curiosity. I'll wait here. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)